The Monogamy Pledge

[Doc]

We had a discussion the other night during our home group that I thought I would open to the forum.

Here is the scenario:

You are a husband who has come into an understanding of plural marriage. You understand it to be a Biblical legitimate form of union sanctioned by God. Your wife, however, does not agree. She may even see plural marriage as sin.

For the sake of your marriage, would you pledge monogamy?

Blessings,

 

[steve]

no, but i wouldn't run out and start dating either

 

[Mark C]

You are a husband who has come into an understanding of plural marriage. You understand it to be a Biblical legitimate form of union sanctioned by God. Your wife, however, does not agree. She may even see plural marriage as sin.

For the sake of your marriage, would you pledge monogamy?

Let me reword it just a bit, Doc, for clarification:

"You are a husband who has come into an understanding of pagan idolatry, and come to recognize that your [practice of some form of worship] is idolatrous. Your wife, however, does not agree. She may even see NOT performing the ritual as sin.

For the sake of your marriage, would you make a pledge before God to break His Word, in spite of what He may have for you?

At best, I can't help but recall that admonition to let your "yes be yes". It's almost like God recognized there would be vows which should NOT be made.


Blessings in Him,

Mark

 

[CecilW]

For the sake of your marriage, would you pledge monogamy?

I almost DID. 20 years of marriage to my high school sweetheart. More in love with her since learning the truths about Biblical marriage, manhood, etc. than ever before. Our, um, together time at its best ever. Yup. I almost did.

Then I had a vision. Short version, I came before God to give an account of my life, and He asked, "Where are those I TRIED to place in your care?" Big OOPS! No more chance of a monogamy pledge.

Having said that, this is actually a deeper issue. In nearly all of our cases, we already HAVE taken a monogamy pledge. Like it or not. "... Keeping yourself only to her ... so long as ye both shall live?" Sound familiar? Even if you got married before a judge, who merely asked, "Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward?", that word "lawfully" ties you to the law of the land which demands monogamy.

So, for me the question isn't whether you will take one to save your marriage, but ...
a) Acknowledging that the first was given in ignorance, will you repeat it now that you have been enlightened?
b) What would be the spiritual implications of doing so?
c) If you refuse, what are you saying about the first one already given?
d) What SHOULD you do about the first one, already given? Especially if your existing wife says, I am holding you to it."?
e) What spiritual implications may surround such vows? As pertaining to the subject of vows themselves?
f) Last (I think) but definitely not least, would doing so TRULY save your marriage? What would the saved marriage look like? Are you SURE you want that?

I'll answer these for myself as a separate post.

 

[CecilW]

a) Acknowledging that the first was given in ignorance, will you repeat it now that you have been enlightened?

I think we're all familiar with this passage and concept from Acts 17:30, "And the times of this ignorance God winked at;", but do we remember the second half of the verse? "but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" So, while I appreciate God's forbearance over my past, I'd best not do so now until resolving whether or not there is something to repent of. Is there? What might it be?

b) What would be the spiritual implications of doing so?

The other vows in a wedding are vows FOR something. They CREATE BONDS within the relationship. They BUILD something. They speak to the marriage's DURABILITY.

That is good. God's word clearly states His intent that the marriage bonds be lifelong and indissoluble. There is no implication in scripture that God will ever "call" you to a single life once you are married. There IS a strong implication that God will call you to follow Him, whether your wife agrees to come along or not, but that is not the same thing. Her coming along or not is about HER choice.

This monogamy vow, howeverr, is an entirely different matter. It is merely AGAINST any others. It has pretty much NOTHING to do with this marriage. Think about it. You could walk away and never speak to your wife again for the next 50 years, and have still honored this vow, so long as you didn't get together with anyone else. You could neglect her, refuse to talk to her, refuse sex, be pretty much of a cad, but hey! It's only to her. Some bargain, huh?

What this vow DOES do is just a bit scary. It pre-states your future response to God, should He have the temerity to call upon you. A wife is a blessing from God. But this vow says to God, "If You decide You want to bless me further in this area, I'm telling you now that the answer will be No. Further, I am doing so to placate my wife. She believes it to be her right to stand between me and Thee and VETO Your decision and offer. I do hereby acknowledge both her right and her superior wisdom."

