• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Barreness and Jealousy

Sorry, it makes little sense to me, I can't grasp the idea that envy is bad because you should be satisfied with what you are given, where then is the motivation to aspire for more? That mindset kept people stuck in a social structured class system of which they were not allowed to move from, precisely because of this idea. It certainly seems to go against a meritocratic system in which people will not just accept what they have and settle, they aspire for more.

Sorry you lost me there, but good luck to you.

Bels
 
If I may point out a few things that a male mind might not see right away regarding my original post....

1. The first wife DOES NOT want ANY child other than the current adopted one.

2. The first wife WILL NOT ACCEPT that having a sw could result in her man having a child.

3. The first wife INSISTS the current child is the ONLY child they are supposed to have.

4. This fear causes her to be phyisically ill.

So in other words.... a sw would only be welcome by this woman only if it could be proved there would be no children as a result of a union with the man.

Therein lies the rub.
 
blugrniz4u said:
Therein lies the rub.

I really do not think this is a suitable family for Polygamy. End of.

Unless the wife let's go of that need to control through emotion (and this is the problem with jealousy as far as I am concerned, it is the emotional blackmail involved) she will make herself unhappy, her husband unhappy and any other women they consider in their lives unhappy. Her jealousy may be focused on the children, because it is obvious to her, but the likelihood would be that even if that issue was sorted out (say her potential sisterwife was a career woman and did not want children) since she hasn't confronted that need to control before her arrival, she will seek to impose her will (unreasonably) over any other aspect of sw's marriage that she sees fit.

There is no way this woman should ever seek Poly and if her husband wants it, knowing his wife's current problem, he is very foolish and making a rod for his own back!

B
 
bels,
i agree with cindy,
you said it so much better than i did, but that is what i meant :D
 
You said this was third hand information?

How do you know for sure that this is how the fw ACTUALLY feels?

I understand that there are all typed of situations as I am the on this conversation was most likely about, I feel that I will speak my piece.

and let me clarify first and foremost that we will NOT be pursuing a plural marriage as we were burned quite badly by someone on this board.

We did inform her after she was here that we don't want anymore children. Yes we told her in a way as to take most of them blame and trying to be less hurtful that I was the one who didn't want more children. It has a lot more to do with discoveries that were made in the course of her time here with us than on me/us actually not wanting to see my husband have children with another woman.

It was HER specifically not in general. Mental illness can be inherent in the DNA and he and I both felt we didn't want to be tied to someone who was being dishonest with us from the beginning. There were several reasons we chose to ask her to leave we just felt to keep the drama down we would leave it at I didn't want to have more children.

If you have any questions you can PM me.
 
Isabella said:
I really do not think this is a suitable family for Polygamy.

I totally agree with what you said Isabella!

blugrniz4u said:
a sw would only be welcome by this woman only if it could be proved there would be no children as a result of a union with the man.

This bugs me the most. Why should this wife have so much say as to what happens between her husband and his other wife? It sounds like she is micromanaging her husband's other marriage. That is NOT her place! And just as Isabella said, a man who goes along with that is just plain foolish and making a rod for his own back!

Nikismom said:
I understand that there are all typed of situations as I am the on this conversation was most likely about

This is about you? I didn't see your name mentioned. I bet, if you hadn't pointed it out, most people wouldn't have even given it two thoughts. You could have just given your thoughts, your point of view and nobody would be the wiser.

Nikismom said:
It was HER specifically not in general. Mental illness can be inherent in the DNA and he and I both felt we didn't want to be tied to someone who was being dishonest with us from the beginning. There were several reasons we chose to ask her to leave we just felt to keep the drama down we would leave it at I didn't want to have more children.

DNA or not, I find it just heart-wrenching that you would end a marriage using children and the option of having them as an excuse. Marriage is not something to just toss away because one of the partners has some issues. If the dishonesty was the problem then you should have been straight forward about it.

If mental illness was the problem, the right thing to do would have been to get her professional help.

