In the monologue by Katharina from “Taming of the Shrew” she says, in the closing lines:
“And place your hands below your husband’s foot: In token of which duty, if he please, My hand is ready; may it do him ease.”
It may be the most nagging opposition to biblical marriage: the idea that “woman was created to help the man”, (1 Corinthians 11:9, Genesis 2:18) and perhaps the most misunderstood one. But when we do understand it, it radically changes us and brings a powerful transformation to our marriage.
It is a thrill, not an offense, that God delighted to create me for the express purpose of completing my husband. Wives are a powerful instrument in the advancement of God’s Kingdom when they comply!
It bothers us because I think we are not “other-worldly-minded” enough. We should be about seeking first the Kingdom of God, not the kingdom of ME. And if we are about our Father’s business, our only concern is the instruction He has given us best suited to fulfill His plan, not whining about how we think our roles should be redefined to sound more politically correct.
The Bible uses the language of “one flesh and “joined together.” The image is not of a family where two autonomous people live side by side. It’s more intimate than that; it’s one mission, one force, one vision and two people completing each other to accomplish that mission.
“Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” The command to mankind remains. There is so much more there than a population hint! It is man, oriented to the world (garden), and his wife, oriented toward him, helping him “subdue”–cultivate–their part of the earth, pursuing a life of fruitfulness in all areas–literally and figuratively speaking,
“The log is not greater than the fire; the fire burns because the log enables it.”
What does that look like practically? It’s different for each marriage. But wherever God has placed our husbands, he has given him a “subduing command” and that is where we are to assist him with our own unique gifts and abilities.
I am his helper. There are a million ways I can help him, from making sure he has clean underwear, to editing his State of the Union address. We are a team and he needs me. He may need me to make phone calls, handle details of the day to free him up somewhere else, pack his lunch, save his money, call his mom, send a thank-you card, or other details.
Going beyond that, he needs me to run a household, help in training our children, prepare our home for encouraging others through hospitality, extending our family’s purpose day to day, building a godly legacy.
The part of us that balks at “promoting another’s vision” is not properly understanding our role. When we grasp that we are “one flesh”, then promoting my husband is beneficial to me! (Think Christ and His bride.) The log is not greater than the fire; the fire burns because the log enables it. (Sorry, I’m sitting in front of my wood stove as I write this.)
Ask your husband how you can best help him. Just the asking lets him know that you desire to unite with him in a purpose. This may be the first time such a thing has crossed your mind! But once he knows you want to help him by making life easier and assisting him as an heir in the grace of that life, the united front strengthens and you begin to build a more powerful legacy than either of you could ever build alone.
45 comments
Just wanted to point out that the word Ezer, sometimes translated as helpmeet in Genesis, means something like “power” or “strength” or even “protector.” It is used once in reference to women and then about 20 more times in reference to God, in verses like Psalm 115:11 – so to me, being a Helper to my eventual husband means I am here to aid and support him in spiritual warfare and the Christian life, just as he supports me. The focus is on helping each other press after God.
L, WONDERFUL thoughts! That’s what took the offense out of the word “helper” once and for all for me.
Kelly, you have great and un-offensive thoughts as well; spouses are meant to complete each other. The problems I’ve seen come from those who claim that women were created ONLY to complete a man. To them, marriage isn’t about two people completing each other, it’s all about the woman completing the man; HIS goals are God’s goals, they say, and she must therefore follow them absolutely, for this was the singular reason she was created. To these folks, sure, women are powerful, because we were created to help men, the REALLY powerful ones; we have no singular, original purpose of our own. Take the log/fire analogy and turn it a bit: think of trees. Trees serve as life-givers, nurturers, teachers even (of nature), memory holders and yes, homemakers, for animals (and sometimes humans). For some shallow humans, however, trees are only here to further their own plans: to make paper for their all-important documents, to help build their sacred cities, and of course to burn; as far as burning goes, trees and their wood are ONLY important because they start the vital fire; they have no individual merit of their own. I don’t think I need to explain how this analogy relates exactly to the woman-just-for-man doctrine.
Anyway, your post is excellent; these are just the huge faults I’ve seen in people who start their arguments like yours and peter off into blunt blasphemy.
Being and having a helper is wonderful. I’m so grateful for the times my husband helps me, and I’m happy to help him when he needs me! The one-sidedness, though, seems like a recipe for misery to me.
Excellent post Kelly. I love the log analogy.
