• 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.

Scenario for your input please...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paul not the apostle

Member
Real Person
Please tell me what you think. This is a real family that I know personally.

Husband and wife and 3 kids go to church every Sunday and Wednesday, etc. Husband goes through a cycle every year where he falls off the wagon into alcohol, meth and hookers. Literally, no kidding. He stays at the local dump hotel with the prostitutes, and leaves the wife to fend for herself and the kids. He comes home once a week maybe for laundry, etc., and of course huge arguments happen at this time. He gets jailed repeatedly, and finally at his low point he repents, cleans up and she takes him back. This happens every year, the church puts him through discipline and then he is "restored". Finally after 5 years the church tells him that he is not welcome. The wife always takes him back.

This last time, he does every thing the same, except he skips the hookers and just has numerous affairs. Numerous meaning that the "other women" find out about each other and get pissed and fight it out at the local walmart much to the embarrassment of the wife who is told all about it. He is so wrapped up in the drugs, he does not remember talking to me in town, or why the cops are arresting him because he can't remember that he was grabbing at women in the store. The economy goes south, his construction business is bankrupt, and she moves out to his parents house to get away from him. He is still not clean or sober. He goes to the parents house, smacks his dad around in front of the kids, cops arrest him and now after many court room appearances, he is not allowed to see the kids or parents or the wife for a year. He is still not sober, still with one of the girlfriends, and still obviously away from God, and living out of state.

Their oldest boy is 13, just like mine and were good friends until we severed family get togethers because of how the husband acted. The other boy is 6 and the little girl is 2. The mom cannot finish her degree because she can get no financial aid because he did not do the taxes last year. Etc, Etc, Etc.

She is thinking about divorce, obviously. She says that she has forgiven him every time including this last time, but really does think that he is gone spiritually and does not want to end up dead at his hands. She is struggling with the thought that he might clean up and want to come back and should she give it one more try. ( everybody says not only no, but heck no).

Can she divorce him righteously in God's eyes?
Is she free to marry again?
Where is the line between forgivenes and forgiving but not taking him back?

Again, this is not a scenario, this is reality. We have given her a car because she was without one with 3 kids. No car and no way to get groceries, etc. We have helped out some with other stuff. She is a good friend. They were good friends.

Please pray for her and the kids and of course, the husband as well.

Thanks,
Paul
 
Brother Paul,

What a mess you've described! To quickly answer your questions,

Paul not the apostle said:
Can she divorce him righteously in God's eyes?
She probably needs to stay away from this creep, at least until such time as he gets his act together. If you mean "divorce" in the sense of the current legal state of property jointure and bank accounts, she may well have to separate herself from him to protect herself legally and financially.

Paul not the apostle said:
Is she free to marry again?
Not so long as her husband lives. Two wrongs do not make a right. She is still bound to her husband, bum though he may be.

Paul not the apostle said:
Where is the line between forgivenes and forgiving but not taking him back?
Seventy times seven. Her choice (and all the consequences of that choice) was made when she agreed to be his wife. She has little choice to take him back if/when he returns, but she's likely in for a rough life unless he seriously changes his ways.

In His love,
David
 
I have never posted before, but I just couldn't ignore this situation. God is love, and all scripture needs to be interpreted from this basis. Please see the verse that is reference below. Her husband may attend church, but you know a believer by the fruit, so I think this verse may apply in this situation.

1 Corinthians 7:15 (New Century Version) "But if those who are not believers decide to leave, let them leave. When this happens, the Christian man or woman is free. But God called us to live in peace."
 
Sister Susan,

Susan said:
1 Corinthians 7:15 (New Century Version) "But if those who are not believers decide to leave, let them leave. When this happens, the Christian man or woman is free. But God called us to live in peace."
I'm unfamiliar with this New Century Version of the Bible, but the translators seem to have taken great liberty with the original Greek text. Nowhere in 1 Cor. 7 does Paul say anything about the wife being free to remarry. None of those words exist in the Greek.