I'm very passionate about Christians staying far far away from divorce. I feel that there is no place for it in a Christian's life. We should be always forgiving, always willing to work things out, always loving. If physical abuse is an issue, separation is obvious, but there should always be hope for healing, hope for forgiving, and hope for reunion. After all, isn't that what God does with us? We may screw up and sin, but He always takes us back and forgives us. Should we think ourselves better than He and deny that to those who we've vowed to be with until death do we part?

As to the original topic, I'm not sure who said it, but I totally agree with the comment about praying for all those involved if you find yourself in contact with a family struggling with jealousy. God is the one who can heal that problem the best!

WomanSeekingGod
 
Good Post WSG!

I think with the additional information known, this seems (yet again) as another example of people rushing relationships and marrying a complete stranger and then regretting it. Marriage is not a game, there seems to be a bit of a culture of 'racing to Polygamy' completing with all other couples to earn the trophy of a sisterwife (I am generalising, please no one be offended) and they are too quick to get married with hardly any courtship at all. It is madness.

In reference to being lied to, shall I tell the game of woe of a single woman who has been lied to from 70% of all suitors? Whether they are silly lies told to look more me friendly 'Yeah, I LOVE Indian food.....' lies hiding character flaws, lies hiding illnesses 'I am only a social drinker' .

That is why we date people!!!! You date and court to get to know someone, to be able to see the lies from the truth, trust me, it does not take long, people can't hide their true selves for long and yet.....we seem to have a wealth of people coming on here saying 'She did this, she did that'. Why? Because they rushed.

B
 
WomanSeekingGod said:
I'm very passionate about Christians staying far far away from divorce. I feel that there is no place for it in a Christian's life. We should be always forgiving, always willing to work things out, always loving. If physical abuse is an issue, separation is obvious, but there should always be hope for healing, hope for forgiving, and hope for reunion. After all, isn't that what God does with us? We may screw up and sin, but He always takes us back and forgives us. Should we think ourselves better than He and deny that to those who we've vowed to be with until death do we part?
I too loved your post, thank you! However, I do wish to add a point of clarification. In particular, I agree and am also very passionate about avoiding divorce in situations where it is inappropriate, though I do not agree that there is no place for it in a Christian's life.

Indeed, under some circumstances it seems necessary for a man to divorce in order to remain obedient to God. To illustrate from your paragraph above, we should indeed be forgiving, loving, and willing to work things out always. However, it takes willingness on the part of both. A hardened heart (i.e. obstinate unrepentance, perpetual rebellion) on the part of one or the other does not permit reconciliation. To keep with your example, God does not forgive all people their sins, but rather those who receive him (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1:12-13&version=ESV); the rest remain under the condemnation and judgement pronounced in His word.

Thus, marital infidelity is certainly cause for divorce. Also noteworthy, when I use this term I do not refer exclusively to marital infidelity of a sexual nature (as most English translations seem to incorrectly render Jesus' teaching on this matter), but rather to general infidelity. More specifically, obstinate refusal of a wife to submit to her husband.

I mention this because I've lived it personally. In the case of my first marriage, I attempted to wrest control of it and exercise authority over it once my Lord called me and I came to understand my responsibility in this matter. I had been a very poor head previously and had failed miserably to lead in a number of areas that desperately needed to change; preferring rather to 'keep the peace' through avoidance, which is simply an excuse for failing to lead that permits a man to argue that he leads his family when he actually does not.

However, four and a half years later my ex had not yet shown any desire whatsoever to follow me or to even permit me to participate in fellowship with other Christians without it being a continual battle between us. I told her more than a year before I left that this needed to change or I would leave. She chose not to change. I left. I'm absolutely certain that, though God hates divorce and so should we, He prefers that at least one of two be saved instead of both entering hell as a whole.
 
WomanSeekingGod said:
Isabella said:
I really do not think this is a suitable family for Polygamy.

I totally agree with what you said Isabella!

blugrniz4u said:
a sw would only be welcome by this woman only if it could be proved there would be no children as a result of a union with the man.

This bugs me the most. Why should this wife have so much say as to what happens between her husband and his other wife? It sounds like she is micromanaging her husband's other marriage. That is NOT her place! And just as Isabella said, a man who goes along with that is just plain foolish and making a rod for his own back!

