xjwsforChrist

SABASTIOUS SAID

Jehovah's Witnesses have a vast array of buzzterms that are fed into them on a regular basis, not the least of which is the term "Bible Principles." For most of my life I was convinced that only members of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society were applying Bible Principles in the correct way. This was mainly because we believed we had the correct translation of the Holy Scriptures which was largely rejected by "Satan's World." I believed that while using a "worldly" translation it would be more difficult to come to "the truth" about "Bible Principles." This seemingly required mitigation process of the Bible was why I believed the NWT was created.

I was watching a JW YouTube video about the end of false religion and I came across this comment:




The commenter seems to feel perfectly justified in proclaiming all ex members as "full of unclean acts." What this commenter is referring to is the Jehovah's Witnesses understanding of "Bible Principles." It's true that many non Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in total chastity and abstinence. Many are often found in intimate relationships without legal marriage. To a Jehovah's Witness this is in direct violation of the "principles" spelled out in the Bible. This is how they can feel so righteous about it because it's a simple concept to them: don't have sex before marriage or else you are a "fornicator."

But can that really be called a Bible Principle? It seems like it could be more accurately described as Bible Law which is what it was written down to be. This Law was written thousands of years ago so wouldn't a Bible Principle that involved such an old law be well adapted to society? There was one glaring difference between then and now: we have contraception. Technology will always throw a broom in the spokes of law, the internet is the latest broom. The technology of writing at one point was a new technology that was royally stirring the pot in it's day.

Going from Law to Principle requires taking logical steps backward and observing the whole. The whole being the evolution of the human species in relation to the ancient laws written down about them. Why was marriage required for sexual relations back then? If you research the subject you will find a vast amount of information that can be practically applied to the people of the ancient world. You couldn't be promiscuous in those days because there were dire consequences of such actions. Impregnation was often a death sentence.

From a more religious perspective you have ideas of the soul and the hereafter. Many religious ideals included the concept of human babies as connected to an immortal soul that were considered the children of God Himself. Sexual relations, within the theological framework, would be considered the gateway for the children of God to enter the physical realm. It is not surprising that we find a reverence for the act in the laws of ancient times.

So, where is the actual principle in all of this? There are many, but the obvious one is in the concept of commitment which seems to be lost by the Watchtower and many other fundamental groups. Chastity and abstinence are religious laws that have become out of date and need to be replaced with modern day principles. The fact is that we should revere an act with so much creative power as accidents can and do happen.

Taking an ancient law on the subject of sexual relations from a world void of modern medical technology and directly enforcing it upon a modern day population is completely immoral and destructive. Now that I am out of the Watchtower and look back I see that they don't teach principles, they just read from a book. The real life principles come from the growth of mankind as we learn more about ourselves simply through making choices and experiencing life as it unfolds before us.

-Sab

CRIMINY SAID

Genesis 24:67 - After that Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother. Thus he took Re·bek′ah and she became his wife; and he fell in love with her.

Sounds like falling in love and getting married comes after sex.

AGUEST SAID




Finally! (Peace to you, dear CrimBug!). I've been waiting YEARS for someone to bring this up - LOLOL! I haven't wanted to because I KNEW some (on a different forum) would be offended. BUT... the sex act... IS... "marriage"! NOT the ceremony (okay, dear ones... "tome" time - LOLOL!)

The ceremony is just that: a ceremony. If there is no consummation, regardless of whether there's been a ceremony or not... there's been no "marriage"! On the other hand, regardless of whether there's been a ceremony or NOT... once there's been sex... there's a MARRIAGE.

The ceremony is merely a "public declaration" of the VOWS the two involved make to each other and formerly had much more to do with the FAMILIES... particularly the FATHERS... than with the couple. It signified two families, the children of two FATHERS coming together and making a "contract" between the two "houses". Why? To make an ALLIANCE and possibly avoid conflict/war between the two. Which is why folks usually married WITHIN the same family; usually cousins or farther away in blood. So long as it wasn't immediate family, it was good.

What many MISS, though, is the part about what constitutes "marriage". It is not a paper... or a vow. It is the joining of FLESH. When the "two become one."

Abraham has two wives: Sarah, the free woman, and Hagar, the maidservant. BOTH were wives; however, one was a "concubine". In the ancient Hebrew culture, a concubine were merely a woman who wasn't "worthy" of a CONTRACT... because she had no dowry! She was either a slave/servant (and please note that slavery was NOT the same as slavery of the Americas!), or very poor. As a result, her father (or uncle, brother, etc., if the father was deceased) could not "buy" her a marriage contract..

What was a marriage contract? It was the means by which the "husband"... and his father's house (thus his brothers, uncles, etc.), AGREED to care for the woman. In exchange, the woman's father's house (her father, or brothers, uncles, etc.)... PAID the "bride price".

