my husband committed adultery

[Romanseight2005]

Gal 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
KJV

 

[HuntingMan]

Genesis is where God starts with the 'wives shall do this and husbands shall do that'. If you have a problem with that pray about it and see what God leads you to... and let me know. I'm honestly interested in hearing about it.

Youre joking, right?
God laid out what, two rules there in Genesis, none of them forbidding the wife to leave the husband if he cheated on her.

Is that all you have to offer?

Moses at no time that I can recall disallowed the wife in the law this permission to divorce her husband. This was assumed by hardhearted Jewish men as far as I understand the situation, being a treacherous 'interpretation' of Deut 24:1-4

Matter of fact, you are entirely errant in your views as presented here where this wife (given to him by his father) could leave her husband simply if he did not provide for her.

"If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. "
(Exo 21:10-11)

Concerning maid-servants, whom their parents, through extreme poverty, had sold, when they were very young, to such as they hoped would marry them when they grew up; if they did not, yet they must not sell them to strangers, but rather study how to make them amends for the disappointment; if they did, they must maintain them handsomely, Exo_21:7-11. Thus did God provide for the comfort and reputation of the daughters of Israel, and has taught husbands to give honour to their wives (be their extraction ever so mean) as to the weaker vessels, 1Pe_3:7.
-Henry

Now surely there is a context involved, you neednt remind me of it, but the passage overall defies everything you seem to believe that the woman has no right to leave of her own accord. Either a wife has no rights, or she does, simple as that.
This teaching is not inconsistant with anything in the NT that has been provided for you thus far.

I submit you take up a bible and put some more study into this matter before you take it upon yourself to teach others falseness.

 

[InTheFlame]

Genesis is where God starts with the 'wives shall do this and husbands shall do that'. If you have a problem with that pray about it and see what God leads you to... and let me know. I'm honestly interested in hearing about it.

I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm talking about the large chunks of the bible that I can disregard if I'm silly enough to decide that 'he' and 'him' are not inclusive pronouns. Let's have a look at some from the NT (since that's where the disputed verses are from):

Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
Matthew 5:23-24

So... if my sister has something against me, that shouldn't stop me? Note: most theologians make another assumption here - that 'brother' = 'brother in christ', even though it is not specifically stated.

so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to hisfaith. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach;
Romans 12:5-7

Ahhhh! So because I'm female, I don't have to worry about using my spiritual gifts?

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Romans 13:1

I don't need to follow my government's laws, either?

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
Romans 14:1-3

But I don't have to accept women who choose different eating habits than myself?

So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Romans 14:12

Phew! Another thing I don't have to do?

But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
1 Corinthians 5:11

Ahhh... but feel free to associate with immoral (etc) women, that's different?

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 1:8

Women false preachers aren't eternally condemned?

... etc. You can see how silly it gets if we start saying that the bible uses male language only for men, right? The culture of that time was reflected in the language... as it was in English culture not so many centuries ago. Just like the English many still use today, male pronouns and descriptors were frequently used to include both men and women.

 

[lin1235]

Ahhh... but feel free to associate with immoral (etc) women, that's different?

Actually I think that's just what Autumnleaf was saying - the OP's husband is free to associate with immoral women and his wife has to obey him regardless, because God obviously has a softer spot for men than for women and He doesn't care if one of His daughters suffer, only if one of His sons do...

Great post overall ITF, reps coming your way!