Nikismom said:
I understand that there are all typed of situations as I am the on this conversation was most likely about

This is about you? I didn't see your name mentioned. I bet, if you hadn't pointed it out, most people wouldn't have even given it two thoughts. You could have just given your thoughts, your point of view and nobody would be the wiser.

Nikismom said:
It was HER specifically not in general. Mental illness can be inherent in the DNA and he and I both felt we didn't want to be tied to someone who was being dishonest with us from the beginning. There were several reasons we chose to ask her to leave we just felt to keep the drama down we would leave it at I didn't want to have more children.

DNA or not, I find it just heart-wrenching that you would end a marriage using children and the option of having them as an excuse. Marriage is not something to just toss away because one of the partners has some issues. If the dishonesty was the problem then you should have been straight forward about it.

If mental illness was the problem, the right thing to do would have been to get her professional help.

I'm very passionate about Christians staying far far away from divorce. I feel that there is no place for it in a Christian's life. We should be always forgiving, always willing to work things out, always loving. If physical abuse is an issue, separation is obvious, but there should always be hope for healing, hope for forgiving, and hope for reunion. After all, isn't that what God does with us? We may screw up and sin, but He always takes us back and forgives us. Should we think ourselves better than He and deny that to those who we've vowed to be with until death do we part?

As to the original topic, I'm not sure who said it, but I totally agree with the comment about praying for all those involved if you find yourself in contact with a family struggling with jealousy. God is the one who can heal that problem the best!

WomanSeekingGod

And WSG knocked it out of the park once again!!!!! :D
 
This is off the original topic, but I feel the need to respond anyway.

Oreslag said:
Indeed, under some circumstances it seems necessary for a man to divorce in order to remain obedient to God.

How do you remain obedient to God if you are being disobedient by divorcing your spouse? God never calls anyone to divorce their husband or wife in order to be obedient to Him.

"And the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him and saying to Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female",and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh? Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.'" Matthew 19:3-6

"But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery." Matthew 5:32

"And to the married I command (not I, but the Lord), a woman not to be separated from her husband." 1 Corinthians 7:10

"If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is pleased to dwell with him, do not let him put her away.
And the woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is pleased to dwell with her, do not let her leave him." 1 Corinthians 7:12-13

WomanSeekingGod
 
blugrniz4u said:
If I may point out a few things that a male mind might not see right away regarding my original post....

1. The first wife DOES NOT want ANY child other than the current adopted one.

2. The first wife WILL NOT ACCEPT that having a sw could result in her man having a child.

3. The first wife INSISTS the current child is the ONLY child they are supposed to have.

4. This fear causes her to be phyisically ill.

So in other words.... a sw would only be welcome by this woman only if it could be proved there would be no children as a result of a union with the man.

Therein lies the rub.

Then the first wife is bound in wicked selfishness. There is no way to excuse such thoughts and actions on her part. To allow her opinions or actions to influence the husband or second wife at this point would be to cater to her wickedness. If she had a legitimate concern, that would be an entirely different point.

I'm appalled that believers don't automatically see the evil in her thoughts and actions.

One of the central purposes of marriage is procreation. God DESIGNED marriage for that purpose, along with the relationship.

God also allows for polygamy. It is a good thing, and a blessing, if God leads one into it, then there should be no petty objections made out of selfishness and envy.

The wicked first wife is also asking the husband never to have what he COULD have--a child from his own body--because God did not allow HER to have a child. That is also wickedness, and is hateful to boot.

I can't believe the nastiness of such a human being, to act in such a selfish and evil manner over the potential happiness of her husband and sisterwife. May God visit any such women with the punishment they so richly deserve.

The physical symptom of sickness doesn't justify her evil actions. Wicked King Ahab felt sick when he couldn't have what he wanted in his evil selfishness too. God's response in the end was to destroy him and his descendants.

No Godly man would put up with such wickedness from his wife, and no Godly wife would act in such way.

What should such a man do? Marry anyway? I don't know. In our society it is tough. I do not advocate divorce, because God hates divorce. Divorce was allowed because of the wickedness of men's hard hearts, not because it was God's desire that a man EVER divorce his wife.