B,
Not sure if the “one-sidedness” is a reference to something in the post or not, but misery with God’s design follows when we are me-centered, and not Him-centered. Joy comes from submitting to the will of God, misery comes from seeking to place ourselves above where God has placed us (same thing Eve did).
Biblical marriage is wife helping husband, husband responding in leadership through life-sacrifice to his family, and everybody doing a different but equally important part to advance the family as one. Feminists see a family as separate parts, so when someone defines a role, they are offended. When you comprehend the family functioning as one unit, no one’s part is less.
A few days ago I was sick in bed most of the day and my mind wandered to and fro about husbands and wives and things we must do. My dear husband, who works from home, set up his “office” at the kitchen table and tried to run things from there. At one point in the evening I dared to venture a peek into the kitchen and giggled at the piles of dishes, the kids still in pj’s with dirty faces, the laundry piling up, etc… I thought to myself as I laid back down, “This is how God must have felt that day he created Eve…It is not good that man should be alone…” I felt sad for my husband that day. He managed to run things. Everyone was alive. But he was alone…lonely in a sense…without his helper. A woman’s helping hand smooths out all the snags and wrinkles, adds the sprinkle of sugar and spreads the butter, kisses the wound, cools the fever, nurses the hunger, and finds the missing. And somehow she manages to do all of it all at once with a baby around her legs, dishes washing, dinner cooking, laundry spinning, hair flying! “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife” He clings to me, he is no longer alone, and I am his footstool. If we wives cannot humble our hearts to be the resting place of our Husbands, we will never find ourselves bent and broken before our Lord the Christ. When God has found a place to rest his feet it is there that he is pleased to dwell and rule.
Excellent points. I actually delight in helping my husband (most of the time).
To B, it is not a one sided love. Wives are called to be helps to their spouses. Husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. Christ came partly as a servant to show us how to treat and serve and love each other. When I want my husband should help me set the table, it is not because I think he must. It is because he has evidenced Christ’s servitude to me in that area so often I can approach him with love knowing he will respond to me in kind. It is because he has proven he desires to treat me as Christ treats the Church that I can be vulnerable with my desires. Not because I think he was made to help me, or take over my role.
I know there are some men of a certain religious spirit who think women only are there for the service of men. They have fallen victim to one of Satan’s great tricks: take truth out of the Bible, and twist it so it benefits no one, but harms all parties. It is not Biblical. But being a helpmate to our hubbies is as is their being a servant to us is. Only when both parties carry it out are we in a shining example of Biblical marriage. But even if one party chooses not honor Christ, it is still the other party’s duty. To paraphrase a verse in the Bible “to you who knows it is sin to not do it and don’t do it, you are in sin”
Thanks, Kelly, for another great post. God used it to bring to my mind the times I have said “my hubby thinks I am his secretary today” in a complaining tone. One more sin to do away with!
MML,
Oh my…beautifully spoken. Have you considered writing a book in your spare time? 😀
Kelly, I thank you (and my husband thanks you) for the truths you share in love! Yes,it is a thrill… when we embrace God’s plan for our marriages and His created order! It was a sweet surrender when I finally gave up my feminist ways and embraced the will of God for me, my husband and our marriage. As I learned about biblical womanhood and what God created me to be and do – it was so freeing. I was finally free to be what God purposed me to be, not what the world convinced me I should be. It was amazing the transformation in my marriage and in my husband as God enabled me to truly become a helpmeet. Now I am far from perfect, but my marriage that was at one time in danger of ending has been restored and my husband now calls Jesus Lord and Saviour. Hallelujah! Can I get an amen?! God is so good and wise. His ways are best!
Beautifully done. Thank you for the great reminder and a timely post! :o)
Carol Lee…AMEN!
OK, the panda pic just recently registered with me. Too precious for words
I have no illusions of persuading anyone here who’s fully invested in the patriarchal mindset. I just wanted to share what has been for me a happy alternative: full and equal partnership in all decision-making, with each person acting in accordance with the gifts God has given him/her, without regard to which roles have been traditionally considered “male” or “female.”
This patriarchal way of structuring a marriage is not the only Christian way. God has given us all unique gifts and interests, to men and to women. I am a feminist, but I do see the family as a whole. I am unwilling, however, to assign the necessary work of a family to any one member simply because of his/her gender. There are different roles, absolutely. But these roles should voluntarily assumed (not assigned), based on God’s specific gifts to that individual.
Kelly,
Amen! What an excellent post, and I couldn’t agree with you more!
