Question about Adultery

[Grishnak]

Jesus established new commandments to follow. He practiced what he preached and never ever EVER went back on his own words. He followed them to the letter, setting an example for all of his believers to follow.

This takes us to Matthew and Mark. Jesus set strict rules for divorce. Rules that you broke. He didn't give any leeway. He didn't say "Well, in the name of mercy I'll allow you to do this, this and this". No. He said you will NOT divorce your partner except for fornication. Period.

Somethins amiss here SK, sorry

You have admitted to Pauls concession about letting the unbeliever leave, yet Jesus Himself said ''except for fornication''.

If Jesus NEVER went back on his own words, then Paul is a liar and deciever as he has permitted the unbeliever to leave and says the beleiver is not bound in that case.

If Paul was who he said he was, then his words inspired by the God do indeed show that Jesus went back on something He said (EXCEPT for fornication) when Paul was directed to permit the believer to let the unbeleiver leave.


Now see, MY understanding says that Jesus WAS right when He said what He said.
He was dealing with Pharisees trying to trap Him in His words, and set them straight that they werent to toss out a wife for anything short of harlotry since they had been casting them out ''for any cause''.

Paul made his new concession based on MERCY.
He obviously was watching unbelieving spouses just up and walk out on thier NEWLY born again spouses, leaving them without a companion thru no fault of their own.

Like it or not chum, Pauls concession was made out of the one thing you dont seem to like...Mercy for the innocent believer.

 

[SirKenin]

No, Paul didn't lie. Don't you listen to a darn thing I say Grish? Are you so hell bent on proving you're the ultimate authority and saving your own hide that you miss three quarters of the post?

Paul was saying that you can not hold the unbeliever in your marriage accountable to Jesus' teachings on divorce. The reason for this is simple. To a non-believer, as we have seen in here all too often, Jesus' teachings are nothing but fantasies. They don't guide themselves according to Jesus' commandments, they live the way they darn well please. So what Paul was saying is "don't try to hold the unbeliever accountable to Jesus' commandments. If they're hell bent to leave, let them do so. Jesus didn't want you to fight about it or try and force them to believe in Jesus and his teachings. He wanted you to live in peace".

Paul wasn't adding to Jesus' teachings at all. He wasn't even contradicting Jesus' teachings. Not even close. He was admitting that the nonbeliever was not held accountable to Jesus' teachings, but would be held accountable when he stood before God on that final day.

The very nature of Paul's and Jesus' teachings do not lend provision to abuse, flirting, boozing, punching the walls, denying you kids, throwing pots and pans, smashing up the car, spilling their beer on the ground, being slobs, or any other nonsense. In all other cases you are required to make the marriage work or stay single. There are no other options given by any New Testament book. If you do otherwise you WILL be held accountable when you stand in front of God. How He will treat it I have no idea, but I stand firm in my beliefs because I have researched them thoroughly which should be rather obvious. Like I said, I use Strong's Concordance, Thayer's Lexicon, Stephen's Textus Receptus, Matthew Henry's, Ray Steadman's, Chuck Smith's and David Guzik's commentaries, Naves Dictionary, Torrey's Dictionary, Easton Dictionary, the NIV and KJV and numerous websites. Then I have my father to boot. I trust them long before I trust you.

 

[Grishnak]

Paul, in 1 Cor 7, went one step further. He first outlined what God revealed to him, and then he outlined his own opinions. His opinion was not about abuse. Not about flirting. Not about being out to late on Saturday nights. His opinion was in regards to non-believers. You can't hold a non-believer accountable to Jesus' teachings, so rather than fight over it and live in constant strife, it was Paul's opinion that you should just let the non-believer go as we are called to live in peace. This is the whole logic behind letting the non-believer go. Because you can not, no matter how hard you try, hold them accountable to Jesus' commandments, because to a non-believer Jesus' commandments are nothing but folly.

Holy Cow-Monkeys, I think Im gonna swallow my tongue here.