I think my response would be to go ahead with the marriage to the second wife, because of the first wife's wickedness, and if the first wife wants to separate, then so be it. I would never ever seek a divorce. Divorce is not an option for those who are in Christ, unless their unbelieving spouse makes that choice.


John for Christ
 
Nikismom said:
You said this was third hand information?

How do you know for sure that this is how the fw ACTUALLY feels?

I understand that there are all typed of situations as I am the on this conversation was most likely about, I feel that I will speak my piece.

and let me clarify first and foremost that we will NOT be pursuing a plural marriage as we were burned quite badly by someone on this board.

We did inform her after she was here that we don't want anymore children. Yes we told her in a way as to take most of them blame and trying to be less hurtful that I was the one who didn't want more children. It has a lot more to do with discoveries that were made in the course of her time here with us than on me/us actually not wanting to see my husband have children with another woman.

It was HER specifically not in general. Mental illness can be inherent in the DNA and he and I both felt we didn't want to be tied to someone who was being dishonest with us from the beginning. There were several reasons we chose to ask her to leave we just felt to keep the drama down we would leave it at I didn't want to have more children.

If you have any questions you can PM me.

I didn't see anyone naming you, whoever you are. Why would you reveal yourself unless you feel guilty? If you aren't guilty, then why say anything?

I was under the impression that this was theoretical. I didn't realize this had to do with anyone in particular.

So let me get this straight... What you are telling us is that you LIED and/or exaggerated and deceived, because you had other reasons than what you told her, and because she was dishonest from the beginning? How exactly does that make it better? She was dishonest so you were liars??? You might want to consider your actions carefully before God. They don't make you sound so good.


John for Christ
 
Oreslag said:
I too loved your post, thank you! However, I do wish to add a point of clarification. In particular, I agree and am also very passionate about avoiding divorce in situations where it is inappropriate, though I do not agree that there is no place for it in a Christian's life.

Indeed, under some circumstances it seems necessary for a man to divorce in order to remain obedient to God. To illustrate from your paragraph above, we should indeed be forgiving, loving, and willing to work things out always. However, it takes willingness on the part of both. A hardened heart (i.e. obstinate unrepentance, perpetual rebellion) on the part of one or the other does not permit reconciliation. To keep with your example, God does not forgive all people their sins, but rather those who receive him (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1:12-13&version=ESV); the rest remain under the condemnation and judgement pronounced in His word.

Not according to Scripture. We are told in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 that believers are not to divorce believers. Period. No excuse for adultery or fornication--nor even for hardened hearts. God tells us that what He has joined together let no man separate--and the implication is that ALL marriages are joined by Him.

(Incidentally, when Jesus mentioned that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, it wasn't because there was no possibility of reconciliation. It was because they were wicked, and God would not force a wife to live with a wicked, hardened man. It was because of the hardness of THEIR hearts, not their wives' hearts, if you carefully read what Jesus said.)

Oreslag said:
Thus, marital infidelity is certainly cause for divorce. Also noteworthy, when I use this term I do not refer exclusively to marital infidelity of a sexual nature (as most English translations seem to incorrectly render Jesus' teaching on this matter), but rather to general infidelity. More specifically, obstinate refusal of a wife to submit to her husband.

Marital infidelity is NOT a cause for divorce between believers who are commanded to have the love of Christ. We CANNOT divorce our wives if we have God's love and forgiveness, because there is no case where reconciliation is not possible. Men are COMMANDED by God not to divorce their wives in 1 Corithians 7:11. If reconciliation doesn't seem possible, God still doesn't allow a man to divorce his wife.

Wives are allowed to leave, but they are COMMANDED to remain unmarried or return to their husbands.

These are COMMANDS from God, according to Paul. They aren't suggestions and they don't counter the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus spoke to those under the Law, in terms of the Law. We are not under the Law. The terms of the Law do not apply to believers. Love applies to us.

While those under the Law could "get away" with wicked hard hearts, we cannot--not and remain in Christ. Jesus wasn't about to contradict the Law. The Law was not based upon the Spirit but upon the letter. Those under the Law only had to obey the letter. They didn't have to love as we do, with the eternal Law of God written on our hearts.