~Mrs. Lady Sofia~
B,
That is funny. I think patriarchal is the phrase anyone who met our family would not ascribe to our family. Phrases are given in a religous spirit, in my opinion (And I have been guilty); either to compartmentalize so one does not have to deal with the Biblical precepts, or to control another person or group. Both aspects have been seen in life. Neither have to do with the Lord. If one is a Christian whose God is actually Lord as well, one will sell out to the precepts. The Lord is my Boss, the Bible is my work manual while on Earth. He does speak to me and my husband in addition, but it is never against the written word. Pride rises against God, Vain Glory rises against God, even our own flesh rises against God. This squelches understanding and wisdom.
My husband is the leader of our house because the Bible says he is to us a priest. Because he is a wise leader he recognizes his limitations and my gifting. I handle most on the finances, asking for his confirmation only. I run the homeschooling of our daughter, he has never asked to oversee that. I take care of maintenance (except the yard) on our house, including plumbing, construction and electrical. I am a team mom and do not ask if I can go this place or another because he trusts my judgment. I say this for you to see this is all in the Bible. It is a Proverbs 31 woman.
Living in accordance with God’s plan for us is no more binding and debilitating than the bird growing feathers on its wings. At birth it is almost featherless and certainly unable to fly. But the transformation into who it is supposed to be is amazing. Just as we see in a bird, so we must see in ourselves. When we allow God, not popular ideas (or past hurts or perceived wrongs) to make us who we need to be, it is freeing, wonderful and allows us to be who we are meant to be.
I don’t need to change your mind, nor do you need to change mine. Wherever we are in enmity in our minds with the Lord, He will surely show us through Holy Spirit, if we listen to Him and not our own deceitful hearts.
I just didn’t want you to think I am a certain way. Religion cannot define me. I am 100% God’s. He bought me with Christ’s blood, and THAT is what I cling to, not man’s rules, ideas or religion.
“My husband is the leader of our house because the Bible says he is to us a priest”
Actually Christ’s death absolved the need of any earthly intermediary between God and man.
Jennifer,
you know, it has been so often by people who are Godly I assumed it was true. I just researched it, and you are right, no where does it say that in the Bible. I guess there was an adherence to religion. God is certainly showing me that I am not entirely void of dependence on man for some of my views. He is also revealing to me how much He doesn’t like it. Thanks you for admonishing in love…easy to receive.
Certainly I never meant priest in a way as my hubby is my intermediary between me and God, though, as I am pretty sure some others who say this do not mean it either.
Bad verbiage in “priest”, but he is called to be the leader of the household.
Jennifer and Kelly L,
While Jennifer is right about no longer need an intermediary between God and ourselves, I think the term “priest” is appropriate in the sense of what a priest *does*. Like you mentioned, Kelly L, he is called to be the leader of the household, in essence be a pastor of the little church (!) that is his family. He is to pray for them, lead them, love them as Christ loves the church, wash his family in the Word, and play a significant role in teaching the Law to his children.
Just my two cents :o)
Thanks for your honest thoughts, Kelly L 🙂
Okay, as a wife who believes fully in the doctrine of biblical submission, I have to jump in here and correct this husband as priest and pastor of a little church idea. It is unbiblical.
JESUS is the preist of our home. My husband and I, as one, follow Him. This is why I can freely speak to my husband if I have biblical grounds for believing he is in error on an issue, major or minor. I do not do that with Christ as He is Our Perfect High Priest.
I submit to my husband as unto the Lord and because of my love for the Lord and love for my man, not because he is worthy of the honor as the pastor or priest of our little church.
While I fully appreciate the Spirit in which this idea was birthed and has taken hold in some circles, it makes me very uncomfortable when we embrace terminolgy and doctrines which have absolutely no Biblical basis.
Re: “Husbands as priest/pastor/leader”…
I can appreciate the thoughts/cautions from both sides of this discussion. I think it’s the interpretation from these verses that causes us trouble:
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.” Ephesians 5:25-27
The idea expressed through Scripture is that husbands are, indeed, to guide and oversee the spiritual condition of his wife and family…i.e. “spiritual leader”. So I can see the reason for some of the terminology that is used. We also see wives instructed to “ask their husbands at home” which indicates a teaching role he has over his family.
I’m not afraid of that, but like anything else, the concept can be abused and led in the wrong direction. It does not imply that he is her mediator or that she doesn’t stand fully equal to him before the throne of God.
The Bible also says for wives to lead their husbands; both spouses are responsible for helping nurture each others’ spirits.
