Roles for Husbands & Wives in Marriage

[Jethro Bodine]

If the two become one, what does the three become?

A funny 70's TV sitcom?

:sing "Come and knock on our door..."

 

[felix]

So I ask again, how can a man look upon a woman to have sex with her, when he has a first wife and not violate Matthew 5.

Because he is having sex with "his wife" not with another married or unmarried woman. Jesus was speaking in Matthew 5 about a woman who is not his wife.

1 Corinthians 7:4 is not Paul's own opinion, this is a fact... as a married woman, my body is my husband's... his body is mine. I have a duty to my husband, he has a duty to me.

Quite frankly, the word "authority" used here is wrong which is misleading and contrary to the "authority" of men over women mentioned in other places.

G1850 ἐξουσιάζω exousiazo - used here as authority (or power in KJV) is actually different from what you are referring here.

The only other place where G1850 occurs is:
(1Cor 6:12) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power [G1850] of any.

This is not an authority. However, the best English word would be what KJV used - power. Power is not the same as authority.

1 Corinthians 7:4 is speaking about the act sex as the next verse clearly indicates not to deprive for such. As in sex, man has no power over his own body but a woman does and vice versa. This power must not be mistaken for "authority".

 

[phantom309]

• Marriage by itself is not defined by any govt law but as Christians we seek the definition from Bible. It is an covenant/agreement between a man and a woman before God - not before people or govt. So, it is not necessary to officially marry a second but it is still considered as marriage before God which is perfectly lawful in most of the countries in today's modern culture - provided the second is loyal to you and you loyal to her till the end and you treat her as wife. Is it called (mistress!?) - not sure but as long as she is only for you, and she doesn't commit adultery with any other man, then it is perfectly ok and it is not a sin.

Discuss these options with your wife first. If she is still not willing, then proceed with having some other woman while maintaining your first wife. This way, you can not only solve your problem but also be sinless before God.

I havent dealt much with the legitimacy of polygamy,so I cant offer much.I wouldnt mess around with it simply on the basis of honoring my commitment to my first,and what will be my only,wife.

What I can offer is that I do not understand the rationale given for messing with other women.You state that no marriage is necessary and as long you treat the woman as a wife that all is well..which really doesnt add up.This is a very fine line to tread considering the repeated warnings of adultery in the bible.By the rationale given,theres no difference at all between extra-marital sex and a friends-with-benefits relationship so long as the woman takes no other partner.

This also sets up a severe double-standard.While the man is free to move about claiming wives like hockey trophies,each woman is expected to commit themselves fully to this roaming figure.Not a very fair scenario,and not one that makes any sense at all.Just going on this logic alone,I would never recommend such a lifestyle to anyone.

 

[felix]

I havent dealt much with the legitimacy of polygamy,so I cant offer much.I wouldnt mess around with it simply on the basis of honoring my commitment to my first,and what will be my only,wife.

What I can offer is that I do not understand the rationale given for messing with other women.You state that no marriage is necessary and as long you treat the woman as a wife that all is well..which really doesnt add up.

I did not say "no marriage is necessary and as long you treat the woman as a wife that all is well", what I said is, Biblical marriage does not begin when governments or churches declare as married, but rather when they have sex for the first time as we in many instances of Scriptures.

This is a very fine line to tread considering the repeated warnings of adultery in the bible.By the rationale given,theres no difference at all between extra-marital sex and a friends-with-benefits relationship so long as the woman takes no other partner.

What you mentioned are not "extra-marital sex" or "friends-with-benefits" but rather they are married in the eyes of God. Sex defines the beginning of marriage as per Scripture.

This also sets up a severe double-standard.While the man is free to move about claiming wives like hockey trophies,each woman is expected to commit themselves fully to this roaming figure.Not a very fair scenario,and not one that makes any sense at all.Just going on this logic alone,I would never recommend such a lifestyle to anyone.

No. no one can claim wives like hockey trophies. It is the right of the woman's father to decide whether to give his daughter to the man or not. Even on account of rape, the father of the victim can decide whether to give her as a bride or not as in Exod 22:17. Hence, no one can claim wives like hockey trophies.