"And, if the unbelieving one separates, let him separate himself. A brother or sister has not been DOULOO (enslaved) in such matters. But Elohim has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you shall save your wife?" (1 Corinthians 7:15-16, The Scriptures)

Paul clearly states that if the unbeliever desires to separate from the Believer, then the believing brother or sister is to peacefully allow them to separate. A Believer is not subject to continue in a marriage relationship with an unbeliever who wants to leave. Although marital separation will result if the unbeliever leaves, this passage does not mention the possibility of remarriage at all, even though many believe it is implied.

Verses 10 and 11 clearly preclude the possibility of remarriage for the woman if she separates from him on her own initiative. Verse 15 states that a Believer is not enslaved to maintain his or her marriage at the expense of brotherly peace, should the unbeliever choose to leave. Nowhere does the text state anything about the Believer suddenly being permitted to remarry. Such a view would stand in direct contrast to all the other established NT Scripture verses that state precisely the opposite (Matt. 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Rom. 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:39, etc.)

Whether we like it or not, for there to be a marriage, the husband and wife must ultimately agree to live together. If the unbeliever refuses to abide with the Believer, then the Believer is not to attempt to coerce the unbeliever to stay. In such a circumstance with an unbeliever, we are to let our spouse leave in peace.

But note that in the very next verse, the unbeliever is still referred to as "your husband" and "your wife". The marriage is still considered valid in the eyes of God, even if they are separated. The Believer continues to have a husband or a wife that they might still end up saving, whether the unbeliever recognizes the marriage or not. That is why we have been called to maintain peace with an unbeliever who chooses to leave. If the wife was a Believer and the husband was an unbeliever who separated himself, the wife would still be required to remain unmarried or be restored to her husband, as Paul explicitly stated just five verses earlier.

In His love,
David
 
Just because it should be considered,

Can she divorce him righteously in God's eyes?
Is she free to marry again?

Is it allowed for her? Yes.
Is it practical? Probably not.
Why not? Because it wasn't allowed.

As an abstract it is always going to be DJ's answer. A woman may decide that it is most expedient for her not to obey the commands of Paul or the Law, though she would be taking a very precarious step on out on her own. The only reason this is useful to mention is that when you lay scripture down like that to a lot of people, they are going to go off on their own way anyway, in that case you can object to their choice, but assume the remote possibility of expediency to give her the best advice despite her choice.
 
being legalistic is easy
getting YHWH's heart on the matter is the job of a patriarch
 
Another consideration:

Okay, gentlemen, I understand where you are coming from on this. But I ask you to consider another. Has the husband, in essence if not reality, abandoned his role, responsibilities and rights as husband and father? Is she not in essence a widow and her children fatherless?

I am trying to imagine if this woman came to Jesus, and explained her situation to Him, what His response would be?

The Law was never meant to punish the innocent, but to judge the unrighteous.

Blessings,
 
I couldn't agree more with Doc. Let's not forget the example this man is setting for his children. His son will think it is okay to treat his wife like that, and the daughter will most likely marry a bum like him. He has totally crossed the line on the adultery issue.

Michelle
 
"Not so long as her husband lives. Two wrongs do not make a right. She is still bound to her husband, bum though he may be."

Does that mean that she should be physically intimate with him on those weekends or short periods of time when she knows that she could be endangering her life because of his sexual promiscuity? If he does not ever return, is he not abandoning her and the family? So then she raises the children by herself with no income and no spiritual headship? She puts all of the kids in public school and gets a minimum wage job and lives a life of near poverty? Her children are left with no father, or masculine role model, and she can never have any more children, or have a spiritual leader or covering in her household. She can never feel eros type of love again with a man, or take a walk holding hands with a man, have intimate conversations with a new husband, but if her departed husband returns, she is required to fufill household duties and marriage duties to him? Interesting to think about.


America and the established church is so far away from God's path that I sometimes forget that my dificulty in applying God's law to certain situations has to do more with the fact that if God's Law was being adhered to or administered correctly, then we would not find these situations in the first place. He would have probably been stoned to death or kicked completely out of the city/region by now at the very least. I do think that applying these laws and instructions to these situations in this manner is not wise because it is similar to applying God's Holy Law Word to a pagan culture.