So Paul went a step FURTHER than Jesus had?
WOW !!

Paul shows that what? "You can't hold a non-believer accountable to Jesus' teachings"

YAY

We're finally getting somewhere

So Jesus only permitted ONE item for divorce, then Paul, realizing that, hey, you cant MAKE an unbelieving spouse behave themselves, so why should the BELIEVER have to pay for the UNbelievers behavior the rest of their lives

 

[Grishnak]

The very nature of Paul's and Jesus' teachings do not lend provision to abuse, flirting, boozing, punching the walls, denying you kids, throwing pots and pans, smashing up the car, spilling their bear on the ground, being slobs, or any other nonsense. In all other cases you are required to make the marriage work or stay single. There are no other options given by any New Testament book.

And there were no other options when Jesus said what He said, EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION!

And yet there is Paul, allowing for some mercy where Jesus had not.

I love that you tossed in the flirting one.

And I love how you seem to equate the beating of a wife (abuse) with "spilling their bear"

 

[babyangel]

Fornication does not include physical abuse

I never said fornication includes physical abuse. All I said was that coming from a person that was not a Christian and reading different versions of different bibles can be confusing. If it is fornication use the word fornication. In lay mans terms marital unfaithfulness could be misinterperted because of lack of biblical knowledge I was just making that point nothing more.

 

[Grishnak]

I trust them long before I trust you.

I trust a God who who had men sacrifice for centuries then turns around and says ''I desired mercy and not sacrifice" to a destitute and beaten wife over any man on earth

 

[Grishnak]

If they're hell bent to leave, let them do so. Jesus didn't want you to fight about it or try and force them to believe in Jesus and his teachings. He wanted you to live in peace".

And what kind of peace is the beaten and repeatedly raped christian wife living in?

 

[SirKenin]

To the advice itself, which is that if an unbelieving husband or wife were pleased to dwell with a Christian relative, the other should not separate. The husband should not put away an unbelieving wife, nor the wife leave an unbelieving husband, v. 12, 13. The Christian calling did not dissolve the marriage covenant, but bind it the faster, by bringing it back to the original institution, limiting it to two persons, and binding them together for life. The believer is not by faith in Christ loosed from matrimonial bonds to an unbeliever, but is at once bound and made apt to be a better relative. But, though a believing wife or husband should not separate from an unbelieving mate, yet if the unbelieving relative desert the believer, and no means can reconcile to a cohabitation, in such a case a brother or sister is not in bondage (v. 15), not tied up to the unreasonable humour, and bound servilely to follow or cleave to the malicious deserter, or not bound to live unmarried after all proper means for reconciliation have been tried, at least of the deserter contract another marriage or be guilty of adultery, which was a very easy supposition, because a very common instance among the heathen inhabitants of Corinth. In such a case the deserted person must be free to marry again, and it is granted on all hands. And some think that such a malicious desertion is as much a dissolution of the marriage-covenant as death itself. For how is it possible that the two shall be one flesh when the one is maliciously bent to part from or put away the other? Indeed, the deserter seems still bound by the matrimonial contract; and therefore the apostle says (v. 11), If the woman depart from her husband upon the account of his infidelity, let her remain unmarried. But the deserted party seems to be left more at liberty (I mean supposing all the proper means have been used to reclaim the deserter, and other circumstances make it necessary) to marry another person. It does not seem reasonable that they should be still bound, when it is rendered impossible to perform conjugal duties or enjoy conjugal comforts, through the mere fault of their mate: in such a case marriage would be a state of servitude indeed. But, whatever liberty be indulged Christians in such a case as this, they are not allowed, for the mere infidelity of a husband or wife, to separate; but, if the unbeliever be willing, they should continue in the relation, and cohabit as those who are thus related. This is the apostle’s general direction.

 

[SirKenin]

And what kind of peace is the beaten and repeatedly raped christian wife living in?