I don't know where you get the idea that Jesus is speaking of "general infidelity" rather than "sexual infidelity". The term "infidelity" is never used. Jesus allowed for the single exception in the Law--uncleanness. He defined it as "fornication". Fornication is the word "porneia" and ONLY applies to a sexual sin. It isn't a "general" sin at all. I'm curious who filled your head with such things?

Oreslag said:
I mention this because I've lived it personally. In the case of my first marriage, I attempted to wrest control of it and exercise authority over it once my Lord called me and I came to understand my responsibility in this matter. I had been a very poor head previously and had failed miserably to lead in a number of areas that desperately needed to change; preferring rather to 'keep the peace' through avoidance, which is simply an excuse for failing to lead that permits a man to argue that he leads his family when he actually does not.

However, four and a half years later my ex had not yet shown any desire whatsoever to follow me or to even permit me to participate in fellowship with other Christians without it being a continual battle between us. I told her more than a year before I left that this needed to change or I would leave. She chose not to change. I left. I'm absolutely certain that, though God hates divorce and so should we, He prefers that at least one of two be saved instead of both entering hell as a whole.

Oreslag, you give a classic case of someone straining to justify their own actions. I'm sorry, but you were flat-out wrong in your decision to divorce. You disobeyed the clear command of God on this issue.

Rather than mix up the words of Scripture in an attempt to justify your own sin on this point, you should rather repent and go on. There's little you can do about it now, but teaching others that there is an excuse for divorce for believers is not the right choice at all.

"For what do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? Or what do you know, O man, whether you shall save your wife?" (1 Corinthians 7:16)

Completely contrary to the last thing you stated, God calls us to stay with someone that is a problem IN HOPES THAT WE WILL LEAD THEM TO HIM. To presume that you will lose your salvation over another person would demonstrate the weakness of your position, not the strength we have in Christ. We should be there to lead them the right way "O man".

I would have said nothing, but if this false teaching is allowed, it's going to lead others astray. Better that every man be a liar and God be proved true. I'm sure you are a great guy and a nice person. Your other posts seem fine. But this is flat-out wrong, brother.


John for Christ
 
WomanSeekingGod said:
This is off the original topic, but I feel the need to respond anyway.

Oreslag said:
Indeed, under some circumstances it seems necessary for a man to divorce in order to remain obedient to God.

How do you remain obedient to God if you are being disobedient by divorcing your spouse? God never calls anyone to divorce their husband or wife in order to be obedient to Him.
This is not true. Read Chapters 9 and 10 of Ezra to see a case of obediently putting away wives: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra 9-10&version=ESV. As I argued previously and continue to argue now, obstinate unrepentance (unfaithfulness) on the part of the wife toward her husband is indeed a cause for divorce, as stated by Jesus. Please understand that I fully believe that God hates divorce and that forgiveness is always preferable. However, repentance is necessary and forgiveness follows.

Oreslag said:
"And the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him and saying to Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female",and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh? Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.'" Matthew 19:3-6
Considering the context, the Pharisees question came up because the Jews in this time were struggling with the Roman tradition of serial monogamy through divorce. In the Roman custom, men would divorce one wife to marry another; often times as a way to move up the social ladder or to obtain a legitimate child (heir) when their own wife was barren. Such pairings often included monetary or other business favors as part of the 'transaction' as well. Thus, the question the Pharisees were posing to Jesus was (at the time) a contemporary controversy and they were 'testing' Jesus by asking Him something that they themselves could not agree upon; perhaps expecting that He would necessarily fall into the trap of the debate. Read farther into the same exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees and you will see: "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery"; which reveals the proper context to consider. Jesus is clearly teaching about the wickedness of divorcing a wife for a reason other than unfaithfulness, then marrying another, as the Roman custom of the time and place they lived dictated. Jesus is answering the question posed, so we have to consider the proper context (biblical and historical) to fully understand what He means.

