| Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A |
| Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A |
George, Alice and Mike all belong to the same congregation. George and Alice are married for over 10 years and have children. George is abusive, especially with his talk. Alice is promiscuous. Alice had an affair with Mike, for which she repented and George supposedly forgave her. Even though Mike stayed out of the picture for many months, George's abusiveness heightened and so Alice got a divorce. Mike now wants to date Alice, and maybe even marry her. May Mike and Alice date with the idea of getting married? Should they wait for a period of time before they begin dating? or should such an option never even be considered?
The divorce/dating/remarriage situation you ask your questions about is very difficult for a person to answer from a distance -- by that I mean, without personal contact with the couple and with Mike. The local pastor should have the best handle of this situation.
Here are some of the questions and concerns that I have about the situation. "George, Alice, and Mike all belong to the same congregation." There has been some type of spousal abuse. There has been promiscuity and adultery. There has been a divorce. I would hope that each has repented for their individual sins. They are all still members of the congregation. Repentance by all three must have occurred. You mention that Alice has repented and that George supposedly forgave her. But you don't mention George's repentance and Mike's repentance. It would seem that repentance on the part of all would be important. It may even bring about a reconciliation and make your question superfluous.
"George is abusive, especially with his talk." I would need more answers to my questions here. Does this mean that George was also physically abusive, but not as often as he was verbally abusive. Obviously George continued in his verbal (and sometimes, physical?) abuse. You use the present tense, "is." Is George still abusive verbally? This would lead me to think that there was no repentance on the part of George. Has George repented? If so, why is the verbal abuse continuing, even thought they aren't married?
"George's abusiveness heightened." Was it so prolonged, so pervasive, so violent, and was George so stubborn that he refused to accept admonition from his pastor for doing it, that his pastor could compare what is going on with Scripture (Genesis 2:23-24 & Ephesians 5:28-31) and feel compelled by Scripture to warn George that he was sinning by breaking the companionship blessing of marriage? In other words, George was maliciously deserting his marriage. George's actions and verbal abuse would have to have a malicious intent, would have to be repeated and pervasive over a period of time. It would have to be a sign of his deserting his spouse. That will be a difficult thing to prove. It will take a lot of time and a demand a lot of the pastor's careful counseling.
"Alice is promiscuous. Alice had an affair...." Here I have a question because you use the present tense, "is," in the first sentence and the past tense, "had," in the second sentence. That might have just been a grammatical error, but I wonder -- How many affairs did Alice have. Was her affair with Mike one of several, of many? I would like to have an answer to these questions.
"She repented." Its good to read this.
"George supposedly forgave her." Were George and Alice and their pastor aware of the fact that while forgiveness from God is instantaneous and perfect and complete as it is flows from God to us in Christ, forgiveness from one believer to another is the in area of the fruits of repentance? Like all things in connection with sanctified Christian living, it is a growing thing. It will be an imperfect thing. With God's blessings upon the hard work of the individuals, their relationship will grow in connection with forgiveness and trust. How much time and counseling and hard work was involved with the process of forgiveness -- George towards Alice and Alice towards George?
Mike stayed out of the picture for many months. This was good. Perhaps it was a sign of his repentance. Was it? Or was it only shame that kept him away? Or was his absence part of a manipulative plan? Mike needs to be asked these questions.
If now he didn't have the desire to date Alice with the objective of possible marriage, the suspicious, judgmental sounding last question would not even be asked.
"Alice got a divorce." What were and are George's feelings about the divorce? Is there opportunity for repentance and reconciliation? Does Alice's pastor have the opinion that Alice had Scriptural grounds for the divorce? If so, did George repent of his sin in causing the divorce? He is still a member of the congregation. He must have repented. Was an attempt at reconciliation made after his repentance? All of these questions need to be answered for an outsider to make a judgment like you ask me to make in connection with Mike and Alice dating and possibly marrying.
If Alice did not have Scriptural grounds for divorce she has no right to be dating anyone, let alone thinking about marrying someone. She needs to repent of her sin of breaking the marriage and seek reconciliation.