You are absolutely correct, Terry. And if you think that’s disgusting, just listen to some patriarch-reverencing people who call all husbands “prophet, priest and king” of their homes.
UGH! Sorry for the triple post. Please feel free to delete, Kelly.
Jennifer,
Where exactly does it say wives are to lead their husbands?
It says to lead by example and without a word when speaking of an unsaved husband. I think the mutual responsibility of spiritual care between spouses has been pretty clear.
If you are referring to 1 Peter 3, I think it’s stretching it a bit to say we are to lead. I find that word no where in my KJV, and I don’t intend to start inserting words and changing the meaning. It’s my job to live by the word and behave accordingly and let God lead my unsaved husband to salvation, if that’s His will. I’m not sure that’s what you mean by “lead”. I am in no way to lead my husband spiritually.
I don’t go by the KJV, and there’s nothing dominant or sinful by leading whatsoever. That’s the problem many have with trying to limit other people’s leadership and authority in the faith: they seem to think there’s a hierarchy, and there isn’t. Leading and teaching is not dominating or hierarchal, not in the truest sense. I have no compunction whatsoever in leading any man spiritually, by example or otherwise.
Another fabulous post… thanks for continuing on these lines. It’s been a great complement to the series my pastor is doing, giving me even more to chew on 🙂 (There are links in my blog if you want to check it out.)
One powerful observation he has shared is how we reflect God’s image here on earth. Specifically the last two weeks he has been talking about women and how we reflect the Holy Spirit – comfort, nurture, care, teaching, training, loving, etc. And how that complements the masculine role to really live out what it means to be “created in the image of God.”
I second what Jane said: “It’s my job to live by the word and behave accordingly…”
Jennifer, I think it’s dangerous, at best, to search out a version of the Bible that suits our interpretation, while “not reading KJV” because it doesn’t. (I’m not opposed to reading different version, but the point is to find the closest translation, and historically, KJV is regarded as one of the most accurate…not to get off into a translation debate.)
The Bible has lots to say about roles, leadership and the inappropriateness of women leading in marriage. As an older woman to a younger, I submit that life is easier when we recognize and rejoice in what God has written clearly in His Word, instead of trying to redefine it. I know it is a common, feminist ideal, and I’m not unaware of the deep explanations (I’ve read, studied, debated them all) just so you know. I just believe it’s the same spirit that got Even in a mess that keeps us women coming back to…”Did God really say?”
The Bible never says women are not to lead in marriage, nor does it command husbands to be heavy leaders. I have studied all the arguments myself and feminism has nothing to do with my convictions. Nor is the spirit of wanting to lead by example and NOT in a hierarchal fashion one that in the least resembles what Satan did to Eve. God equips all His children to teach; generally when this is analyzed, questioned, limited and snipped with legalistic rules on women’s part does it lead to a bad spirit. I’ve simply never used a KJV, not deliberately gone from one Bible to another to suit my own purposes. The KJV has many errors in vital places.
“The Bible never says women are not to lead in marriage, nor does it command husbands to be heavy leaders”
To clarify this comment of mine, some believe that leading in marriage means trailing one around by the nose, or something more loving but equally forceful; I don’t, not in marriage. In matrimony, I believe both spouses are completers and teachers of each other. If my husband happens to be less educated in the Bible than myself, I will be happy to help him, by teaching, assisting, studying together, “leading” in the lightest loving sense, or what have you.
This is going off on a rabbit trail that I may have started (sorry, Kelly) so I am bowing out after one last comment.
If you cannot back up what you say without reference to specific scriptures (accurately translated) then your argument has no merit, it is your opinion. I can’t attempt to live according to my own opinion, I’ve tried it, it doesn’t work (even though my flesh often wants to), only by the truth as given in God’s Word.
BTW, I know the KJV does have a few errors in translation, it’s not a perfect translation. Our pastor, well-versed in NT Greek, has pointed them out to us. But it’s still more accurate, compared to most other translations.
I do back up what I say, and I have referenced Scripture. You just clearly prefer to see a hierarchal structure within it, rather than a harmonious mutuality.
I totally agree with you Kelly.
And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone;I will make an help meet for him. Genesis 2:18
Due to our fallen sinfulness, this has been abused but it was not intended to be.
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church: and he is savior of the body.
It is an attitude of the heart done willingly. There is no force involved.
In the Spirit, women are equal to men. In the flesh, in the marriage relationship, women are to be subject to their husbands’s headship. The Lord ordained that man be the one that would make final decisions in the home because in any relationship involving two people one must be the final authority.