Also noteworthy, and as I also related in my previous post, the word translated as 'sexual immorality' often does not mean this, but rather unfaithfulness generally. Particularly, the word used is porneia (Septuagint) and is also used by God to describe the unfaithfulness of the Israelites toward Him in the wilderness (Numbers 14:33), as well as in a multitude of other places in the old testament from that point on. This usage continues into the new testament as well. Thus, this same word is used in a great variety of places within the biblical text and one must look at the context to see if the text is referring to sexual unfaithfulness specifically or not. Indeed, though I did not tally the instances of differing usage, a quick review revealed that it seems far more often used generally rather than specifically for sexual situations.

Oreslag said:
"But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery." Matthew 5:32
Once again, 'fornication' is the key word here. What does the law proscribe for a wife that is sexually unfaithful? Sexual unfaithfulness of a wife is adultery. Thus the law proscribes death for both the adulterer and the adulteress, not divorce. It is a stretch to think this passage refers specifically to sexual unfaithfulness alone when the word translated fornication is used much more often to describe unfaithfulness generally.

Oreslag said:
"And to the married I command (not I, but the Lord), a woman not to be separated from her husband." 1 Corinthians 7:10

"If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is pleased to dwell with him, do not let him put her away.
And the woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is pleased to dwell with her, do not let her leave him." 1 Corinthians 7:12-13

WomanSeekingGod
And the last two verses need be considered together with the addition of Verse 15 as well: "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." God has indeed called us to peace! What is meant by separation? The word means alternatively to sever, to separate, to part, or to divide. Now consider Verses 12 and 13 translated directly from the Septuagint: "And to the rest I say, not the Lord; 'if any brother woman has an unbelieving, and she assents to live with him, he is not to leave her.'" Note that the Greek word rendered 'pleased' in your translation is rendered 'assents' in my interlinear Septuagint. The associated lexical concordance specifies the meaning as "To be of the same opinion; or thinking, to assent with; or to approve of."

In consideration of the full witness of scripture, particularly that the husband is the head of the wife and God the head of the husband, I would argue that a proper exegesis of this section does not in any way imply that a previously disobedient husband who repents of his rebellion against God and chooses from that day forward to follow his Master is bound to a wife who continues not only in rebellion against God, but who similarly divides herself from her husband through failing to assent to his headship. She is not 'pleased' to dwell with him if she does not 'assent' to do so under his authority. Indeed, she would be 'displeased' to dwell with him and would 'not assent' to do so under his authority.

Regarding what the Lord thinks of the potential for a foreign wife to lead her husband astray and what the husband should do about it, refer to my argument from Ezra above and consider the remaining scriptures that speak to taking foreign wives and the resulting potential for idolatry.
 
John_for_Christ said:
Oreslag said:
I too loved your post, thank you! However, I do wish to add a point of clarification. In particular, I agree and am also very passionate about avoiding divorce in situations where it is inappropriate, though I do not agree that there is no place for it in a Christian's life.

Indeed, under some circumstances it seems necessary for a man to divorce in order to remain obedient to God. To illustrate from your paragraph above, we should indeed be forgiving, loving, and willing to work things out always. However, it takes willingness on the part of both. A hardened heart (i.e. obstinate unrepentance, perpetual rebellion) on the part of one or the other does not permit reconciliation. To keep with your example, God does not forgive all people their sins, but rather those who receive him (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1:12-13&version=ESV); the rest remain under the condemnation and judgement pronounced in His word.

Not according to Scripture. We are told in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 that believers are not to divorce believers. Period. No excuse for adultery or fornication--nor even for hardened hearts. God tells us that what He has joined together let no man separate--and the implication is that ALL marriages are joined by Him.

(Incidentally, when Jesus mentioned that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, it wasn't because there was no possibility of reconciliation. It was because they were wicked, and God would not force a wife to live with a wicked, hardened man. It was because of the hardness of THEIR hearts, not their wives' hearts, if you carefully read what Jesus said.)
My post had nothing to do with a believer/believer relationship. My previous post, and marriage, was between two unbelievers when it started. Our Lord called me much later, and my ex did not agree to stay with me under my new condition; but rather only if I would serve her instead of God. Thus, she was an unbeliever. Sorry if this caused confusion.