There is also the matter of offense. She is going to date and remarry the man with whom she had an affair and who had a role in making the mess that was her marriage even worse. There is no Scriptural prohibition for this marriage between Alice and Mike if Alice had Scriptural grounds for divorcing George. But it will certainly be a matter that will give offense, even if Alice and Mike are truly repentant. It will seem to many that Alice and Mike got what they wanted all along -- to break Alice's marriage to George and to marry each other. How much time happened between the affair and the divorce? How much time happened between the divorce and the dating?
Waiting a year or two with no contact between Alice and Mike might be a suggestion. The marriage wouldn't seem like such a planned occurrence. It would give Alice time to recover from the divorce. She would not be dating or marrying anyone on the rebound then. How can Alice and Mike show the world that they didn't plan this all along? If there was repentance by Alice and George, if George had shown the fruits of repentance and received help to control his abusive mouth, if Alice lived her role as a faithful wife, if there was forgiveness by each of the other, the marriage would not have ended. Was Alice pining for Mike while still married to George? Did George sense that and grow angrier and angrier? There are so many unanswered questions that I need to have answered. I read this and I sound like a suspicious old policeman. But these are examples of the types of questions and thoughts that people will have when they hear that Mike and Alice are dating.
Mike and Alice are putting themselves into a situation where their dating, especially dating "with the idea of getting married," looks very suspicious. (Again, this caution: there is so much that I don't know about the situation, but I think I can give this obvious answer.)
The pastor would certainly warn the couple about the matter of offense. Mike and Alice need to be made aware of all of the suspicions that their dating will bring upon themselves. The pastor ought to be asking a lot of the questions I have asked. He needs to be asking all three people.
This is a time for Christian common sense and loving concern for others. There has been enough selfishness.
God's blessings.
After many years of being judged, criticized, berated, and condemned by my wife of 18 years, I finally told her that it just hurt too bad to be there, and that I was going to live separately from her. Since the beginning of this year she had told me that she was trying to drive me away. I am temporarily living with my sister (10 minutes away) while I buy a condo. I am maintaining full responsibility for all the bills, including spending money which is approximately the same as when I was there. I am also committed to remaining married and remaining faithful to my wife (meaning no sex or dating-type involvement with other women) until we might be reconciled, even if reconciliation never takes place in this lifetime. I have offered to pay for her to go to the counselor who knows us the best, but she has not done this.
It has been my intention to continue to be responsible for maintaining the exterior of the house and yard, but she does not want me there. I have a 17 year ! old born-again son with whom I am together frequently, and also a 25 year old step-daughter that I see regularly. Her response to my departure was to file for divorce. I have learned through one of her friends that her Biblical reasons are adultery and desertion. Both of us committed adultery against each other about 10 years ago. Since then we have both become believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. We have both confessed our sin to each other, repented, and sought forgiveness.
It is my Biblical view that she cannot use the confessed and repented sin of adultery as grounds for divorce, and that it is very hypocritical of her to do this when she is guilty of the same thing. Regarding desertion, I was shocked when I heard this from her friend - a woman I like very much and respect. Our Christian counselor (a S. Baptist man), knowing the above, and more about both of us, said he supported my decision, said that anyone with any positive mental health would make this decision!
and that because of my intent to remain faithful to my marriage covenant, that he found it to be a godly decision. By the way, I do not want the divorce, but I repeat, it hurts too much to be there. Now to my question: Does my wife have a legitimate Biblical basis for divorce?There are several issues in your letter that we can address with Scripture and with Scriptural principles. I cannot serve as a judge between you and your estranged wife from this distance. You need to talk about this matter with your pastor and seek his counsel and advice. I do not want to give you any offense, but I would need to talk your wife to "Hear her words," and to ask her some questions.
Desertion. Desertion is more than being geographically absent from bed and board. That could happen with military service or imprisonment. Desertion, to be grounds for divorce, must be persistent and permanent and it must have the evil or malicious intent to break the marriage vows connected with it.