Tirades about idolatry aside, I am reminded of God's words to Adam in the garden, "Because you hearkened unto the voice of your wife ...". I'll go one step further, and say that such a conscious statement will directly open the door to an evil spirit which is commonly referred to among Christians as the Jezebel Spirit. Trust me, it's UGLY!

c) If you refuse, what are you saying about the first one already given?

I guess you are acknowledging that the first one given was given in ignorance, but that you understand something of the above and refuse to dig your hole deeper.

d) What SHOULD you do about the first one, already given? Especially if your existing wife says, I am holding you to it."?

IMO, you should officially ALTER and IMPROVE the first one given. Yes, you may do so unilaterally (on your own), just as you may break a lease or a business contract if honoring it is putting you out of business. However, there do tend to be penalties.

Here is what I told my first wife: "Honey, I have come to believe that this portion of our vows was wrong, as it prestates a future response to God. Furthermore, I've concluded it wasn't a very good vow in the first place. I've neglected you in various ways, but was just fine according to this vow. So on my part, I am modifying my vows to you, and repeating them today as follows:

"I will love, honor and cherish you, in sickness and health, in prosperity and adversity, keeping myself open and available to you on all levels, come what may, so long as we both shall live."

I repeated this new version of my vows to her over and over again for months. She saw the improvement in the vow itself. She saw the imporovement in me. However, she maintained that the key word in the whole process was the word "only", and that without it, she would leave -- and eventually did. But that was HER choice, over which I had no control. This does, however, bring us to the subject of the strength and authority of that first vow.

e) What spiritual implications may surround such vows? As pertaining to the subject of vows themselves?

There are two subjects here: a) Conflicting vows, and b) Is it EVER appropriate to break a vow?

In the case of conflicting vows, we generally believe that our duty is to the highest moral authority, and that a conflicting vow to a lower should be ignored. Extreme cases of this were highlighted after WWII in Nuremberg. A German Officer's duty and vow to the Fuhrer was still considered subordinate to his obligation to morality. As such, I contend that a marriage vow of exclusivity is subordinate to the higher calling and vow to follow God wherever He might lead. Once one discovers that adherence to the first could require repudiating the second, the first should itself be repudiated.

But what about the verses that laud those who stand by their vows even when they were to their own hurt? What about Romans 1:30,31 "... covenant breakers ... that they which commit such things are worthy of death ..." (1599 Geneva Bible)? Huh?

I submit that the answer is to be found by identifying various kinds of vows. Let's list a few:
a) A vow to do something good. Should be kept.
b) A vow to avoid doing something wrong. Should be kept.
c) A vow to do something wrong. Should be repudiated. Ever yell, "I'ma gonna KILL you!"? Best to let that one slide...
d) A vow to avoid doing something right. Hmmm. "To him who knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Sin is itself something wrong. Should be repudiated.

Ok, those are the easy ones. The sorta 'black and whites'. Now lets try some murkier ones.

e) A vow to do something good that will, oops, hurt (but not destroy) yourself only. Bible seems to say, Honor it.
f) A vow to do something evil that will seem to help yourself. Any vow to do evil should be repudiated.
g) A vow to do something good on the surface but which will hurt or destroy someone else. Oops! We're not talking "tick off or annoy or even distress someone who didn't get their way" here. We're talking actual damage. Caused by your action, not by someone else's response to it. Do you have a RIGHT to fulfill such a vow?

This is the one which bears on our situation. If I give a vow of monogamy to one woman, which SOUNDS good, have I just (potentially) damaged or destroyed the life of another woman who God intended to place in my care? I believe the answer is yes. Case in point, if I had gone through with giving a renewed Pledge of Monogamy in 2000, it is entirely possible that my current wife, Cindy, whom I didn't meet for nearly 3 more years, would STILL be waking up nights screaming from nightmares, or worse, dead. That would have been a good sounding vow, to another's hurt. I contend that (g) above should be repudiated.

f) Last (I think) but definitely not least, would doing so TRULY save your marriage? What would the saved marriage look like? Are you SURE you want that?

I doubt it. If a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, what of a man coerced? What would it have done inside of me? Nothing positive, I'm sure. Would I have ever, afterward, become or regained the status of a man, as leader of my family? Doubtful. Would my wife have had any long term use for ME as a subordinate? Doubtful. Could I have spent the remainder of a natural life in that role? Equally doubtful. What before would have been ignorant wife idolatry would have become open submission. Nasty! I am quite sure the answer, both to the final question, and therefore to Doc's original question, must therefore be a resounding ...