She can always leave and stay single because you can NOT show me a verse in the Bible that provides for her remarriage.

 

[seebs]

I also agree seebs, although God was not in my life when I chose to marry my husband, I took my vows seriously. I had no idea any views on marriage or divorce in the bible. I was a good wife according to the bible. I did make vows to him, AND I NEVER BROKE THEM, but my problem is that he has broken every vow to me, except being unfaithful sexually, I mean I can bring in his addiction to porn etc into play and that is a whole other area I do not care to discuss.

Oh, dear.

See, now we get into the meat of things.

I was about to reply, but it was nearly time for church, so I took this with me to consider during worship.

I think you have some fairly important questions, but you have not asked the most important question. To save trouble, I will answer it.

God loves you, and will always love you, no matter how you resolve this.

If you screw this up, if you make a hash of things... God will still love you, and your sins will be forgiven.
If what you end up doing was not the right choice... God will still love you, and your sins will be forgiven.
If what you are called to do is beyond your strength, and you fall short... God will still love you, and your sins will be forgiven.

You will get a lot of advice. We love to discuss marriage and its implications, and there's a handful of passages with teachings on it, which not all churches understand the same way. You will get a lot of advice, and some of it will be conflicting advice. You may be told that you are not married, that you are married, that your marriage is valid, that it is invalid, that it never happened... People will say a lot of things. Not all of them will be true, although we will all mean well.

You will be on trial here, which is unfair to you and unproductive in resolving your problems. You will be accused of not really trying to do God's will... Which is funny, given that you're here asking for help understanding God's will.

Once again: If out of the tangle of answers you get, the one you trust is not true, your sins are still forgiven. God will not turn His back on you over an honest misunderstanding.

Do not let the fear of getting this wrong paralyze you.

But he cant be sorry for what he has done because he keeps doing it and can not undertand why I am upset.

That sounds like a serious problem, and like he may not be taking your concerns seriously.

So that was the basis of one of my questions. Could I leave him and remarry before becoming a Christian would it make things more right for me? Or if I believe I am doing nothing wrong can I become a Christian now and then divorce him and then go on my soulmate journey?

You can do either of those things. I would ask whether you are sure reconcilliation is impossible. Is it possible that, while he does not currently understand, he could come to understand?

I assume he at least occasionally gave the impression of listening to you before you got married, or you wouldn't have married him. He can't be utterly without redeeming features.

Another likely question: Have you talked about counseling?

When we say our vows when we get married before others, where did they come from, there is nothing in the bible that says these are the vows that need to be said (nothing I have seen, so if you know of anything let me know Well if you want to say till death do us part, well he is dead to me for how he treated me.

"Well the license says you had to stick around
until I was dead
Well if you're tired of looking at my face
I guess I already am"

I am wrong because I don't submit to him and give him sex. Well sex is not just physcial sex is an intimate act of two people loving each other to the highest level. There are other ways of showing that love, and if those other ways are not met then the physical means nothing, the fact he still wanted sex with me, just shows physcial desire not love. I would feel like nothing more than a prostitute if I slept with him again because I dont respect trust or love him in that way for betraying me so badly.

It sounds to me like these are serious issues which would need some work to resolve, certainly. I think you should just tell him what you just told us.

"Right now, it feels like you don't respect me or care about me, you just want to get laid. I'd feel like an underpaid prostitute if I gave you meaningless sex to satisfy your urges when you're not even willing to listen to me or take the time to understand my feelings."

If he cares, he'll listen. If he can't accept that you have strong feelings, you will need external counseling to recover the marriage; if that's not an option, you're in a pretty bad place.

But remember: God still loves you, and will love you no matter what you do. It's okay. Things will work out somehow, and you will survive. Do not let people judge you or tell you otherwise.

 

[babyangel]

I'm really sorry everyone. I said I wouldn't, but I just can't resist. Bear with me or throw stones at me, whichever you like.