That... was the marriage "contract." But that wasn't the marriage. Again, the sex act is what "makes" the marriage. That is why Paul wrote:

"Do you not know that he who unites himself with a harlot is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." 1 Corinthians 6:16

That is what was meant when Paul wrote that overseers where to be husbands "of ONE wife." Meaning, he either had only had SEX with ONE woman... or all others had either died or been divorced due to adultery/fornication (which are the only means for releasing from the marriage bond recognized by God - otherwise, even if no ceremony took place or vows exchanged, a man "married" ANY woman he slept with... and was considered "married" to her unless she died or was lawfully divorced).

The POINT is that there are a WHOLE lot of JW "elders" out there who, in the eyes of the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, are actually married to MORE than one wife! Some more than two... three... 10. And the CURRENT wife, if not the FIRST woman he had sex with... it not the LAWFUL wife, but a partner in his adultery (from the first "wife", the first woman he slept with).

With all of that said, though... having more than one wife, indeed, adultery, is not... praise JAH... an unforgivable sin:

"[Jesus] went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to [Jesus], 'Teacher, [color=#0040FF]this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?' They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accus[/color][/color]ing him.

"But [Jesus] bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only [Jesus] was left, with the woman still standing there.

"[Jesus] straightened up and asked her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' '“No one, sir,' she said. 'Then neither do I condemn you,' [Jesus] declared.[/color]' John 8:1-11

The thing is that so many, inside and OUTSIDE of the WTBTS don't KNOW that they are fleshly adulterers, as well as spiritual ones. Hence, they don't know what to ask forgiveness FOR... and so don't ask. For those who also don't eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ, there is another reason that their sin(s) in this way remain:

"This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace..." Ephesians 1:7

"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance —now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

"In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, 'This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.' In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

"It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." Hebrews 9:11-38

So, there is no REASON for folks to too ashamed or "unworthy" to SEEK forgiveness - it is available to ALL, based on the blood of Christ! Unfortunately, religions like the WTBTS, who "seat themselves in the seat of Moses," as well as in JUDGMENT (although not a one of THEM gave THEIR blood!)... make it terrifying for such folks to admit their sins and errors. As a result, these either hide... or deny that such IS sin. And thus, in either case, fail to ask for forgiveness... or partake of the blood of Christ in demonstration of their FAITH... in HIM, his BLOOD... and the redemption of both!

But there is hope, yet, as the Door stands open STILL... and along with his Bride calls out:

"Come! Take 'life's water'... the holy spirit of God... which spirit is HIS blood... which He put in His Son, the Holy One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)... who pours it out, just as he poured out the blood of his flesh... for ALL those who are thirsting and wishing... FREE!"

Ummmmm... didn't mean to go SO far out there, but, well... what can I say? Out of my heart's "abundance" - LOLOL!

Peace to you, all!

A slave of Christ,

SA

HAGGELOS SAID

SA, my dear, you write:

“[T]he CURRENT wife, if not the FIRST woman he had sex with... is not the LAWFUL wife, but a partner in his adultery (from the first "wife", the first woman he slept with).” (Emphasis mine.)

Can you expound a bit more, if you don’t mind my asking?

It has been my understanding that in ancient Hebrew society, an Israelite “could” marry a (first) wife and then marry many others, all of them being “legal” wives AND not be considered to be an “adulterer.” There are numerous examples of this in the biblical text. (I understand that what is legal may very well differ greatly from that which is morally correct and approved by God.) Or, are all of these Israelite men who married many women (although legal), all adulterers?

What then IS adultery? (In ancient Hebrew society? Or even now?)

I also understand that Christ changed that which was once legal and allowed in ancient Hebrew society to the way God wanted it to be as from the beginning: One man/one woman. One man/first woman. One man/next woman (after death of first wife or after a god-sanctioned divorce).

Any further comments would be appreciated. Merci beaucoup!
--H.

AGUEST SAID





I can, dear Haggelos (and peace to you!) and I don't mind one bit!




You are correct, dear one... as that relates to Hebrew society, which was greatly accommodated in this area. But my comment wasn't in the context of Hebrew society... but the "society" that was restored (not changed) by Christ, which those of the WTBTS claim to be members of.




"Adultery" is when one violates the BOND... or UNION... created when two become one... whether fleshly or spiritual... by "bonding" with another. And that bond does not have to be broken by a genital to genital sex act. It occurs (the "bond") whenever a man "joins" himself physically (via his genitalia)... to another (human or not)... however he does that.




He changed it? Or restored it... because it had been changed... "legalized"... to accommodate Israel? Let's go back to Abraham: Sarah was his legal wife; Hagar, although called a wife, was not a LEGAL wife - otherwise, HER son would have been the heir, because he was born FIRST. Right? But Isaac was called the legal (rightful, meaning, by right, meaning by law) heir... because his mother was the legal wife. There was a contract as to Sarah; Hagar, however, a servant to Sarah, was "given" to Abraham BY Sarah (and not her father, brother, uncle, etc.). Abraham paid Sarah no "price" for Hagar, however - indeed, it was Hagar who was paying a debt (her place and care in the house).