NO!!!

 

[steve]

cec, that was awsome.

let me just add another thought. this is not going to be popular with some, but it is what it is.
in numbers 30 we read that if a woman vows a vow her father or husband can disallow it ON the day he hears it. since i am under Yeshua as my wife is under me i believe that it is POSSIBLE that when i vow a wrong vow He does not accept it.

THIS IS NO GUARANTEE THAT HE DOES NOT ACCEPT IT! we can not count on it, but we must seek His face and His answer on this. the answer could be different to different men as He knew His purposes for each of our futures at the time the vow was made. He might require the vow to be kept in some cases.
i am blessed in that my wife released me from that vow.

 

[DrRay777]

Steve,

I wholeheartedly agree with what you said. It makes total sense. We must also remember that with God a day is as a thousand years, so He can disallow any of our stupid vows for a long time!

Cecil,

I enjoyed this post and your serious side. I also agree with your assessment of not keeping a vow that would potentially hurt others when God shows you differently.

The other thing I would add that God showed me is that both parties took vows. If one party breaks any of those vows, (and we are all guilty of that) then it calls the entire contract into question, especially if the party breaking the vow refuses to repent and stop doing so. The most common of these on the part of the wife is failing to submit to the husband in everything. Most women would rather operate under the guidance of the Jezebel spirit than obey the Word and the Holy Spirit to submit to her husband. If the husband has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit to understand that God is directing them into Christian polygyny and she fails to submit to that, then she is not only rejecting her husband and breaking any vow to submit, (honor and obey), but she is rejecting the one who sent the message, (i.e., God - as implied in Matthew 10:40-41 and John 13:20, as well as others). I would not want to be in her shoes on Judgment Day because she lied to God and refuses to overcome her pride and repent.

Revelation 21:7-8 -

7“He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8“But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982. Emphasis added.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[CecilW]

... If the husband has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit to understand that God is directing them into Christian polygyny and she fails to submit to that, then she is not only rejecting her husband and breaking any vow to submit, (honor and obey), but she is rejecting the one who sent the message, (i.e., God - as implied in Matthew 10:40-41 and John 13:20, as well as others).

Why thank you, kind sir. 'Tis nice to have my serious side appreciated instead of seen as an aid to snoring! :lol:

As to this specific, I went back and listened to our wedding service some years ago, specifically the vows. No mention whatsoever was made in the vows about submitting to or obeying. This wasn't intentional on our part, it just happened. Long story. So she's, I guess, technically within her rights ... *sigh*

Appreciating, even reveling in, the presence of one wife does not make up for the absence of the other. In either direction. *sigh again*

 

[DrRay777]

Cecil,

It may not be in all wedding vows, but if a woman is a true believer then she must obey the whole Word of God, including Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18 and I Peter 3:1. Anything else will not bode well for her in God's eyes. He will work things out for you guys, but you are on the right side of the street here. She is not. You will be blessed for your obedience and she will not. Sad, but true.

Be blessed,

Ray

 

[Tele-Caster]

[i.

The other thing I would add that God showed me is that both parties took vows. If one party breaks any of those vows, (and we are all guilty of that) then it calls the entire contract into question, especially if the party breaking the vow refuses to repent and stop doing so. The most common of these on the part of the wife is failing to submit to the husband in everything. Most women would rather operate under the guidance of the Jezebel spirit than obey the Word and the Holy Spirit to submit to her husband. If the husband has been enlightened by the Holy Spirit to understand that God is directing them into Christian polygyny and she fails to submit to that, then she is not only rejecting her husband and breaking any vow to submit, (honor and obey), but she is rejecting the one who sent the message, (i.e., God - as implied in Matthew 10:40-41 and John 13:20, as well as others). I would not want to be in her shoes on Judgment Day because she lied to God and refuses to overcome her pride and repent.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

The thing that the Lord layed on my heart is that the husband is supposed to love the wife as Christ loved the Church. That is a tall order for a sinner like me. When I contemplate the issue, it doesn't become any shorter.

