Engaged and living with a non-christian man. What should I do?

No Username Found said:

Christ's judgement of sexual morality is not the point. The passage destroys the idea that someone can be married in the eyes of God by simply living with the person you are having sex with. Jesus condemn sexual immorality in other passages but we cannot assume that because Jesus did not condemn the women at the well that all of a sudden sexual immorality is okay in her specific situation. That would be foolish

Click to expand...

We don't know precisely what it was that made the man not her husband. Remember Jesus (God) looks into the heart. Being that this is her sixth man, the implication may be that her latest relationship was too casual to be considered as a marriage. She may have just been in it only for sex. Or perhaps he was pimping her out in some way. Perhaps he was married to someone else and they were in an adulterous affair. Or maybe Jesus was simply referring to whatever was considered legal marriage by the Samaritans with no judgment one way or another concerning the sexual aspect. We don't have any of this information because her relationships with men, married or otherwise, are not at all the point of this passage.

No Username Found said:

All these are factors that are irrelevant to the OP or John 4. One thing is clear, living with someone you have sex with is not biblical marriage...period.

Click to expand...

What if that's the only way a government allows? For example, once you monogamously live with someone for two years, then you are considered married by law of that land, and that's the *only* way your marriage is recognized by that government. Of course, that would mean that a government is what decides whether or not a couple is married and not God.

People toss around the term "biblical marriage" quite a lot, usually when they are in the midst of judging someone else's behavior, but it doesn't really seem to mean anything.

bekkilyn said:

We don't know precisely what it was that made the man not her husband.

Click to expand...

I am sure there are a number of factors that made the man not her husband. But one thing we know for certain is:
1.) She lived with the man.
2.) She had a sexual relationship with the man.
3.) Neither she nor Jesus called or considered the man her husband.
4.) Given Jesus is God in the flesh. God did not consider her married to the man.

Thus, God does not consider a women who is living with the guy she is sleeping with to be her husband...period. This is really simple to understand. The woman at the well is no more married to the man she is sleeping and living with than the OP is married to the man she is sleeping and living with. Case closed.

bekkilyn said:

What if that's the only way a government allows? For example, once you monogamously live with someone for two years, then you are considered married by law of that land, and that's the *only* way your marriage is recognized by that government. Of course, that would mean that a government is what decides whether or not a couple is married and not God.

People toss around the term "biblical marriage" quite a lot, usually when they are in the midst of judging someone else's behavior, but it doesn't really seem to mean anything.

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the OP? Try starting a thread asking what defines biblical marriage over secular/legal marriage and we can discuss this there?

No Username Found said:

Sex does not equal "two becoming one flesh". It's sexual immorality and is condemned by God, not blessed by God.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 6:16
Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.”

No Username Found said:

Thus, having a sexual relationship with a man you live with does not equal marriage. Its sexual immorality.

Click to expand...

There is no mention of whether she had been having sex with the man.

No Username Found said:

He did tell her that the person she was living and having sex with was not her husband. Thus, the idea that having a sexual relationship with the person you live with does not equal marriage. The OP and her fiancé is neither married nor "one flesh" in the eyes of God. That is biblical truth that should not be rejected or denied.

Click to expand...

No mention that she was having sex with the man.

And besides that was Samaritan culture, not Jewish or Greko/Roman. The women in that culture had no say over their domestic situation. They could not choose who they married or if they could get divorced. The main reason for divorce was infertility.

No Username Found said:

I am sure there are a number of factors that made the man not her husband. But one thing we know for certain is:
1.) She lived with the man.
2.) She had a sexual relationship with the man.
3.) Neither she nor Jesus called or considered the man her husband.
4.) Given Jesus is God in the flesh. God did not consider her married to the man.

Click to expand...

On what basis do you know #2 "for certain?"

Did our Lord ever say to her "Go and sin no more?" Did He ever even hint that she was being sinful?

bekkilyn said:

. Being that this is her sixth man, the implication may be that her latest relationship was too casual to be considered as a marriage. She may have just been in it only for sex. Or perhaps he was pimping her out in some way.

Click to expand...

Not likely. Adultery, including "pimping out" was punished IMMEDIATELY by death in Samaritan culture. So both she and the man she lived with would have been killed.

Given the Samaritan cultural norms, I find it unlikely they ever had sex.

No Username Found said:

I am sure there are a number of factors that made the man not her husband. But one thing we know for certain is:
1.) She lived with the man.
2.) She had a sexual relationship with the man.
3.) Neither she nor Jesus called or considered the man her husband.
4.) Given Jesus is God in the flesh. God did not consider her married to the man.

