How would you classify marital vows to forsake all others?

[Kojent]

As a relative newcomer myself, I’ve spent several evenings scouring threads for different insights on this topic.

I know there are a lot of opinions on this one, so please feel free to select more than one option and to sound off in the comments. This should make it easier for current forum members and visitors alike to find a consolidated source of information on this topic.

 

[Maddog]

I would agree that adultery is sin but why is the vow not enumerated in scripture?

 

[Bartato]

It is a vow that the wife should make, but the husband shouldn't. Marriage isn't an equal partnership.

I'm not sure what to think about situations where the husband (like myself) has taken this improper vow.

The terms and conditions of the marriage covenant are timeless and determined by the Creator, not the particular vows made. Even if the woman doesn't vow to "honor and obey" and "forsake all others", she is still required to do so. Likewise, the husband should not be expected to keep improper vows.

Still, I think one's word also matters a great deal and should be considered.

 

[FeministVampireQueen]

I think many men take that vow in ignorance, or sometimes with complete sincerity at the time. Which is completely fine. While I do you like the idea of plural marriage, I can also see the appeal of monogamy, and I actually believe that some people (yes, even men), are more monogamous centered than others. Actually some of those men would make great plural husbands, ironically, lol

It seems like the issues with the vows are only a problem when a man later discovers that he wants to practice plural marriage himself. I always feel bad for first wives in this situation. I couldn't imagine committing and bonding myself to someone for what I expect to be a monogamous lifetime, only to have this huge poly bomb dropped on me later in life. For that reason, I do think that the first wife has a legitimate claim to expect her husband to fulfill those vows, but it's difficult to be so stern about that opinion knowing that men also have a responsibility to teach and lead their wives/families to the truth.

I feel bad for men who find themselves in these situations as well, because I think many of us know how painful it is to feel a calling to or a desire for certain paths in life, while not being able to fulfill or pursue them, for whatever reason.

I really hope that plural marriage continues to be talked about and discussed as openly as it seems to be presently. I've even had positive discussions recently with women who opposed plural marriage, but after discussions with one another they still didn't desire to practice it themselves, however they did come to understand why I support it.

I think it's a slow process, but maybe the generations after us will be more knowledgeable on the subject, and have the ability to be open and honest about what they want prior to commiting to one another and taking such vows.

 

[MeganC]

Marriage isn't an equal partnership.

It never is. Because sometimes it's an 80-20 proposition and some other times it's a 20-80 thing. There are also times when someone is sick or dying and it's 99-1 with one person carrying almost everything.

But on the whole and over time it should be around 50-50.

 

[Joleneakamama]

It never is. Because sometimes it's an 80-20 proposition and some other times it's a 20-80 thing. There are also times when someone is sick or dying and it's 99-1 with one person carrying almost everything.

But on the whole and over time it should be around 50-50.

I think it is far better if we figure it is a 100%-100%.
We don't want to be like children (are we there yet? How much do I haaave to do?) So fulfilling our duties as best we can.....without keeping score.....is likely the best.

 

[Bartato]

@MeganC and @Joleneakamama

I wasn't really talking about how much effort husband and wife put into marriage (and I agree with your statements).

I was talking about roles. Marriage is a covenant not an equal partnership. The husband is the head, and the head has to be singular. The wife is the helper, and helpers can be one or more than one.

Of course both of you understand all these things far better than I do since your life experience in this topic far exceeds mine.

 

[Kojent]

It never is. Because sometimes it's an 80-20 proposition and some other times it's a 20-80 thing. There are also times when someone is sick or dying and it's 99-1 with one person carrying almost everything.

But on the whole and over time it should be around 50-50.

Megan, I noticed you selected that vows made in ignorance must be kept, and I agree. But I also noticed that’s all you selected. Do you think those vows can be loosed by the person they were made to? Why or why not?

 

[Stuckinthewoods]

I think many men take that vow in ignorance, or sometimes with complete sincerity at the time. Which is completely fine. While I do you like the idea of plural marriage, I can also see the appeal of monogamy, and I actually believe that some people (yes, even men), are more monogamous centered than others. Actually some of those men would make great plural husbands, ironically, lol

It seems like the issues with the vows are only a problem when a man later discovers that he wants to practice plural marriage himself. I always feel bad for first wives in this situation. I couldn't imagine committing and bonding myself to someone for what I expect to be a monogamous lifetime, only to have this huge poly bomb dropped on me later in life. For that reason, I do think that the first wife has a legitimate claim to expect her husband to fulfill those vows, but it's difficult to be so stern about that opinion knowing that men also have a responsibility to teach and lead their wives/families to the truth.

I feel bad for men who find themselves in these situations as well, because I think many of us know how painful it is to feel a calling to or a desire for certain paths in life, while not being able to fulfill or pursue them, for whatever reason.

I really hope that plural marriage continues to be talked about and discussed as openly as it seems to be presently. I've even had positive discussions recently with women who opposed plural marriage, but after discussions with one another they still didn't desire to practice it themselves, however they did come to understand why I support it.

I think it's a slow process, but maybe the generations after us will be more knowledgeable on the subject, and have the ability to be open and honest about what they want prior to commiting to one another and taking such vows.

Well said.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The monogamy vow is a little bit of all of those options. Vows in general should be kept. A wife has no authority to enforce a vow on her husband. A husband has the authority to instruct his wife to release him from that vow.

The doctrinal case becomes tangled up in the practical application. But we can say that vows, especially vows made before God should be kept. No, the husband does not need his wife’s permission to take another wife and her submission to him should be so complete that he can instruct her to release the vow.

The best way to resolve this in my opinion is to ask the wife to release the vow and then wait until she does. The first step towards getting a second wife is keeping the first one. It is unlikely that any one man is going to get a second wife anyway so why would he lose a perfectly functional first wife on the hope that he might find two other women willing to live poly?