Too many men would rather lord over their wives with the kind of worldly, totalitarian lordship that is rooted in selfishness. The kind of love that Christ loves the Church with, however, involves dying to self. There is no better example of "dying to self" than the Jesus Christ's completed work on the cross, wherein He died the most horrific and agonazing of deaths to become the perfect atoning sacrafice for sins that He never committed Himself. It is this kind of love that is sometimes lacking among men. If you're in Christ, you're the beneficiary of a love story, written in blood, on a cross in Jerusalem, over two thousand years ago. Christian husbands would do well to reflect on that when excerising their responsibilities to their families. Perhaps then their lordship would be tempered with patience, forgiveness, love, and grace. You might have certain responsibilities as a Christian husband to a christian wife or wives in a Christian houshold, but that doesn't make the wife or wives doormats, either. We don't submit to Jesus because it is in our nature to do so. We do so because he worthy to submit to. In truth, we don't always submit very well. Jesus forgives us our transgressions, anyhow. We should do likewise with our wives. Love does indeed suffer long and it is indeed kind.

If the husband claims to have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit to understand that God is directing himself and his first wife into a polygynous relationship, it is a seriously flawed exegesis that presuposes that a woman who isn't on board with the idea is rejecting God. It could be that the husband is acting in the flesh. It happens.

While I am on board with the idea of polygynous marriage as being an valid option for believers here in time, I do not believe that it is inherintly superior to monogomous marriage in the sense that every Christian should choose polygyny over monogamy. I do not believe that we have a Biblical commandment to engage in polygynous relationships, either. It is, in my view, an option, and one that requires the kind of sacrafice to self to make work that the "hypothetical husband" discussed here in this thread has demonstrated a lack of.

Furthermore, I would contend that the first wife is a blessing from God. The desire to exercise worldly totalitarian lordship over the wife with respect to this issue demonstrates a lack of Christ-like love, and it also demonstrates a lack of contentment with the blessings that God has already provided. Contrast the exhibited attitude with that of an imprissoned Paul. We do not have a record of Paul whining incessantly about being forsaken in prision, but it is pretty clear that Paul knew that he was destined for the chopping block. He continued on, content to be where God put him, and he continued to do the work of the Lord while in that place. Why should a Holy and Just God entrust one of his saints to a man who demonstrates a lack of compassion for the saint that he's already entered into a covenant with God to love as Christ loved the Church?

If God is big enough to bless a man a wife, and big enough to bless that man with yet another, why is He not big enough to pave the way for the blessing to be received in a spirit of love? I would contend that some confirmation would occur among equally yoked believers who are one flesh, and that confirmation would be manifested in husband and wife approaching the issue in one accord. Since that isn't happening here, my first reaction isn't to call the wife's walk in to question, but rather to question the validity of the husband's calling. It isn't judgement, but spiritual discernment, and I am most definitely expected to exercise it. I must confess here that I am probably influence by the doctrine of the para-denomination that I came to Christ in and have fellowshipped in ever since, because I am a firm believer that were God seeks to guide, God always provides. In this case, part of the provision to receive the blessing of the second wife would seem to be one of the Holy Spirit softening the first wife's heart to receive the second wife in love. In our hypothetical secenario, this doesn't seem to be happening. I see a lot of the husband's fingerprints on this deal, but little of the Holy Spirit, in spite of what the husband claims.

Finally, if this really is God's will, it will happen in spite of the resistance of women and men. What is the free will of humankind against the will of a Sovereign God? I'd also like to know where God's glory is magnified in this deal, because it pretty much always is where a "calling" is concerned, and that really is, in my view, what biblical marriage is -its a calling, and while the people in it are blessed, God's glory is also magnified through it.

So far, what I see is a guy who wants another wife. He doesn't seem to be overly sensative toward the desires of his current wife, either. There is nothing here to suggest that a second would fare any better.

It could be that the resistance of the second wife is really of God, with Him using her as His instrument to answer prayers about God's will with respect to this matter. Sometimes, God does say "No," and sometimes He says, "Not now," but His will is perfect, regardless.

I have a hard time with the idea that it is God's will that Christian men assume the fault to lie solely with the woman with respect to issues such as the one being discussed. The reality is that it often isn't. Godly husbands are still sinners and still capable of acting out in the flesh when they think they're acting on God's will.

T-C

 

[DrRay777]

Thanks for the input T-C. However, your suppositions really do not leave room for someone's stubborn free-will to reject the will of God. It happens all the time, even when God tries to soften their heart. If the man is submitted to God and hearing from Him that he is to seek Biblical polygyny and the wife is stubbornly resistant, then the onus is on her and not him.