Thus, God does not consider a women who is living with the guy she is sleeping with to be her husband...period. This is really simple to understand. The woman at the well is no more married to the man she is sleeping and living with than the OP is married to the man she is sleeping and living with. Case closed.

Click to expand...

Nope, you have used a situation in which you severely lack full understanding, read a bunch of things into it, and then decided that your made-up interpretation applies to everyone. Doesn't cut it and isn't at all convincing.

No Username Found said:

What does this have to do with the OP? Try starting a thread asking what defines biblical marriage over secular/legal marriage and we can discuss this there?

Click to expand...

Because I really don't care about the topic as there is no such thing as "biblical marriage".

As for the OP, I just hope she chooses to avoid doing irrevocable harm to another person simply on the callous advice of a bunch of random people on the internet.

Dave-W said:

Not likely. Adultery, including "pimping out" was punished IMMEDIATELY by death in Samaritan culture. So both she and the man she lived with would have been killed.

Given the Samaritan cultural norms, I find it unlikely they ever had sex.

Click to expand...

I just threw it in there as something potentially hidden from everyone else that Jesus still knew. We don't even really know for certain that she lived with this man...only that Jesus said she "had" him. So maybe she was just having sex with him vs. actually residing with him. There is a lot we really don't know and can only really make reasonable conjectures that may or may not be accurate. Still not enough to use it as a rod to try to judge and manage someone's behavior today since behavior management wasn't the context or point of this scripture passage.

bekkilyn said:

Because I really don't care about the topic as there is no such thing as "biblical marriage".

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as biblical marriage? Really? Are you being serious? How then do you explain the relationship of Christ being the bridegroom and the Church being the bride of Christ? This is really important stuff that you are dismissing here.

No Username Found said:

There is no such thing as biblical marriage? Really? Are you being serious? How then do you explain the relationship of Christ being the bridegroom and the Church being the bride of Christ? This is really important stuff that you are dismissing here.

Click to expand...

That is only one of the very many types of marriages described and/or shown somewhere in the bible. "Biblical marriage" could refer to any one or more of them and therefore has no meaning.

bekkilyn said:

That is only one of the very many types of marriages described and/or shown somewhere in the bible. "Biblical marriage" could refer to any one or more of them and therefore has no meaning.

Click to expand...

Wow. Just.....wow. Where do I even begin to unpack this?

No Username Found said:

Wow. Just.....wow. Where do I even begin to unpack this?

Click to expand...

The bible?

One might start with Solomon's "biblical marriage" or maybe even Hosea's. We wouldn't even have to limit it to the Hebrews and could discuss the "biblical marriages" of the Egyptian Pharaohs or the Babylonians. You are right, there is a great deal to unpack when it comes to the topic of marriage in the biblical world.

bekkilyn said:

The bible?

One might start with Solomon's "biblical marriage" or maybe even Hosea's. We wouldn't even have to limit it to the Hebrews and could discuss the "biblical marriages" of the Egyptian Pharaohs or the Babylonians. You are right, there is a great deal to unpack when it comes to the topic of marriage in the biblical world.

Click to expand...

I think you are confused and assume that just because it is mentioned in the Bible, therefore it must be "biblical". That is flawed. Rape is in the Bible, based on your logic, rape would therefore be biblical. David murdered his friend after having and adulterous relationship with Bathsheba. Is murdering someone to marry their wife considered a "biblical marriage"? It appears as though you lack the understanding on what biblical marriage is.

No Username Found said:

I think you are confused and assume that just because it is mentioned in the Bible, therefore it must be "biblical". That is flawed. Rape is in the Bible, based on your logic, rape would therefore be biblical. David murdered his friend after having and adulterous relationship with Bathsheba. Is murdering someone to marry their wife considered a "biblical marriage"? It appears as though you lack the understanding on what biblical marriage is.

Click to expand...

Or maybe it's your description that is flawed and imprecise. If you ask 10 different people what a "biblical marriage" is, you will get 10 different responses because it's a term that sounds churchy and religious and important, but has no real meaning and is not clearly defined.

And yes, David's marriage to Bathsheba, and rape and murder are all "biblical" as they are things that are included in the bible for some purpose or another. I'm not sure why that's confusing. It would be more confusing to say that they are not "biblical" since they are very clearly there.

bekkilyn said:

Or maybe it's your description that is flawed and imprecise. If you ask 10 different people what a "biblical marriage" is, you will get 10 different responses because it's a term that sounds churchy and religious and important, but has no real meaning and is not clearly defined.