John_for_Christ said:
Oreslag said:
Thus, marital infidelity is certainly cause for divorce. Also noteworthy, when I use this term I do not refer exclusively to marital infidelity of a sexual nature (as most English translations seem to incorrectly render Jesus' teaching on this matter), but rather to general infidelity. More specifically, obstinate refusal of a wife to submit to her husband.

Marital infidelity is NOT a cause for divorce between believers who are commanded to have the love of Christ. We CANNOT divorce our wives if we have God's love and forgiveness, because there is no case where reconciliation is not possible. Men are COMMANDED by God not to divorce their wives in 1 Corithians 7:11. If reconciliation doesn't seem possible, God still doesn't allow a man to divorce his wife.

Wives are allowed to leave, but they are COMMANDED to remain unmarried or return to their husbands.

These are COMMANDS from God, according to Paul. They aren't suggestions and they don't counter the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus spoke to those under the Law, in terms of the Law. We are not under the Law. The terms of the Law do not apply to believers. Love applies to us.

While those under the Law could "get away" with wicked hard hearts, we cannot--not and remain in Christ. Jesus wasn't about to contradict the Law. The Law was not based upon the Spirit but upon the letter. Those under the Law only had to obey the letter. They didn't have to love as we do, with the eternal Law of God written on our hearts.

I don't know where you get the idea that Jesus is speaking of "general infidelity" rather than "sexual infidelity". The term "infidelity" is never used. Jesus allowed for the single exception in the Law--uncleanness. He defined it as "fornication". Fornication is the word "porneia" and ONLY applies to a sexual sin. It isn't a "general" sin at all. I'm curious who filled your head with such things?
Once again, I was not speaking of a marriage between believers.

Regarding the word porneia, you are very incorrect to claim it applies only to sexual sin. Refer to my previous response to WSG and a lexical concordance to see how often it is used prior to Jesus' time to describe the idolatry undertaken by the Israelites against God.

Regarding who filled my head with such things, it was the Word of God, proper context appropriately considered.

John_for_Christ said:
Oreslag said:
I mention this because I've lived it personally. In the case of my first marriage, I attempted to wrest control of it and exercise authority over it once my Lord called me and I came to understand my responsibility in this matter. I had been a very poor head previously and had failed miserably to lead in a number of areas that desperately needed to change; preferring rather to 'keep the peace' through avoidance, which is simply an excuse for failing to lead that permits a man to argue that he leads his family when he actually does not.

However, four and a half years later my ex had not yet shown any desire whatsoever to follow me or to even permit me to participate in fellowship with other Christians without it being a continual battle between us. I told her more than a year before I left that this needed to change or I would leave. She chose not to change. I left. I'm absolutely certain that, though God hates divorce and so should we, He prefers that at least one of two be saved instead of both entering hell as a whole.

Oreslag, you give a classic case of someone straining to justify their own actions. I'm sorry, but you were flat-out wrong in your decision to divorce. You disobeyed the clear command of God on this issue.

Rather than mix up the words of Scripture in an attempt to justify your own sin on this point, you should rather repent and go on. There's little you can do about it now, but teaching others that there is an excuse for divorce for believers is not the right choice at all.

"For what do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? Or what do you know, O man, whether you shall save your wife?" (1 Corinthians 7:16)

Completely contrary to the last thing you stated, God calls us to stay with someone that is a problem IN HOPES THAT WE WILL LEAD THEM TO HIM. To presume that you will lose your salvation over another person would demonstrate the weakness of your position, not the strength we have in Christ. We should be there to lead them the right way "O man".

I would have said nothing, but if this false teaching is allowed, it's going to lead others astray. Better that every man be a liar and God be proved true. I'm sure you are a great guy and a nice person. Your other posts seem fine. But this is flat-out wrong, brother.


John for Christ
Well, we clearly disagree.

I was flat-out wrong to ever have denied God, to be sure. I was flat-out wrong to have done many things in my former marriage, and I repented of them all after the conviction of His Spirit. I sought forgiveness from God for my transgressions, and from my ex.

Regarding God calling us to 'stay with someone that is a problem in hopes that we will lead them to Him', I agree if by 'problem' you simply mean unbeliever along with the caveat that there must be agreement (or peace) between husband and wife over the matter, as opposed to a perpetual battle of wills where there is no peace. Otherwise, I think it is you who is proscribing something contrary. As I've pointed out previously, even Jesus acknowledged marital unfaithfulness as a cause for divorce.