Be blessed,'

Dr. Ray

 

[Doc]

T-C,

Your conclusions about plural marriage are correct. It is no better, or no worse, Scripturally, than monogamous unions or even celibacy (except for when Paul says it is better NOT to marry ).

You are also correct that just because one has a belief in plural marriage, one has not been given a special dispensation to now act like he is something special and to demand some new kind of 'rights' that he didn't have before. On the contrary, once the revelation of 'plural marriage' has been given, then there are no more new rights, but there are a LOT of new responsibilities.

Here at Biblical Families, we really do try to stress to the men involved in these relationships to approach the burden of plural marriage with a new level of humility, and yes, holiness. I know that personally, it has driven me to my knees, and I can remember praying, "Lord, take this truth away from me." This revelation, instead of drawing me from God, has pushed me closer to Him....I am ETERNALLY grateful for it!

But, in the end, it is about truth....truth about the Scriptures, truth about the Christian life, truth about service to God. When God gives a fresh revelation, then he also requires a new level of commitment and service from those He reveals truth.

So, that being said, get ready, Brother T-C....you are in for a wild ride!


Blessings,

Doc

 

[Tele-Caster]

Thanks for the input T-C. However, your suppositions really do not leave room for someone's stubborn free-will to reject the will of God. It happens all the time, even when God tries to soften their heart. If the man is submitted to God and hearing from Him that he is to seek Biblical polygyny and the wife is stubbornly resistant, then the onus is on her and not him.

Be blessed,'

Dr. Ray

My suppositions (fat-fingered spelling errors and all) most definitely do leave room for someone's stubborn free-will to reject the will of God, and I agree that this kind of thing happens all of the time.

I previously stated my belief that there is a difference between the worldly totalitarian lordship of man and that which Jesus Christ exhibited to all during the first advent. I believe that it is in keeping with God's will that Christian men love their wives as Christ loved the Church. I believe that some Christian men exercise stubborn free will to reject the will of God in this area, and I believe it happens far too frequently. Too often, Christian men interpret their role as head of the family unit into something that God did not intend it to be -something that lacks humility, compassion, grace, patience, longsuffering, and a whole long list of other things besides, but is definitely NOT lacking in worldly totalitarianism.

As far as the wife's supposed "stubborn resistance" goes, I am still not willing to conceed that the onus is on the wife in our hypothetical scenario. The husband has the responsibility of being the spiritual leader of the houshold and it is HIS responsibility to guide his family along the path of truth, not HERS. What you percieve as "stubborn resistance" might in point of fact be a symptom of the failure on the part of this hypothetical husband "submitted to God" to meet his spiritual leadership obligation to his family. I am also not willing to discount the possibility that God is in fact using her through her resistance as His instrument in bringing the husband to the understanding that he is not acting upon what he wants to believe to be a call from God, but is instead acting out of the flesh.

We can deny this possibility, but it seems to me that doing so is illogical at best and also detrimental to the cause of winning others to the truth of polygyny as a Biblical marriage union. It is illogical because we know that plenty of men who would describe themselves as "submitted to God" have entered into monogamous marriage by acting out of the flesh, rather than yeilding to the leadership of the Holy Spirit, even when they thought they were doing the opposite -as in feeling called to marry a non-believer. Why then should we assume that such is not possible where polygyny is concerned? I would contend that we shouldn't.

I suppose mine is the minority view, but it would seem to me that if God were really calling an already married man into polygyny, He would confirm that call by also calling the first wife into it, too. Here, I reckon that I am a victim of my own personal experience, because my wife and I are of one accord on the issue. We both went along independently believing in the validity of polygynous marriage for believers today, and when the matter eventually came up for discussion, we became "one flesh" on the issue through corporate prayer and study.

When I felt called to move from our previous home on the west coast, my wife was feeling that same calling at the same time. Through prayer and study together, we came to understand the purpose for the call, and were in one accord over it. My marriage has always been like that. Whenever I've felt called to serve in a particular ministry at a particular place, my wife has also felt called to support it and be my helpmate. This is why the whole hypothetical scenario that we're discussing is so alien to me. It simply doesn't comport with the way that my wife and I see God working in our lives on a workaday basis.