And yes, David's marriage to Bathsheba, and rape and murder are all "biblical" as they are things that are included in the bible for some purpose or another. I'm not sure why that's confusing. It would be more confusing to say that they are not "biblical" since they are very clearly there.

Click to expand...

Rape is biblical? Would you then say that if a woman is raped by a man that she is now biblically married to her rapist? Just because something is in the Bible does not mean that it is "biblical". Something being biblical means that it agrees, conforms, or supports the Bible and the teachings of Christ. You are correct that there are numerous points of view on what is considered to be a "biblical marriage". However, that in no way concludes that it is because "it has no real meaning". We could apply that logic to the entire Bible, given that there are hundreds of denominations with different responses to scripture. Would you then conclude that the entire Bible "has no real meaning and is not clearly defined?" Of course not.

I really don't know what you are trying to defend, but it seems as though you are attacking the Bible altogether to defend whatever your position is. But one thing I can tell you is that your position is a very "unbiblical" one because God is the author and creator of "marriage". Although people may disagree on what biblical marriage is, there are definite examples of what is not biblical marriage. Simply having sex with someone does not biblical marriage. Premarital sex is not biblical marriage. Homosexual marriage is not biblical marriage. Common law marriage is not biblical marriage. Polygamy is not biblical marriage. Whether you like it or not, getting married after divorce is not a biblical marriage unless your former spouse is guilty of sexual immorality. These are all examples of "unbiblical" marriages because they go specifically against the word of God and God will not bless a marriage that goes against His word.....period.

Would anyone else like to explain to me why "biblical marriage" does not exist?

No Username Found said:

Rape is biblical? Would you then say that if a woman is raped by a man that she is now biblically married to her rapist? Just because something is in the Bible does not mean that it is "biblical". Something being biblical means that it agrees, conforms, or supports the Bible and the teachings of Christ. You are correct that there are numerous points of view on what is considered to be a "biblical marriage". However, that in no way concludes that it is because "it has no real meaning". We could apply that logic to the entire Bible, given that there are hundreds of denominations with different responses to scripture. Would you then conclude that the entire Bible "has no real meaning and is not clearly defined?" Of course not.

I really don't know what you are trying to defend, but it seems as though you are attacking the Bible altogether to defend whatever your position is. But one thing I can tell you is that your position is a very "unbiblical" one because God is the author and creator of "marriage". Although people may disagree on what biblical marriage is, there are definite examples of what is not biblical marriage. Simply having sex with someone does not biblical marriage. Premarital sex is not biblical marriage. Homosexual marriage is not biblical marriage. Common law marriage is not biblical marriage. Polygamy is not biblical marriage. Whether you like it or not, getting married after divorce is not a biblical marriage unless your former spouse is guilty of sexual immorality. These are all examples of "unbiblical" marriages because they go specifically against the word of God and God will not bless a marriage that goes against His word.....period.

Would anyone else like to explain to me why "biblical marriage" does not exist?

Click to expand...

If it's in the bible, it's "biblical". Simple as that. Whether or not something in the bible (something "biblical") conforms to God's will or God's character is an entirely different matter and needs to be defined by something other than "biblical" to have any real meaning. When you say that polygamy is "unbiblical" then you are claiming that it does not exist in the bible, and anyone who has read the stories of the ancient Patriarchs and Kings can clearly it exists and that a great many "biblical" people practiced it.

Edit: Perhaps looking at it this way would make it clearer. If I were to say that both Paul and Abraham lived in "biblical times" then what would that mean? If my intent was to say that they both lived sometime during the time period between creation and the first century A.D. then I'm probably good, but what if someone got the impression that since they both lived in "biblical times" then they both lived at the same time. Maybe they know that Paul lived during the first century A.D., so since Paul lived in "biblical times" then maybe Abraham lived in the first century A.D. as well? Now I may know that they lived thousands of years apart, but it doesn't mean that everyone else just knows that. All they are hearing from me are "biblical times" so if I want to make it clear that they lived at two vastly different times, I'm going to need to use something besides "biblical times" to describe it. Otherwise, my saying "biblical times" has no meaning to describe exactly when they lived unless *all* I want to get across is that they both lived at some time described somewhere in the bible.

So "biblical marriage"? Could mean anything that's related to the bible in some way and we cannot assume that other people have any clue what we're talking about just using "biblical" as an adjective since it could mean anything and is therefore meaning*less* if we are trying to get across something more specific than "of the bible".