Regarding false teaching, I've claimed nothing that isn't evident within the full witness of God's Word. You might well recall that we are called to neither add to nor take from His word (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4:2&version=ESV). The 'add to' part is just as important as the 'take from' part; we are to diverge neither to the right nor the left. However, you make a good point. To all that read this, please be fully aware that if your conscience does not lead you to the same conclusion, then neither do I!
 
My last comment on this, only because I feel that it has gotten totally out of control, become a debate, and has gone very far away from the original topic.

Oreslag said:
This is not true. Read Chapters 9 and 10 of Ezra to see a case of obediently putting away wives

Those men disobeyed God by taking those women as wives. They were not to do so to begin with, so to right the wrong they were to put them away. It is the ONLY example we are given where God tells them to do such a thing. In other words, it was the exception, not the rule.

If they had not sinned against God by taking those women, God would not have told them to put them away.

Unless a person is an Old Testament man who was told specifically by God not to take a specific woman as a wife, there really isn't a good reason to get a divorce. All other infringements, difficulties, or whatnot is covered with forgiveness. Ya gotta forgive and push on, there's no other option given to Christians.

WomanSeekingGod
 
WomanSeekingGod said:
My last comment on this, only because I feel that it has gotten totally out of control, become a debate, and has gone very far away from the original topic.

Oreslag said:
This is not true. Read Chapters 9 and 10 of Ezra to see a case of obediently putting away wives

Those men disobeyed God by taking those women as wives. They were not to do so to begin with, so to right the wrong they were to put them away. It is the ONLY example we are given where God tells them to do such a thing. In other words, it was the exception, not the rule.

If they had not sinned against God by taking those women, God would not have told them to put them away.

Unless a person is an Old Testament man who was told specifically by God not to take a specific woman as a wife, there really isn't a good reason to get a divorce. All other infringements, difficulties, or whatnot is covered with forgiveness. Ya gotta forgive and push on, there's no other option given to Christians.

WomanSeekingGod
Your position then suggests that an agnostic man who is married to a woman who is a satanist (because it didn't originally matter to him) and is subsequently called out of his unbelief by the Lord, his wife continuing in her belief and worship of the enemy and who continually battles to turn her husband back to the enemy, should forgive and push on. This is what it would mean for all other infringements to be covered with forgiveness. This is also vastly similar to the situation related in Ezra 9 and 10, or to the 'foreign wives' who tempted their men away from the Lord and to their gods that were no gods.

Responses not desired as I intend this merely as a rhetorical statement to ponder for those interested, for neither am I interested in further debate.
 
WomanSeekingGod said:
Those men disobeyed God by taking those women as wives. They were not to do so to begin with, so to right the wrong they were to put them away. It is the ONLY example we are given where God tells them to do such a thing. In other words, it was the exception, not the rule.

If they had not sinned against God by taking those women, God would not have told them to put them away.

Unless a person is an Old Testament man who was told specifically by God not to take a specific woman as a wife, there really isn't a good reason to get a divorce. All other infringements, difficulties, or whatnot is covered with forgiveness. Ya gotta forgive and push on, there's no other option given to Christians.

WomanSeekingGod

Thank you, WSG :)
This also reflects my understanding of this issue.
 
Oreslag said:
Your position then suggests that an agnostic man who is married to a woman who is a satanist (because it didn't originally matter to him) and is subsequently called out of his unbelief by the Lord, his wife continuing in her belief and worship of the enemy and who continually battles to turn her husband back to the enemy, should forgive and push on. This is what it would mean for all other infringements to be covered with forgiveness.

Yes, that is what I believe.

"But to the rest I speak, not the Lord, If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is pleased to dwell with him, do not let him put her away. And the woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is pleased to dwell with her, do not let her leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbelieving one separates, let him be separated. A brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace. For what do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? Or what do you know, O man, whether you shall save your wife? But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all churches." 1 Corinthians 7:12-17

WomanSeekingGod
 
Back
Top