God has given us instruction regarding dealing with sin in our camp, and we refuse to apply His instruction. We then reap the harvest of that lack of discipline in the form of a new and bigger secondary problem. And then we turn to God and try to use His Law to fix this new problem. "Dear Lord, please give us wisdom so that we know what to do! We want to live in righteousness and walk in the instructions that you have given us but we don't know what to do!" And God says,"I love you, but you have to listen closely. The wisdom and instruction that I have for you and the answer that I have for you is as follows: You left my path at the first fork, way back there. You are calling to me from over on that path that you are not supposed to be on in the first place! Leave where you are and return to MY path. I have no instructions for you on how to deal with that situation on that path. It is not MY way or My path and I will not help you in that manner. I will not change or relax My Holiness so that you can continue to walk on your other path. I love you too much and will not help you in the manner that you have asked because helping you in your disobedience and wandering is not what I do. Return to Me! Take up my yoke, follow all of my instructions, and the burden will be light because I love you and have already built in to my instructions all of the things that you need in order to live peacefully and righteously. If you follow my path, then you won't even need to ask questions like this because you won't be in these situations."

How many times have I had conversations just like this with my children? It is sobering to realize that I do the same thing to my heavenly Father. I ask Him to help me in certain areas that He has no concern with because I am not supposed to be in that situation at all. The only thing that I think is clear regarding this matter is that we are not supposed to let it get this far in the first place.
 
As you all probably know I am with Doc, et.al. on this one. I believe that she can rightfully divorce him and p[robably should. She is free to remarry because he committed adultery and broke the marriage contract. She is not obligated to stay with him in this situation. Some may not agree with this, but it is true. Her husband is not a believer based upon his actions, no matter what he calls himself. The 70 times 7 does not apply here because repentance implies a change of heart and action, (Matt. 3:8). One must not only know the letter of the law, but the Spirit behind the law. This guy is so far past the line that the line is no longer visible. She should pray and be led by the Holy Spirit, but she has every right according to the Word to divorce him and re-marry a true believer. If she takes him back she is showing by her actions that she does not want to leave him and will likely suffer accordingly. It is her choice at this point.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray
 
My thoughts on this and similar subjects have been expressed many times.

A Covenant is made before God, according to His Word, by His people.

As Deuteronomy 21 makes clear, if a man's master gives him a wife, the wife and children thereafter BELONG to the MASTER! The question remains - Who do WE serve?

One who asks Caesar's permission, takes Caesar's license, marries before Caesar, and promises to obey the terms of that contract before that master, has submitted to Caesar. When that 'marriage' is DISSOLVED before Caesar, with Caesar's certificate of divorce, according to Caesar's terms, then Caesar's law has been obeyed. Such a woman, were she to become a believer and repent before God, and choose to serve Him, can later ask her true Master to give her to a true husband. And that includes here, in His kingdom.

We were told to "choose this day Whom you will serve" for a very good reason.

But I will add this:

It strikes me as more than ironic how often the same people who claim one minute that "the law was done away with" will nevertheless turn right around and attempt to bludgeon someone with it anyway.

We are his servants to whom we submit ourselves TO OBEY.


Blessings in the One True Master,

Mark
 
Brother Paul,

Paul not the apostle said:
Does that mean that she should be physically intimate with him on those weekends or short periods of time when she knows that she could be endangering her life because of his sexual promiscuity? If he does not ever return, is he not abandoning her and the family? So then she raises the children by herself with no income and no spiritual headship? She puts all of the kids in public school and gets a minimum wage job and lives a life of near poverty? Her children are left with no father, or masculine role model, and she can never have any more children, or have a spiritual leader or covering in her household. She can never feel eros type of love again with a man, or take a walk holding hands with a man, have intimate conversations with a new husband, but if her departed husband returns, she is required to fufill household duties and marriage duties to him? Interesting to think about.
Unless we redefine marriage to mean whatever we want it to mean, or how we feel it should be, then she remains married to her husband, despite screams of objections by the masses. Scripture is simply too clear on this point to ignore. We can dismiss Jesus' and Paul's words by filtering everything through our "love" lens, but if we're going to follow after our love rather than what Scripture actually says, then the question and the answer are both irrelevant. People are going to do what they are going to do, no matter what God's Word says.