Permanent refusal to engage in sexual intimacy within the marriage might be grounds to say that desertion has occurred. Persistent actions that make life together in the same home impossible might be another form of desertion. A woman who really intends to drive her spouse away by her actions may be guilty of desertion rather than her spouse who has left the house to get a breath of fresh air.
Yet, I think you have left the house to get more than a breath of fresh air. You say that you have no intent of dating again or of remarrying. Yet, you describe plans to buy a condo which would seem to make your leaving more than temporary and much more permanent. Quite honestly, that decision on your part confuses me a bit.
You have not described any physical abuse on your wife's part directed towards you. Her actions were verbal and emotional. You describe yourself as planning to support your wife and keep up the house, even volunteering to do the exterior work around the house. You say that she does not want you there. That does not fit with a woman who wants her husband back and who has repented of her stated intent of forcing you out of the house. I have a lot of questions about this.
I keep thinking about I Cor. 7:15, "But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances." As I said, geographical separation is not implicit in the Greek word translated as "leave" here. The same word describes a separation or a setting apart (Romans 8:35 and Hebrews 7:26). Who has left whom? You have left the house she said she was trying to force you out of. Who has separated the marriage vows -- you have plans to buy a condo which would make the separation much more permanent than a separation to "clear the air" and start over again. She does not want you around the house and has filed for a divorce. That does not allow room for reconciliation either. She won't go to counseling, even though you would pay for it, yet you don't say that you would go with her to counseling. Reconciliation attempts are always more successful when both people are involved in them. There is so much I don't know about the situation. A judgment just can't be made from this distance. You need to talk with your pastor.
About the claim of infidelity that you both committed ten years ago. You said that you forgave each other after each expressing repentance. That's over and done. It can't be brought up again as Scriptural grounds for divorce, especially if you have lived sexually and compassionately as husband and wife during a part of those ten years since you both told each other that you forgave each other.
Be responsible for your actions before God. If you desire reconciliation in peace, say that to your wife and to her lawyer. Live as though you did not plan to make this separation permanent. Live as though you could move back into the house tomorrow. Strive to get counseling together, as a couple.
Above all, take this to God in prayer, in humble repentant prayer. God's forgiveness in Jesus knows no boundaries. His power to produce change is limitless.
May God bless you.
When it comes to deciding where a family should worship, what role should the wife have in the decision making process? If a wife is to be submissive, should she follow her husband to the church of his choice? Should she only speak out if they are in a church where the Gospel is not being properly taught? And what about a family? Should a family be split in its church membership or is it better for one family member to be where they are not quite comfortable for the sake of unity? Does Scripture address either of these issues?
When matters of faithfulness to God's Word are involved, our loyalty and obedience to God comes before our loyalty and obedience to any human authority (Acts 5:29). Jesus warned that the question of loyalty to God's Word would often divide families and that a Christian's first loyalty is to be to him (Matthew 10:32-39).
If a wife cannot follow her husband in religion because he holds to something that is false, she should try win him in a quiet way (1 Corinthians 7:12-14, 1 Peter 3:1-7). Wives cannot follow their husbands, nor children their parents, in matters which are contrary to God's Word, but they should continue to respect the leadership of their husband or parents.
The Bible does not deal with disagreements about where to attend church due to differences of opinion about the "style" of the congregation or the personality of the pastor, probably because it does not envision these as criteria for choosing a church. As far as we know, in the New Testament era congregational membership was determined by where a person lived, although it appears that some synagogues in large cities were organized according to ethnic or social divisions.
When a family is united in faith, under normal circumstances husbands would have the final responsibility in deciding where the family should attend, but they would naturally do so in consultation with their wives and in consideration for the needs and desires of the children. A mother would have the same responsibility for her children if their father is not living up to his responsibility in this regard. She should consider their needs ahead of her preferences. Whoever has the final responsibility for deciding should consider the needs and desires of all the family, but should not necessarily give in to arbitrary dislikes of a pastor or a congregation or to poor criteria for choosing a congregation so that the family become church nomads always on the move looking for a pastor or congregation more to their liking.