The process that she would need to go through to arrive at that place is one that she would need to do anyway and can’t be forced so don’t try to force it.

 

[frederick]

The first step towards getting a second wife is keeping the first one.

And if the first one is on shakey ground, taking a second may fare no better.

I wrote my own vows for my first marriage and they were a combination of Bible verses, so I didn't have to deal with this unbiblical vows issue. However, as far as I can discern, a husband and/or wife who made vows before God has to resolve that. Scripture is fairly straightforward regarding vows; When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed (Ecclesiastes 5:4-5). The Psalmist wrote, I will pay You my vows, which my lips have uttered (Ps. 66:13, 14).
Deal with the vows issue so that it is fully resolved and then move forward within a biblical framework.

 

[Mojo]

The first step towards getting a second wife is keeping the first one. It is unlikely that any one man is going to get a second wife anyway so why would he lose a perfectly functional first wife on the hope that he might find two other women willing to live poly?

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

We’ve seen plenty of lives play out in disaster over the years on this site because men discovered a mature doctrine and pursued it with youthful reckless abandon.

 

[Maddog]

But to whom is the vow made? I have not seen in scripture where a man makes a vow TO the woman. The agreement or covenant that I have seen (Laban, et all.) is between the MEN, similar to a change of ownership ("stewardship" for those who reject the concept of ownership). In Ezekiel 16 the covenant the The Father made was made to... HIMSELF? When a vow or covenant is made, then cancelling of said vow is contingent upon the other party. A strong willed woman may not go along with hubby's wild idea, then he is bound (technically) to the originally agreement.

Additionally, what is the CONTENT of said covenant? Words DO matter! A man's WORD is his bond. How about that verbal agreement? What about a handshake and words on a piece of paper, or his SIGNATURE on a contract? How about a Bond payment as promissory to completion of that? "Licensed and Bonded" is typical in the business world.
Isn't the diamond and gold ring a down payment as promise to fulfill the vow? She gets to cash in the value of the ring as a jump-start to a new life.

 

[MeganC]

Megan, I noticed you selected that vows made in ignorance must be kept, and I agree. But I also noticed that’s all you selected. Do you think those vows can be loosed by the person they were made to? Why or why not?

The person can choose to renounce their vows. This does not in any way mean that God endorses such an action.

 

[Kojent]

But to whom is the vow made? I have not seen in scripture where a man makes a vow TO the woman. The agreement or covenant that I have seen (Laban, et all.) is between the MEN, similar to a change of ownership ("stewardship" for those who reject the concept of ownership). In Ezekiel 16 the covenant the The Father made was made to... HIMSELF? When a vow or covenant is made, then cancelling of said vow is contingent upon the other party. A strong willed woman may not go along with hubby's wild idea, then he is bound (technically) to the originally agreement.

Additionally, what is the CONTENT of said covenant? Words DO matter! A man's WORD is his bond. How about that verbal agreement? What about a handshake and words on a piece of paper, or his SIGNATURE on a contract? How about a Bond payment as promissory to completion of that? "Licensed and Bonded" is typical in the business world.
Isn't the diamond and gold ring a down payment as promise to fulfill the vow? She gets to cash in the value of the ring as a jump-start to a new life.

The way many of the marital vows are worded are they're done as an exchange. The people aren't exchanging vows with or to God, so far as I can tell, they're exchanging vows between two parties before God, or with God as a witness.

In my mind, if a vow is vowed unto the Lord, with the Lord as a beneficiary, or party to the vow, and not as a mere witness, then they can't be loosed by anyone (except the Lord, in some extreme circumstance; albeit, I don't know how you'd determine such a thing).

However, if the vow is made to a person with the Lord as a witness, I believe that the person does have the ability to release the person who made the vow from its obligation(s).

 

[Kojent]

The person can choose to renounce their vows. This does not in any way mean that God endorses such an action.

Interesting nuance! That's not an option I'd considered. What are your thoughts on the beneficiary of the vow, the person it was made to, choosing to loose the person who made the vow to them from its obligation(s)?

 

[MeganC]

A wife has no authority to enforce a vow on her husband. A husband has the authority to instruct his wife to release him from that vow.

This is an ideal. In the real world a wife has every authority to enforce a husband's vow by visiting consequences upon the husband who violates it.

Paging Lorena Bobbit.

Understand that to me authority is not an entitlement, it is the practical expression of credibility.

Credibility is established by action.

The husband who establishes his credibility need not worry about anyone recognizing his authority.

The first step towards getting a second wife is keeping the first one.

Exactly! This is what establishes a man's credibility as a leader in his house and therefore his authority becomes the natural result of his credibility.

That's why I always say that any man wanting to be poly should get right with God and then get his house in order. He should do these things anyway but by doing them his first wife will appreciate what he is doing and what his goals are. More importantly, a potential plural will likewise see these things and find the man to be a credible expression of a patriarch.

His authority will naturally follow.

 

[MeganC]

Interesting nuance! That's not an option I'd considered. What are your thoughts on the beneficiary of the vow, the person it was made to, choosing to loose the person who made the vow to them from its obligation(s)?

It depends upon how this is framed.

In our context I do not believe a first wife has to release her husband from his vows in order for him to take a second wife.

If he is fulfilling his vows to his first wife then he will have established his credibility as a husband.

If the first wife can manage letting go of her claims of exclusivity then her husband taking another wife should not be a problem so long as he continues to fulfill his vows to the first wife. He can then be a husband to both of them.

 

[MemeFan]

The only reason this wow issue exist is because husband isn't replacing his existing wow with better one.

If you go to auto dealership and buy Golf and dealership decides to replace Golf with Mercedes, I doubt anybody would complain.