T-C

 

[welltan]

Not all Godly homes go smoothly into accepting plural. Even a Godly woman may initially balk at the idea. However it is reasonable to expect a wife to be able to hear from God, same as her husband. Plural is not wife dependent, in that it is valid if a wife accepts the idea and invalid if she doesn't.

The word vow, vows, vowed is used 68 times in scripture but only twice in the New Test. As far as I can tell vows never have an application of something done at a marriage ceremony. If God has or is joining together a man and woman, then, done. Vows seem to me to invalidate God's joining and re-do it from man's level. If there is a ceremony, then celebrate and give God the glory. God is not a dating service that offers a potential mate depending on how the vows go. Men, even patriachal men love the smell of going God-like without God.

A lot can be derived about vows though in those 68 verses, and it is possible that monogomy pledges or vows have already been made. If vows are perceived as foundational then plural vows are no more trustworthy then the monogomy vows made in the past. However, a repentance from running and ruining ones own life with second rate vows may rekindle God's interest in finding a second to join to a man. And it may help a first know her mate is following God even though he certainly does not seem to be following any of his "vows" Otherwise, God is left out, you are on your own, and with this lack of authority a second is "acquired" according to romanized ideas or some other criteria. Vows supposedly do the deed and seals it and then somebody sends God a note with a copy of these vows. I believe God loves us but sometimes raises one eyebrow at what we attempt to do ourselves.

 

[Mark C]

Some interesting points there, -- at least a few of which I'll have to give more study and prayer to before commenting completely.

In particular, I know that we are advised to be very careful about vows that we make (to let our 'yes' be yes) and that there are distinctions between mere vows, and perhaps "oaths", and the act of Covenant. As I write this, I realize that I have seen historic descriptions of the 'Covenant process' (including the observation that the shedding of blood is involved, etc) and that this process is likewise described (God with Abraham, but that is a special case teaching as well, for one example) in Scripture, but not explicitly outlined. The 'ketubah', or marriage contract, is a tradition, and even has traditional elements based on Scripture (Ex. 21:10 even), but is not itself a requirement Written in God's 'teaching and instruction'.

Interestingly, it is the process for divorce, or Lawful 'putting away' of a wife, which does include the explicit requirement for a written document. (Deut. 24) We are not told why there, although Yeshua's later teaching that it was a concession for the "hardness of our hearts" is at least a partial explanation.

But it is Numbers chapter 30 that has always seemed to me to be the real key to understanding all of this issue. Certainly much has been written in these fora on the subject. I know that the major point that must be understood is that husbands (and fathers, for daughters still under covering) are ULTIMATELY responsible for all of their wives' vows - "for better or worse".

If nothing else, this would seem to make it clear to me that an unBiblical "pledge" which is later repented of by both a husband and wife should be mutually rescinded, with the husband understanding that -- right or wrong -- "he shall bear her guilt". (Num. 30:15)

 

[DrRay777]

T-C,

We will have to agree to disagree here. Men of God who walk according to the Spirit will not oppress their wife/wives. In my instance, not only did I hear from God but my wife, (who has predominately a prophetic gift, my main gift is that of a teacher) not only heard from God, but the Holy Spirit on more than one occasion spoke THROUGH her to members of our home church in Kansas on the issue of PM. That was in 2005 and to date, my wife has not embraced plural marriage for her own reasons. It is not for lack of my leadership or failure on my part to stand in my role as the head of my household, it has been in spite of those things. I know that I am not alone. There are no doubt going to be women, (and I am sure some men) in the body of Christ that will go 'kicking and screaming' into this thing, in the same way that they have resisted God in other areas of their lives. I have seen in my short experience with this subject that this is the rule rather than the exception.

God has spoken and shown me specific things about many issues, PM being one of the more recent and certainly one of the most controversial. You are fortunate that you have a wife who appears to submit to the Word and to you. This is a true blessing. I married my wife at God's direction but she has a free will and she must choose whether or not to obey God. She has made progress, but I would not express her acceptance of PM as anything but by obligation to obey the Word. I know she will be blessed, (as we all will) when God finally brings others into our family, (and I know He will when He sees fit and I am not rushing it) but until then, she is holding back.

I would submit that drawing conclusions about other families, (real or hypothetical) regarding PM, or any other issue for that matter, based upon one's own personal experience is probably not going to yield truth in every situation. Your conclusions certainly do not fit with my experience. I am sure there are worse cases than mine, because my wife actually WANTS to obey God. Only she and God can work it out. Not that I have ever put pressure on her about the issue, but I have now stepped back further and am giving more room for God to work with her on the issue.