Naturally, if a man and woman are of different faiths, they should have a clear understanding concerning their church affiliation and the religious training of the children before they marry.
I recently came across some material from Christians who advocate polygamy on supposedly scriptural grounds, so I went to your Q & A site to see why these grounds must be false. I was very upset by the answer. I did not think that there was ANY doubt, but the last part of the answer to a very long question about the subject was that we should remember that it is illegal in America. But surely that is not to say that a Christian can move somewhere else and commit this? Is not Matthew 19 sufficient evidence of God's plan for one woman, one man marriage? I just feel very shaken up that the Bible is not as clear as I thought it was and that even on your site there seemed to be some uncertainty.
You are apparently referring to a lengthy question and answer which lists arguments which some Christians have cited in favor of tolerating polygamy. The answer responds to each argument and adds an additional argument against polygamy in our country, namely, it is illegal. The basic premise of the answer is that polygamy is not a moral or legal option for Christians. The reason many Christians struggle with this question is the fact that some of the Old Testament patriarchs who were undoubtedly men of faith practiced polygamy and the Lord seemingly did nothing to prevent this. The Old Testament civil law regulated polygamy but did not ban it. This has led some Christians to wonder whether polygamy was really against God's will, at least during Old Testament times. The question and answer that you referred to focused on responding to the points which some have raised in favor of tolerating polygamy. Another question and answer posted on the web site is addressed more directly to making the case against polygamy. The two answers are reproduced below.
The Church's Case Against Polygamy
The Bible never explicitly prohibits polygamy, but it does state God's original intention for marriage: one man and one woman in a one flesh relationship. It also illustrates the ill results of polygamy. The list of arguments against polygamy presented by our Lutheran writers include the following:
*From Scriptural statements about marriage:
*From the analogy of Christ and the church and scriptural examples.
- God's intention revealed at creation for a one man, one woman relationship.
- Two become one, but three cannot become one physically.
- Christ affirms the principle established at creation in Mt 19 and other passages.
- 1 Corinthians 7:4 establishes the principle of spouses' mutual control over the body of the other.
- 1 Corinthians 7:2 shows each should have their own husband or wife.
- Romans 7:2-3 shows it is wrong to marry a second spouse.
- 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 affirm monogamy as the standard.
* From the law of nature: testimony from the enlightened Gentiles; polygamy imposes unequal obligations on husband and wife; father does not devote enough attention to children;
- All NT references are to one husband and one wife.
- The origin of polygamy was among the ungodly Cainites.
- The evil effects of polygamy are apparent in the Old Testament. Hagar & Sarah,
- Rachel and Leah, Hannah and Penninah, etc.
* The clear tradition of the church.
The response to arguments for tolerating polygamy
I am a member of WELS and have recently run into the following argument regarding polygamy and/or bigamy. Can you guide me to a Biblical understanding of God's will in this matter? Here are arguments in favor of polygamy containing six main points.
Scripturally, the sex act unites a man and a woman in marriage, unless the woman is already married, in which case it's adultery. Even if there is no intention to be married, according to God's own word, sex creates a marriage bond: 1 Cor. 6:16, "Or do you not know and realize that when a man joins himself with a prostitute he becomes one body with her?" The two, it is written, become one flesh. And the reference given here is to Gen. 2:24, which points out even more clearly that this is referring to a marriage relationship, one not dependent on the pronouncement of a preacher or the possession of a marriage license. And marriages forevermore are likened to that, cleaving together, becoming one flesh, even if it's a man to a prostitute.
Why can a man have multiple wives and a woman not have multiple husbands? I don't know. It sounds unfair to me, too. But we need to put aside our own sense of morality and listen to what God has to say about it in his scriptures. Paul, in Rom. 7:3, shows that having more than one husband is unacceptable. He says a woman who remarries while her husband is alive is an adulteress. No such comment is made about a man who has two wives.