Grishnak. Jesus did not say the Law was evil. He said that he fulfilled the Law. The Law was meant to show the Jews that they were sinners and could not achieve salvation of their own accord. Jesus fulfilled that Law by dying on the cross and rising again to give the Jews a way to salvation, simply believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and they would be saved.

Jesus did show on numerous occasions that the old Law was not the be all end all by breaking it himself on many occasions. Like you said, he favored mercy in the place of strict adherence to Deuteronomic Law, tryranically enforced by his opposition, the Scribes and Pharisees. It was all about removing their power, something the Scribes and Pharisees knew and hated.

Jesus said on numerous occasions, you have heard it said that...but I tell you that... Saying the old Law is applicable no more. You are to follow my commandments now. However, Jesus never ever double talked. He never broke his own commandments and he never made a hypocrite of himself. Why you ask? Well thanks for asking. Jesus was setting an example for all of us to follow. We are to follow his teachings and Jesus taught VERY clearly on the subject of divorce.

Paul, in 1 Cor 7, went one step further. He first outlined what God revealed to him, and then he outlined his own opinions. His opinion was not about abuse. Not about flirting. Not about being out too late on Saturday nights. His opinion was in regards to non-believers. You can't hold a non-believer accountable to Jesus' teachings, so rather than fight over it and live in constant strife, it was Paul's opinion that you should just let the non-believer go as we are called to live in peace. This is the whole logic behind letting the non-believer go. Because you can not, no matter how hard you try, hold them accountable to Jesus' commandments, because to a non-believer Jesus' commandments are nothing but folly.

It has NOTHING to do with either abuse, flirting, never coming home, drinking too much beer or any of the other lies you are presenting here Grish. You are misleading people, whether purposely or otherwise, filling their heads full of lies and/or misunderstandings.

See, I've studied an AWFUL LOT more than I originally let on and you pathetically accused me of.

You are losing me, are you infact saying that if the unbeliever leaves the other spouse is free to marry. You did say that in a previous post, could you please reply to that direct question. Can you also tell me what makes a person an unbeliever, doesnt abusing someone and using drugs and being a bad person make a person and unbeliever, or worse then, what good is repenting when you keep doing it in his case. Please respond directly with a direct statement dont jump around my direct question.

 

[SirKenin]

I trust a God who who had men sacrifice for centuries then turns around and says ''I desired mercy and not sacrifice" to a destitute and beaten wife over any man on earth

Yeah, that would be fine if you didn't take it out of context and actually applied it in the context within it was meant to be applied.

 

[SirKenin]

d. However, if the unbelieving spouse refuses to be married, then the marriage can be broken; but isn't to be initiated or sought by the believer

i. With faith and patience, they can look for God to work in their present circumstances, difficult as they may be

e. If the unbelieving spouse should depart, the Christian is not under bondage to the marriage; meaning they are in fact free to remarry

David Guzik

 

[Grishnak]

See, I've studied an AWFUL LOT more than I originally let on and you pathetically accused me of.

For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, not loving what is good, traitors, headstrong, having been puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power.
And from these people turn away! For of these are those who creep into houses and captivate gullible women having been loaded down with sins, who are led by various lusts,

always learning and never being able to come to a full knowledge of the truth.
(2 Timothy 3:2-7 EMTV)

...

 

[Grishnak]

Yeah, that would be fine if you didn't take it out of context and actually applied it in the context within it was meant to be applied.

Context.

Jesus defending His disciples and David for breaking the law when they were hungry.

You say its not relevant, but David was under the Law and Jesus' did not tell those pharisee ''that was ancient history''...He defending their actions showing their need.

 

[SirKenin]

You are losing me, are you infact saying that if the unbeliever leaves the other spouse is free to marry. You did say that in a previous post, could you please reply to that direct question. Can you also tell me what makes a person an unbeliever, doesnt abusing someone and using drugs and being a bad person make a person and unbeliever, or worse then, what good is repenting when you keep doing it in his case. Please respond directly with a direct statement dont jump around my direct question.