I hear from God and so does my wife. However, we do not always see eye to eye about how things will come to pass. That is why we have decided to let God handle things on this issue as well as others. I will be interested to see how the thing plays out. I know that none of us are irreplaceable. The love of Christ is a double-edged sword. If someone CHOOSES to rebel, man or woman, God will not take kindly to it, especially if it is a spouse who is coming against the other spouse that is both hearing from God and trying their best to obey. God has promised to bless those who bless us and curse those who curse us, (Genesis 12:3 and Galatians chapter 3). He is not slack on that promise. I have seen the results of those scriptures more times than I care to. It ain’t pretty.

God’s patience is long, but even He gets fed up sometimes. I do not want to be on the receiving end of His wrath for open rebellion to the Word and direct revelation, (Hebrews 10:26-39) so I am trying daily to humbly submit to Him and His Word. If someone clearly sees in the Word that PM is scripturally sound and has heard from God that they are called to it, then to do anything but accept it as truth with open heart and arms is a sin against the Most High God. This aspect of Christ’s love does not go down easily and is not a popular message, but that does not make it any less true. I stand by what I said earlier, I would not want to be in the shoes of the rebellious wife on Judgment Day, (hypothetical or otherwise) when God asks her why she refused to submit to her obedient husband and to the Word.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[welltan]

Good points Ray, I agree

Mark, we end up at the same place. I agree that the "unbiblical pledge" you mentioned, made in the past, needs repented of or perhaps disavowed. Or, just toss them earlier by not having them at all. Most people want some type of vows, but the reason people want them hopefully is not because they are needed but because they are beautiful. Beautiful is fine, but I don't think they (vows) authorize anything when God's overriding authority in joining together is obviously active as why these two people are together. As you mentioned the covenant is a tradition. I am supportive of biblical views of vows. Vows would seem to be considered by God to be very powerful and after doing some word search on it, I do not remember much teaching on it from anywhere. It is interesting that vows can not be made or remain in effect depending what authority or family person is charge at the time. (Numbers 30th chapter) A scriptural teaching on vows has some disavowing clauses built in. I see that a scriptural study of vows in general may help a wife who is struggling with the idea of plural while still trying to retain meaning for her own relationship.

James 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

 

[CecilW]

T-C,

If you and your wife are truly so completely always on the same page, then you are a very fortunate man.

Let me tell you a real-life, not hypothetical, account of my own experience.

Regardless of improvements that my study of Biblical Family and Marriage issues was making in my life, regardless of seeing and approving of them, my wife said, "If it comes with the requirement of accepting that PM isn't wrong, then I want no part of it." In essence, she was saying that she would prefer that I return to being the mess I previously was, than give up her sole right to control me.

When I tried to study the Bible with her, she refused, claiming a right to study on her own and acknowledging that I was persuasive and she was unwilling to be persuaded.

When I tried to show her specific interesting tidbits I'd found, she said, and I quote, "I don't care WHAT you found in scripture, I KNOW what is right." And here I thought Scripture was supposed to be defining or redefining OUR beliefs.

When she sat in our pastor's office and, with his blessing, demanded a separation, she demanded that I go before the church and recant my stated belief that PM was Biblically valid, and state specifically that it wasn't, and the only reason I had said it was was to justify getting some sexual variety. This was her condition under which our marriage could continue, at least for the time.

Oh, yes, let me remind you that, as previously mentioned, I was prepared to give up on PM to save the marriage, as you seem to suggest, since the above allegation was not true, when I was warned in a vision not to. It is NEVER safe to turn one's back on truth discovered!

A couple of years ago, I was visiting my now legally ex-wife in her home and asked what it would take to change her mind? If a flaming 10 foot tall angel showed up in her bedroom with a direct message from God for her specifically, would that do the trick? She just looked at me and said, "Probably not."

And just to keep the record straight, I had no other flame, nor immediate other wife. Only the knowledge that some day, some where, some way, Father God apparently intended to place another woman, apparently with children, in my care. He did so 3 years after my wife demanded the separation, and 1.5 after she divorced me, an event in which I refused to participate at all.

So, brother T-C, make of that what you will. I readily admit to failures as a husband and spiritual leader. Do they justify my wife's position? You certainly have the right and ability to form your own judgment.