If you have a scriptural basis for your position, then let's talk. But I have searched and searched and find no basis at all to conclude that God somehow prefers monogamy. The closest approximation to that is in 1 Tim. 3:2. It is made clear that a bishop/elder/overseer, and in v.12 a deacon, must be "the husband of one wife" and this is repeated in Titus 1:6. This restriction is not placed on any other member of the church, or indeed on anyone at all. The best a monogamist could hope for from this restriction is that while there were polygamists in the church body, these positions were to be restricted to those who had the experience of managing one family and the time to apply their skills to a second family, namely the family of God.
While I have yet to see any evidence that the scripture denounces polygamy, I can offer many examples where God either lets the matter pass without comment, or even where it is outright encouraged. (Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Elkanah, David, Solomon, Ashur, Rehoboam, Abijah, Joash).
The Old Testament had rules regulating polygamy and limiting its application in certain circumstances. Kings of Israel weren't supposed to "multiply wives" to themselves according to Deut. 17:17. You weren't supposed to take a woman's sister to be her "rival wife" while she was still living - Leviticus 18:18. And you weren't to marry both a woman and her mother - Leviticus 20:14. Bigamy was recognized and regulated by the Law of Moses. Just like normal marriage, bigamy has its fair share of problems, and the law intervenes in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 to make sure that children get what they're entitled to.
So we can see that Polygamy was practiced without criticism in the Old Testament. In fact, it was regulated by law. It was legal and moral and had limitations put on it by law. Indeed, the Levirate practice of marrying the wife of a deceased brother in order to ensure the family line continued (Deuteronomy 25:5-6) may actually require a man to be bigamous if he was already married.
The arguments in favor of polygamy that you mention make six main points. I'll respond to them one at a time.
The first claim is that, according to Scripture, "the sex act unites a man and a woman in marriage . . . sex creates a marriage bond." Support for this idea is sought in 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Genesis 2:23. But these passages say no such thing. "Becoming one body" or "becoming one flesh" in both passages refers to the oneness achieved in sexual union, not marriage. Look closely at the Genesis passages that serves as a basis for defining marriage and which is cited in the Corinthians passage. The leaving of father and mother and being united with the wife refers to the marriage commitment, with the severing of one loyalty (parental) and the starting of another (spousal). When the two are thus joined (i.e., in marriage), they then "become one flesh" (i.e., unite in sexual union). Do not equate the "cleaving" ("being united with, clinging") with the becoming one flesh. The "cleaving" or "being united to" verb is one most commonly used in the Old Testament with reference to the establishment and enjoyment of covenant relationships. In Genesis 2 the marriage bond is the focus. The immorality that Paul was dealing with in 1 Corinthians 6 is sexual activity (joining oneself physically to, becoming one body or flesh with another) without marriage. The entire Scriptures maintain this distinction with consistency.
The second question asked is "why can a man have multiple wives and a woman not have multiple husbands?" This is suggested to be "unfair." In response, I agree that the form of polygamy displayed consistently in Scripture is polygomy but never polyandry. I also confess that Scripture never offers an explicit statement in regard to this. The most obvious logical deduction or scripturally compatible reason has to do with the divinely established principle that the husband is the head of the wife and never vice versa.
Thus, as it has been phrased using the same principle and imagery, "A head can have more than one member, but a member cannot have more than one head." Nevertheless, in short, any attempt to establish the legitimacy of polyandry must be made without any support from Scripture.
The third point made in the attempt to find biblical endorsement for polygamy is the claim that 1 Timothy 3:2 actually endorses rather than prohibits multiple marriages for Christians other than the bishops/elders. Again, on further reflection, this argument fails.
It is doubtful that the meaning of the word ("the husband of one wife") is a prohibition against polygamy, though it sounds like it in many translations. In the New Testament world, polygamy was probably all but non-existent. The Greeks had considered the practice barbaric and the Roman Empire gives no evidence that it was winning many advocates. It is possible that the prohibition has to do with a leader of the church marrying a second time after the loss of his first wife, although this strikes many Bible students as unusual.