And Ephesians also states in chapater 5:25-28 that husbands are to love their wives. So for those women that don’t like what the Bible says about headship, it really is suppose to be done in a loving way.
“The Lord ordained that man be the one that would make final decisions in the home because in any relationship involving two people one must be the final authority”
Not in one of love and mutuality.
“In any relationship involving two people one must be the final authority.”
This is absolutely false. Untrue! For me, it’s absolutely the way to a miserable relationship. There is something called compromise, where both people get something they want and give up something that they want out of love for partner. There is something called being patient and not acting as a couple until both members are in agreement. It works! People have done it for millennia.
I should have known to just read the post and skip the comments! The post is Biblically accurate. God most certainly made specific roles in the family based on gender. Anyone that refuses to admit that does so because they do not want to, period.
Getting back to the post, 🙂 it is only when I embrace my God-given role as my husband’s helper, that I know I am being obedient to the LORD.
Anything with two heads is a freak.
The Bible says what it means and means what it says (and there are no mistakes in it! God said He would preserve His Word and He is perfectly capable of doing so. If “men” find mistakes in God’s Word, that simply means they are interpreting the meaning incorrectly. What presumption that man can think they know better than God…but it happens regularly, as proven by all of the Bible per-versions out there). More proof that we want to take from God’s Word only the things that we agree with. May God have mercy on us.
and, Kelly, you are absolutely correct that this issue is all about worldview… a Scriptural one, or another one.
Christian Wedlock.
QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?
ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.
1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).
Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.
1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:
A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
(A common prostitute is a woman who commonly offers her body for acts of lewdness for payment. An act of lewdness can never be an act of carnal copulation, as it is blasphemy to state that the Angel Gabriel and Mary committed a lewd act. The common law of england states that it is impossible for any woman to be a prostitute under any circumstances, but that a woman may continue on to be a common prostitute.).
A fornicator/fornicatress and adulterer/adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.
Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.
Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.
Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.
Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.
Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. That was because if Tamar was with child with the second son, then in law that first child with the second son would not be the second son’s, but would be the deceased first son’s, as the deceased first son had been childless.
Judah had then ordered his daughter-in-law Tamar not to marry again, because Judah pledged Tamar that she would marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry, although it was against the law to put a woman to death for harlotry. Tamar came and produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar would have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.
Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.
Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.
1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 5:4&9 King James 1611.
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age without children, who have only had one husband.
The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.
To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader in marriage, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader in marriage. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.
Luke 1:15&35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.
Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.
Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.
But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.
1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.
2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.
But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!
A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.
Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.
Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.
That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.
And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.
The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.
Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.
Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.
And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.
Not only did spartan women routinely have two husbands at the same time, but Sparta herself always had two kings at the same time, as Sparta had two separate royal families. This dual monarchy (there are no other words to describe it) came from the Agiad Royal Family and the Eurypontid Royal Family.
Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.
Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.
Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.
Mark 10:7 King James 1611.
Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.
Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MAHOMETRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUTILATAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATOS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUSICOS.
CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.
1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.
2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.
3rd. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.
4th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.
5th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.
6th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.
7th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.
8th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.
9th. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.
10th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.
11th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
12th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
13th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his one wife; he shall be put to death.
14th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.
15th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.
16th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.
17th. If any child, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child so offending shall be put to death.
18th. If any stubborn and rebellious son, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son so offending shall be put to death.
19th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case he shall not be punished.
20th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case she shall not be punished.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God not the son of Gabriel, an angel.
Your “theology” is messed up.
Sorry Gail, it’s not that cut and dry. Feel free to color yourself one shade, though. No one denied the helper concept anyway.
Peach, what on earth..?
certainly like your web site but you have to test the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I to find it very bothersome to inform the truth on the other hand I will surely come again again.
I do love the manner in which you have presented this specific situation and it really does offer me a lot of fodder for consideration. However, because of just what I have experienced, I simply hope as the reviews stack on that men and women remain on issue and don’t get started on a soap box regarding some other news du jour. All the same, thank you for this superb point and though I can not really concur with it in totality, I respect the perspective.
Don’t suppose you have come across anything around these BTC short classes? Seems like you can choose from a basic choice of electrical engineer classes but I was wondering if its simpler to do that, or move right to the City and Guilds lessons?
I like this site,i wish my husband can receive and hear what is posted here,he is a pastor but hates the truth of the word of God and twisting them in his own needs.what must I do for him to join this or for him to receive this. It sounds very Good and helpful,interesting to those love word of as it is.