For myself, I've also seen men running roughshod over their wives with their hormones in an uproar, forgetting that in the overall scheme of things, they are lower middle management.

I've also been one of and seen men weeping and agonizing over the choice to follow God when it seemed to mean the loss of everything and everyone they held dear or follow the unyielding demands of their wives.

So yes, your concerns and scenarios are possible. But so are those you disparage. The fact that you haven't had to walk through the valley so far as your wife is concerned would not seem to suggest that others never do, nor that it is wise to set in judgment of their experience, lest God in His wisdom decides you needs do the same. 'Tis no fun, believe me.

 

[Tele-Caster]

T-C,

If you and your wife are truly so completely always on the same page, then you are a very fortunate man.

We are indeed "truly so completely always on the same page" spiritually. Sometimes, as in the case of Biblical polygyny, we're on the same page and don't even know it until such time as the matter comes up for discussion. I would not personally use the term "fortunate" to define myself with respect to my marriage. The use of that term implies that happenstance, chance, and dumb luck had something to do with our marital union, and I don't believe these things played any significant role in the matter whatsoever. I would be more inclined to use the term "richly blessed," for God has indeed richly blessed me through "T-C's Rebeka." She is more than exactly the Woman of God I prayed for Him to deliver to me for a wife.

When I tried to study the Bible with her, she refused, claiming a right to study on her own and acknowledging that I was persuasive and she was unwilling to be persuaded.

If "T-C's Rebeka" would have exhibited the attitude of "she" in the quote above, then "Mrs. T-C" she would not have become. We started our Christian walk together BEFORE we were married. The things of God mattered to us before God brought us together. They mattered so much that we were both concerned about the potential for being "unequally yoked" in matrimony, and were in prayer over this frequently. We understood that walking apart from God's will, no matter how much we "loved eachother," wouldn't bear much fruit. Our second date was a bible study. We studied Scripture together while dating and prayed and worshipped together, too. It would seem to me that if men would place more import in following God's will BEFORE marriage, it would be a lot less stressful to continue to walk in His will AFTER marriage.

T-C

 

[Tele-Caster]

So yes, your concerns and scenarios are possible.

Having been involved in pastoral minsitry, they were not only "possible," but occured with depressing frequency.

But so are those you disparage.

I obviously disagree, or I wouldn't have expended any energy doing the disparaging.

The fact that you haven't had to walk through the valley so far as your wife is concerned would not seem to suggest that others never do...

It wasn't meant to suggest that others never do. Quite the contrary, in fact. It was definitely meant to suggest that I haven't had to "walk through the valley" so far as my wife was concerned because I didn't marry out of fleshly desire, but put the things of God ahead of the flesh in my dating life. I prayed for God to deliever to me a Woman of God with whom I would be equally yoked in a spiritual sense and I remained faithful that this was a prayer in keeping with God's will and would thus be answered favorably. While I waited for the blessing, (her), I strove to remain content with my bachelor condition, leaning on Paul as an example, while also preparing the "field" (me) to be worthy to receive the blessing (her). In short, because I was dilligent to walk closely with God before marriage, and sought to walk in His will during and after, I can continue to walk in His will devoid of spousal hindrence and opposition. I am reaping what was sown. So do others. And some of those "others" who might be reading this thread haven't even been married a first time to one Woman of God, so my responses are intended to speak to them as much as any participant in this discussion directly.

....nor that it is wise to set in judgment of their experience, lest God in His wisdom decides you needs do the same.

On the contrary, I would submit that it would be supremely foolish to NOT exercise judgement and spiritual discernment where the subject of Biblical Marriage is concerned, whether said union be monogomous or polygynous. Judgement in and of itself isn't a bad thing, for if it were, we wouldn't have Acts 17:11 included in God's Word. What is not wise is to excercise judgement in a manner that the person doing the judging wouldn't want to be judged by. In this, at least as far as this thread is concerned, my conscious couldn't be clearer. We live in an age where people increasingly refuse to endure sound doctrine and its one where itching ears do appear to be on the increase. Just as there are those who enter into mono unions for the wrong reasons, and seek only what they want to hear on the issue, I know for a certain fact that there are plenty of people who would enter polygynous ones for reasons eqaully wrong and Scripturally invalid. I am willing, therefore, to stand on my contributions to this discussion so far.

T-C