We could take this same scenario and turn it around. In ten years, this man hits rock bottom and finally cries out for God to really fix his life. He repents, he gains strong support to help him in his struggles, and he finally becomes a strong Christian man of God. Now he goes looking for his lawful wife and children, only to find another man has usurped his authority. His wife has decided her husband is hopeless and will never be saved, therefore, she is free to remarry without consequence. She has effectively decided, with the help of all her good "Christian" friends and leaders, that God is finished with him and he is unworthy of further grace. She already knows God's plan and intentions, so when her rightful husband comes looking for her, she's perfectly entitled to tell him that he really died ten years ago and that she was freed to become another man's wife.

If she wants what seems fair at the moment, she can do whatever she pleases that seems right in her eyes. If she wants to know God's position on the subject, she only need look to Scripture. I don't think anyone in the forum has agreed with me (aside from Tlaloc :D ) that she still has a living husband that she is bound to, so the masses, both inside and outside the church, would seem to be in more or less unanimous agreement that she can remarry whomever she pleases. Give her the facts, show her the passages, and then allow her to make her own choice. That's all we can do.

JESUS: "whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32)

JESUS: "whoever marries her who has been put away commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9)

JESUS: "if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:12)

JESUS: "everyone marrying her who is put away from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18)

PAUL: "for the married woman has been bound by Torah to the living husband, but if the husband dies, she is released from the Torah concerning her husband. So then, while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's. But if her husband dies, she is free from that part of the Torah, so that she is not an adulteress, having become another man's" (Romans 7:2-3)

PAUL: "a wife should not separate from a husband. But if she is indeed separated, let her remain unmarried or be restored to favour with her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

PAUL: "a wife is bound by the Torah as long as her husband lives, and if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she desires" (1 Corinthians 7:39)

...or, we can go with "she can divorce him", "she is free to remarry because he has committed adultery", "her husband is not a believer so she can go marry a believer", "she has every right to divorce her husband", "he has abandoned her so she is free to remarry now". :oops:

Always in His love,
David
 
Give her the facts, show her the passages, and then allow her to make her own choice.

The facts, of course, include all of Scripture. The same Kinsman-Redeemer and King who said that He would not change His own teaching and instruction was equally clear that we could not serve two Masters. He did not consider the men of the story of Ezra to be "married" at all!

Those who "marry" before Caesar will have to answer that question for themselves. They will likewise have to decide what "come out of her, My people...that you be not partakers of her plagues," means as well.

But "as for me and my house, we will serve YHVH". My wife B, who departed in violation of the clear Word of God, remains my wife so long as we live. I continue to pray that she will repent, and one day honor our Covenant before Him and "return to me".

The absolutely clear, undeniable message of Scripture is that we are to honor* our oaths, vows, contracts, and Covenants! So I will continue to advise those who "married" before Caesar, in spite of God's warning, that when they get their master's "legal divorce", according to the contract they made before him, they are then free to be married for real, "only in Him".



-----------------------
* All of Numbers 30, Num. 32:24, Judges 11:36, and countless related warnings.
And don't forget Isaiah 29:13, Jer. 44:17, and Deut. 30:14!
 
If we require her to stay unmarried, do we have to require ourselves to stone the girlfriend (her divorce is not final) that is sleeping with the husband, since she is an adulteress, and do we stone him as well because he is sleeping with the girlfriend who is a married (not divorced yet) woman?