There is no parallel prohibition like this hinted at elsewhere in the New Testament. A real possibility is that the term refers to "a one-woman man," that is, the leader is not to be a womanizer and his dedication to his spouse, if he has one, is to be evident to all. It is true that the restriction or qualification is not placed on all members of the church in this passage. But an examination of the other qualifications listed for church leaders reminds us that the same qualities and attitudes are elsewhere anticipated to be characteristic of all Christians. (The only exceptions would be an aptitude to teach and not being a recent convert.) In church leaders it is especially important that these characteristics be prominent and consistently evident. So, even if one grants that the word has reference to monogamy, it cannot fairly be said that this does not apply to other Christians.
In response to the fourth point made, that of the many examples in which God tolerates or lets the matter pass without comment, I freely acknowledge this is true. (I also must say that it is another overstatement to suggest God "outright encourages" polygamy.)
This fact of divine silence coupled with the relatively commendable spiritual character of some of the Old Testament polygamists is an acknowledged difficulty for serious and sincere Bible students. Most conclude that God allowed it for reasons not expressly revealed but that this isolated permissiveness dare not be used as a license for us to imitate the polygamous lifestyle. Bible students are also quick to notice that, almost without exception, negative and lamentable impact in the family lives of polygamists is recorded and stressed in Scripture. The fruit of this tree is consistently lacking in quality, if not rotten altogether. For our limited purposes here, we do well to acknowledge that God does indeed refrain from explicit prohibitions against polygamy, but the full revelation of his Scriptures certainly does not commend or encourage us to practice it.
The fifth argument advanced notes that the Old Testament regulates and limits aspects of polygamy just like it regulates and limits things that are known to be legitimate (like monogamous marriages).
In response I simply say that this eventually proves nothing concerning the legitimacy of polygamy. The biblical law codes governing social life in general regulate many things that are expressly said to be morally wrong. Sinful divorce practices are perhaps the primary example that comes to mind because of Matthew 19:1-9 with reference to Deuteronomy 24:1-4. There is no shortage of sinful actions that are similarly "regulated" and "limited" by law.
An honest look at the laws, in their setting of the Mosaic covenant stipulations, leads us to understand that God gave many regulations because he knew some in society would misbehave out of the hardness of their hearts, and regulation was needed for the sake of the social life of the nation. Modern laws are parallel in purpose, regulating both acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
The last paragraph in the list or arguments brings up the subject of the law of the levirite (Dt. 25:5-6) and says that this stipulation "may actually require a man to be bigamous if he was already married." It may be admitted that some Bible students have viewed the words that way, saying that the need to raise up a child in the name of a deceased brother, at that time of history, took precedence over monogamy. Even then, this is not properly viewed as an endorsement for us to follow suit. But many other scholars note the opening words of verse 5, "If brothers are living together . . ." and conclude that the brother who is to marry the widow is apparently described as still single. Otherwise he would be living with his own family in a separate dwelling. Perhaps it is wisest to acknowledge we do not know all things with certainty, and that perhaps the customs even changed somewhat over the centuries (differences are observable in Ruth 4).
None of this, of course, establishes beyond doubt that polygamy was "legal and moral" and "practiced without criticism" in the Old Testament. A more balanced appraisal would be preferable.
Finally, let it be understood that any modern or contemporary practicing of polygamy is forbidden by law in the majority of countries of the world. A Christian is bound to the civil laws of his or her civil authorities until or unless to obey them goes against conscience or necessitates disobedience to an express command of God. (Romans 13:1-7, Acts 5:29) Polygamy is allowed by law and custom in most Islamic countries.
It is simply not a legal (and therefore not a moral) option for Christians in the United States.
Is there any scripture readings that indicate that a woman should or should not take the last name of the man when getting married or is that more of cultural thing?
Scripture does not tell us anything about how we are to name our children or whether or not a woman is to take the last name of her husband when she gets married. However, if a woman retains her own name as a declaration that she does not accept her husband as her head (cf. Ephesians 5:22-33), she is rejecting the roles of man and woman as God in his wisdom and love gave them for all Christians to follow. However, it is her attitude, not keeping her name, that is contrary to God's word.