Also, as a note, I mentioned to speak these options first to his wife because, with these options, his wife may come into the reality and the importance of her not having sex with him for 4-5 years.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

no one can claim wives like hockey trophies

Well, I sure didn't win any trophies...but I sure got in a lot of fights, lol. Spent prolly twenty years in the penalty box alone.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I havent dealt much with the legitimacy of polygamy,so I cant offer much.I wouldnt mess around with it simply on the basis of honoring my commitment to my first,and what will be my only,wife.

Yes, and that should be enough reason to reject polygamy. I don't think any (hardhearted) man should consider polygamy unless he's prepared for his present wife to cave into the same temptations he did and find herself a little action on the side.

"12 “...treat people the same way you want them to treat you..." (Matthew 7:12 NASB)

So, unless you're okay with your wife potentially violating her commitment to you don't you violate your commitment to her. I've never met a normal man who was ultimately okay with his wife being with another man while she was still with him. What makes us think normal women aren't like that, too?

 

[handy]

Because he is having sex with "his wife" not with another married or unmarried woman. Jesus was speaking in Matthew 5 about a woman who is not his wife.

It's hard to break through the walls here... You've just given a text book example of what's known as "circular reasoning".

Again, although I think the overwhelming majority of anyone still reading this thread "gets" it... we are speaking of the first wife... a man cannot approach another woman to have sex without violating the principle of Matthew 5 against the first wife. She is there, perhaps in another room and he is sexually engaging another woman that is not herself... this is violating her and her ability to be made "one" with her husband.

Quite frankly, the word "authority" used here is wrong which is misleading and contrary to the "authority" of men over women mentioned in other places.

G1850 ἐξουσιάζω exousiazo - used here as authority (or power in KJV) is actually different from what you are referring here.

The only other place where G1850 occurs is:
(1Cor 6:12) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power [G1850] of any.

This is not an authority. However, the best English word would be what KJV used - power. Power is not the same as authority.

1 Corinthians 7:4 is speaking about the act sex as the next verse clearly indicates not to deprive for such. As in sex, man has no power over his own body but a woman does and vice versa. This power must not be mistaken for "authority".

Here is the definition of the word in question:

1) to have power or authority, use power
a) to be master of any one, exercise authority over one
b) to be master of the body
1) to have full and entire authority over the body
2) to hold the body subject to one's will
c) to be brought under the power of anyone


Going by this definition, I stand by what I said earlier and find that the text is telling us that a man does not have the power or authority to give what is his wife's to another woman.


According to the definition of the word "exousiazo", the wife has power and may use her power over her husband's body and he has power and may use his power over her body.


The woman is the "master" of her husband's body and he is the "master" over hers. She exercises authority over his body and he exercises authority over hers.


The wife has full and entire authority over her husband's body and he has full and entire authority over hers.


His body is subject to her will and her body is subject to his.


Specifically, the power is not to be anyone, but in the context of the verse the husband exercises this power over his wife's body... and she exercises the same power over his.


Now, I agree with you that this is in the context of intimate relations between the husband and wife... but nonetheless, he doesn't have the power or the authority to give what his wife has power over to another woman.


There is just no wiggle room here. Christianity is different from Judaism. There is a new covenant and we live by it. Under the new covenant, men are not free to give their body to more than one woman.




And with this, I think I'll bow out of the discussion... it's been lively, but what more can possibly be said on this subject that hasn't been said a number of times already.

 

[felix]

handy, may be we are on the same page, spending too much time disputing over this minor thing.

I want to clarify, that God intended one man and one woman and they become one flesh in marriage. There is no doubt about it. However, God also "allowed" polygamy in the law and it is not a sin. What God "allowed" is not always what God "intended" and "wanted".

While you try to defend what "God wanted" - which I never denied and neither I am a polygamist, I am trying to defend "it is not a sin". That's all I am trying to say.

I agree with all you have said, what is best for Christians is not to have a second wife while the first is living and that is what always God intended.

When I wrote the #1 post of this thread (while it was on the other thread), I actually came back to delete it because I thought to myself, 'would Christ advise what I posted'? Definitely Not! - and I honestly felt a bit ashamed. But as a human, I tried to defend from a view point that it is not a sin, when other replies started to appear for what I posted.

While I stand on the view that polygamy is not sin, because it was allowed by God the Father in the law, it is not what God intended, promoted or wanted.

I hope this post clarifies my stance.

 

[Danus]

Sorry for drawing my sword in here Felix. I appreciate your clarifying your stance on this.