In my previous post I was thinking out loud about this topic when I was talking about how the church is so far away from God's path. I have come to the realization that I believe that djanakes is absolutely corrrect in everything that he is saying regarding the intention of those passages. Unfortunately, I do not believe that it applies to these circumstances specifically because the husbands would have already been dead by stoning, thus making the wives into widows and therefore free to remarry. We would be wrong to tell them to remarry, because the husbands are alive, but we are already wrong because the punishments for the men have not been handed out. We have walked away from God's instructions on how to deal with this and now we are living by the worlds laws and trying to retrofit God's laws back into Ceasar's courts. IF the church tells the wives that they can't remarry, then can the wives tell the church to fufill the punishment so that they CAN remarry?

I have not revisited the punishment/stoning verses to make sure that I am correct in my assumptions. Thank you for all of your input.

Paul
 
Another consideration, Paul:

"Put away" is not the same as "divorced", though they are sometimes translated the same. Such that when, in Malachi God says, "I hate divorce", He's really saying "I hate putting away".

What is wrong with putting away? It is an abandonment or rejection that does NOT include a proper divorce. So the put-away-ee is left in a muddled state. On the hook, but not in a relationship. Being controlled by another out of sheer nastiness.

Go back and read what Christ said, as quoted by David with this viewpoint and see if it maks a difference. *grin*
 
Oh, I meant to say, I think you'll find yourself right back at the Father's heart of compassion, wanting his kids to be treated well.

I'm reminded of Jesus saying, "The Sabbath was made for man(kind), not man for the Sabbath." He was talking about the 4th commandment, some feel central to the 10, composed of 97 words (Ex 20:8-11 NKJV).

When a woman was taken in the midst of adultery and brought to Him (5 words to THAT commandment), He merely said, "Where are your accusers? I'm not one of them. Don' do dat no more."

If confronted with the question before the house today, would He say, "Marriage was made for man(kind), not man(kind) for marriage"?
 
Further, this "Take 'em back every time" theology is misapplied.

Jesus takes us back every time. He's the head. We're the body.

For a body (wife) to be required to forever remain headless or to re-accept the tender ministrations of a habitual abuser is absolute role reversal.

It is also ridiculous. Even the non-Christians know better than that! They understand that your brothers, or father, or uncles, or cousins, or friends are responsible to go reason with that man til he gives her a divorce. Baseball bats may be used in the reasoning process. "If your child asks for bread, will you give him a stone? If you then, being sinful, know how to give good gifts to your children how much more does your Father in heaven?"

For us, is there any calling more important than the saving of souls? Missionary work? But Jesus did not say, "If they torture you in one place, go heal up then return for another round til you get killed." He said, "Shake the dust off your shoes and move on."

Is this mean to that man? Is there hope for his redemption? Yes. And if he sincerely and completely changes, he is free to try again someday with someone else -- with whom he does not have a long history of betrayal and abuse. We all hope he DOES reform. He may even eventually have a reasonable relationship with his (now ex-)wife and kids. But he has no right to hold them hostage (now adding Religious Abuse) to the slim possibility that he might someday change away from that which would have seen him stoned long ago in Biblical days.

This is the sort of idea that makes Christians validly of poor repute among the rest of the world. Even they have a God-implanted sense of right and wrong that says this stinks!

Let compassion freely flow!
 
CecilW said:
They understand that your brothers, or father, or uncles, or cousins, or friends are responsible to go reason with that man til he gives her a divorce. Baseball bats may be used in the reasoning process..............
.........This is the sort of idea that makes Christians validly of poor repute among the rest of the world. Even they have a God-implanted sense of right and wrong that says this stinks!

Let compassion freely flow!
WAHOO, SOMEBODY GETS IT!! yes, it is true that she cannot divorce him, but she did have the right to put her case before the elders and they would bring pressure to bear on him if need be. as mark might point out that since she and her husband originally put the control in the hands of the govtmt by getting a liscense from them, then she surely is justified in going before those "elders" that she and her husband put in charge of their marriage and ask that they give her the divorce. :shock:

also, on the forgive 70X7: forgiveness does NOT require that we trust the forgiven. if charlie brown goes back out to play football again this fall he should have long ago forgiven lucy for all of those times that she faked him out while holding the ball, but only a moron (or legalist) would require him to trust her "one more time".
 
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top