You have no right to judge whether or not someone is a believer by their sins. Man knows the outside, but only God knows the heart. I can't know that. You can't know that. Nobody can know that but God, so really your question is impertinent and not worth spending any more time on.

 

[Grishnak]

To the advice itself, which is that if an unbelieving husband or wife were pleased to dwell with a Christian relative, the other should not separate. The husband should not put away an unbelieving wife, nor the wife leave an unbelieving husband, v. 12, 13. The Christian calling did not dissolve the marriage covenant, but bind it the faster, by bringing it back to the original institution, limiting it to two persons, and binding them together for life. The believer is not by faith in Christ loosed from matrimonial bonds to an unbeliever, but is at once bound and made apt to be a better relative. But, though a believing wife or husband should not separate from an unbelieving mate, yet if the unbelieving relative desert the believer, and no means can reconcile to a cohabitation, in such a case a brother or sister is not in bondage (v. 15), not tied up to the unreasonable humour, and bound servilely to follow or cleave to the malicious deserter, or not bound to live unmarried after all proper means for reconciliation have been tried, at least of the deserter contract another marriage or be guilty of adultery, which was a very easy supposition, because a very common instance among the heathen inhabitants of Corinth. In such a case the deserted person must be free to marry again, and it is granted on all hands. And some think that such a malicious desertion is as much a dissolution of the marriage-covenant as death itself. For how is it possible that the two shall be one flesh when the one is maliciously bent to part from or put away the other? Indeed, the deserter seems still bound by the matrimonial contract; and therefore the apostle says (v. 11), If the woman depart from her husband upon the account of his infidelity, let her remain unmarried. But the deserted party seems to be left more at liberty (I mean supposing all the proper means have been used to reclaim the deserter, and other circumstances make it necessary) to marry another person. It does not seem reasonable that they should be still bound, when it is rendered impossible to perform conjugal duties or enjoy conjugal comforts, through the mere fault of their mate: in such a case marriage would be a state of servitude indeed. But, whatever liberty be indulged Christians in such a case as this, they are not allowed, for the mere infidelity of a husband or wife, to separate; but, if the unbeliever be willing, they should continue in the relation, and cohabit as those who are thus related. This is the apostle’s general direction.

Is plagiarism a sin

 

[babyangel]

Oh, dear.

See, now we get into the meat of things.

I was about to reply, but it was nearly time for church, so I took this with me to consider during worship.

I think you have some fairly important questions, but you have not asked the most important question. To save trouble, I will answer it.

God loves you, and will always love you, no matter how you resolve this.

If you screw this up, if you make a hash of things... God will still love you, and your sins will be forgiven.
If what you end up doing was not the right choice... God will still love you, and your sins will be forgiven.
If what you are called to do is beyond your strength, and you fall short... God will still love you, and your sins will be forgiven.

You will get a lot of advice. We love to discuss marriage and its implications, and there's a handful of passages with teachings on it, which not all churches understand the same way. You will get a lot of advice, and some of it will be conflicting advice. You may be told that you are not married, that you are married, that your marriage is valid, that it is invalid, that it never happened... People will say a lot of things. Not all of them will be true, although we will all mean well.

You will be on trial here, which is unfair to you and unproductive in resolving your problems. You will be accused of not really trying to do God's will... Which is funny, given that you're here asking for help understanding God's will.

Once again: If out of the tangle of answers you get, the one you trust is not true, your sins are still forgiven. God will not turn His back on you over an honest misunderstanding.

Do not let the fear of getting this wrong paralyze you.



That sounds like a serious problem, and like he may not be taking your concerns seriously.



You can do either of those things. I would ask whether you are sure reconcilliation is impossible. Is it possible that, while he does not currently understand, he could come to understand?

I assume he at least occasionally gave the impression of listening to you before you got married, or you wouldn't have married him. He can't be utterly without redeeming features.