What is the difference between love that is found in a marriage relationship and the love professed that ends up in an adulterous affair? Can you give references to point to each kind of love?
Since the love that is found in a marriage relationship is tied to the institution of marriage, it is important to understand the institution of marriage in order to understand the ideal love between man and woman which God wants each to have in their marriage relationship.
Some principles to consider:
1. God himself established marriage as an institution for this earthly life (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 22:30).
2. Marriage begins when a man and a woman are freely and unconditionally joined to each other as husband and wife in a lifelong union (Genesis 2:24).
3. Because marriage is a contract, it must be established by a public commitment. The way in which this public commitment is expressed may take different forms in different societies and cultures, and includes following the laws of the state regarding marriage (Genesis 2:24; Romans 13:1-2).
4. Sexual intimacy is a blessing from God (Song of Songs 1:15-16; 4:1-7; 5:10-16).
5. God limits sexual intimacy to those who are married (Hebrews 13:4).
6. Those who engage in sexual intimacy outside of the bounds of marriage are sinning (Hebrews 13:4).
What you are asking refers to the question of love that exists in a marriage relationship compared to the love that is professed that ends in an adulterous affair.
Love is a human emotion. It is hard to call God-pleasing love in a marital situation and sinful love in an adulterous affair in which sexual intimacy has been practiced between people who are not married by the same term. It certainly is confusing, isn't it?
It would be more accurate to call the God-pleasing love within marriage which is based upon public commitment, responsibility to laws of culture, society and state, and loving respect for God's institution of marriage and His gift of sex within marriage as a blessing to man and woman by the term, love.
It would be more accurate to call the "love" that is professed in order to lead to an adulterous affair as "lust." Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Another way to look at this is in connection with Ephesians 5:21-33 "Submit to one another out of love for Christ. Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord.....Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...." God-pleasing married love is unselfish. The wife submits to her husband. The husband sacrifices his life for his wife.
"Love" in an adulterous relationship is selfish. It seeks to get for self and not to give to the other, unless the giver expects something in return. Adulterous love says, "Give me the gratification of sexual desires; give me pleasure for self without commitment or responsibility to my sexual partner. Give me love, apart from Christ." Or, such adulterous "love" may actually break the marriage that God has caused to happen between husband and wife. How can "love" be that which breaks God's commandments? "You shall not commit adultery."
How can there be true love, apart from Christ? How can there be true love in disobedience to God's commandments? Disobedience such as adulterous acts is sin. Our sin is why Christ went to the cross. How can that be called love which nailed our Savior to the cross?
Our society refers to the emotion that exists in a God-pleasing way within marriage and between marriage partners by the term, love. It refers to the emotion that exists in an adulterous affair between the adulterous couple by the same term.
Christians need to differentiate. Love within marriage is God-pleasing. The emotion that leads to lust or that describes lust is always a sin.
Because our culture does not make this distinction, it is always hard for us to make it.
What does the Bible say about mixed marriages? [Hispanic - Anglo , Asian - anglo , etc ] Is it in our Doctrine?
There is nothing in Scripture that prohibits people from different ethnic backgrounds from getting married. However, the same principles that guide us in choosing a marriage partner of a similar ethnic background also apply here. A practical factor that such a couple would want to consider is the social implications. Different cultures may have different ways of relating to people, different ways of dealing with situations, and different customs and rituals. It is true that this is not unique to cultures. It can be true of any family or region of the country or world. Yet these differences are often more pronounced in a culture. Failure to understand and appreciate these differences can lead to conflict in marriage.
The best way to unite two people of different cultures is a common faith in Christ and his Word. This will give the husband and wife a common basis for dealing with problems and issues in life and also give them the comfort of a happy reunion in the next life.
How do I know my question hasn't already been answered?
SEARCH our Q&A archives using the subject you have in question as your keyword.
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod ©
2929 N Mayfair Road
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53222
www.wels.net content is copyrighted unless otherwise stated.
Request written permission to copy.
Bravo! Bravo!