Another likely question: Have you talked about counseling?



"Well the license says you had to stick around
until I was dead
Well if you're tired of looking at my face
I guess I already am"



It sounds to me like these are serious issues which would need some work to resolve, certainly. I think you should just tell him what you just told us.

"Right now, it feels like you don't respect me or care about me, you just want to get laid. I'd feel like an underpaid prostitute if I gave you meaningless sex to satisfy your urges when you're not even willing to listen to me or take the time to understand my feelings."

If he cares, he'll listen. If he can't accept that you have strong feelings, you will need external counseling to recover the marriage; if that's not an option, you're in a pretty bad place.

But remember: God still loves you, and will love you no matter what you do. It's okay. Things will work out somehow, and you will survive. Do not let people judge you or tell you otherwise.

Trust me I have told him everything under the sun. And talked and talked and talked. He said he would not go to counceling and I have the problems, I need sex counceling (as stated earlier I cant have sex with someone I can not trust or respect for obvious reasons, sex was good before) I need to just get over it. Just like when I was depressed with postpartum depression and asked for help (ie stay home and keep me company) he was always out. His reponse was get over it or I will leave you. Also he has said if you go through bad menopause I will leave you. Were is the love and support and encouragement I need. I dont know how menoupause will hit me, but what if I need help and he just leaves me at that point or abuses me even more because I may have verbal outbursts. I cant trust this person. I am scared if I was paralized he would rape me against my will. I do not want to live life in fear. I also wanted to say we dated 6 years before marriage and we never fought, nothing to fight about. Then when we married I had to keep silent no opinion at all. I took it for 10 years and finally 5 years ago could not take anymore. Things were so so for 5years that is where I did my talking saying I am not happy get counceling, etc. He didnt take it seriously and kept going. Things just got worse and finally last year I asked him to leave. I thought it would be a wake up call yet he doesnt change. How long do I need to wait? Especially since he says he wants to divorce me.

 

[Grishnak]

She can always leave and stay single because you can NOT show me a verse in the Bible that provides for her remarriage.

Sure I can.
She is divorced, unmarried, loosed from a spouse.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(1 Corinthians 7:8-9 KJV)

Whats funny, and Ive let this one slide, is you say Paul said ''let the unbeliever leave" and then pretend he said its ok to remarry after when actaully, he gives no such advice

So how do you conclude that one can remarry if the unbeliever leaves?

 

[SirKenin]

Context.

Jesus defending His disciples and David for breaking the law when they were hungry.

You say its not relevant, but David was under the Law and Jesus' did not tell those pharisee ''that was ancient history''...He defending their actions showing their need.

He NEVER used that example to show that it was ok to break HIS commandments, so your argument is invalid.

Jesus also broke Deuteronomic Law, so he was not being hypocritical. The concept of mercy was directed at the Scribes and Pharisees.

Jesus never broke his commandments, so he was not being hypocritical.

Mercy was not a provision to use as an excuse to break Jesus' commandments at will. If that's the case why did Jesus waste his time giving them to us to begin with? Why did he follow them to the letter? Because you are expected to as well. He was setting an example that you are expected to follow. You will be judged on that final day based upon your adherence. God is not going to be sitting there going "Oh, you broke this law, this law and this law on purpose, in defiance of Jesus? Hmm. Well this is your lucky day. I've decided to let that slide today". Isn't going to happen. You will be judged according to your deeds and misdeeds here on earth, abuse of the concept of mercy or not.

In fact, Paul was saying nonbelievers can't be held accountable for breaking the commandments, because they don't believe in them to begin with. If you even bothered reading the first commentary that I posted (from Matthew Henry) you would realize that Paul is saying just let the rebel go, but the believer is not allowed to initiate the divorce.

It's about time your started doing a little more reading and a little less condescending and pretending to know everything. Time to forget about trying to work your way around the truth by abusing the concept of mercy. We are told by Paul not to test God's grace, and that is exactly what you are advocating.