In some instances, the Law was greatly amended to compensate for Israel's hard-heartedness, yes? But those who belong to Christ are those who have SOFTENED their hearts, right? Or are trying to? So that the Law can be written ON such, yes? Which law, though? The one mediated by Moses, with its amendments? Or the one mediated by Christ?

Please know that I did NOT post these truths to cause anyone concern or a "bad" conscience or anything like that - to the contrary, I shared it so that those who wish to would know what they might need/want to ask forgiveness FOR. Maybe even some who didn't even go as far as, say, sex (as one only needs to LOOK at another so as to "have relations" with him/her... to have committed adultery in his/her heart, right?

'Cause it's the heart... NOT the flesh... that God examines, right? Because if one has actually gone through with the act it was the result of what was in the heart FIRST, right? So, then, so such ones would know what to "come clean" about, should they desire ("Cleanse the INSIDE of the cup!"). Praise JAH, though, it doesn't necessarily have to be revealed to OTHERS; however, it isn't hidden from JAH/Christ and so why NOT just go to them and ask forgiveness... BEFORE it comes out (i.e., when "all" is "revealed")?

Again, I have not shared this for all this time because I know and understand that their are many... MANY... who believe themselves to be "without sin" in this regard. Primarily because of religious teachings on the matter (particularly the WTBTS). That is an error, though. As you state, a man is still considered "married" to a woman that has not either died... or been divorced on the grounds (i.e., legality) of adultery and/or fornication.




Well, you can see why I might have avoided sharing THIS truth for as long as I have - LOLOL! I used to get quite nervous that someone was going to ask... and I was going to have to share the truth of it. Can you imagine the fallout on JWN had I done that there? Given where many have ended up with regard to their faith and "relationship" with God/Christ? OMG. Surely someone would have taken it as my "judging," which isn't the case at all. This is just information... for whoever wishes it. Everyone is welcome to hear... or refrain. It's just information.

I hope that helps and, again, peace to you!

YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

SA

GLADIATOR SAID




Yeah well, they were living in a tent. Campers are a strange breed. All that fresh air and poor bathroom facilities can turn things around. Keeping your back to the wall just don't work under canvass and living in one room is a bit too close for comfort.

AGUEST SAID




As well as understandably there wasn't a WHOLE lot to do, say, between sunup and sundown, dear Glad (peace to you!)... and darkness does tend to lend itself to folks "needing" to "get close" (wink, wink!). Then there's all that laying down that folks do after the lights go out... how much effort does it take to, say, just roll on over to the next mat? And what about living with all of those animals (who didn't care whether it was day or night - when the urge hit, the urge hit) - LOLOLOL!

Self-control wasn't one of greatest "skills" utilized in the nomadic life (hence, some features... well, most features, actually... of the Law). Although the reality of more mouths to feed in a lifestyle where food wasn't always a given... or fresh... was often a deterrent.

Anyone have any statistics on how things like radio, television, and now, the Internet have progressively affected procreation levels in a given region, if at all?

Peace!

A slave of Christ,

SA

HAGGELOS SAID

SA, thank you. Yes, "restored" is the more accurate word.

You know, SA, this makes me realize just how profoundly sinful sin is. So many do not realize how profoundly deep and serious sin is that we totally NEED the mercy of God and His Christ. And how abundant that loving-kindness is to forgive us our sins.

Reminds me of that biblical text that speaks to the deepness of the "darkness" in our souls. (I'm paraphrasing here because I can't remember exactly how that quote goes.) But the darkness in us is pretty damn deep, if you know what I mean. Thank God for Christ!

--H.

AGUEST SAID

That's the point, dear one (again, peace to you!). Indeed, it was the point of the Old Law: to make sin manifest... NOT with regard to others, but with regard to each one's own self. In order to accommodate as well as obscure sin, however, the scribes, et al., have either built things up or watered things down.

But the GOOD NEWS... is Christ, dear one... and that we CAN be cleansed of sin, by means of his love... and his blood! That's why his blood (and thus, his spirit!)... is "life-giving": it cleanses such that one can receive GOD'S blood, holy spirit... and thus BE "clean"... indeed, as a "virgin"... once again!

And thus, we don't HAVE to be down-trodden or fearful (of such events as "Armageddon" or mythical places as "Hell"!). We are constituted as CLEAN... such that we can ENTER... even into/before the MOST Holy! I cannot tell you how this "news" freed ME! It is why I must follow him. He gave his life (blood)... and now gives his life (holy spirit) to cleanse ME! How can I not love him for that? That cleansing puts me in line to be worthy to receive everlasting life (by means of my sins being covered/washed/blotted out/forgiven). While others may also have sayings of "everlasting life"... he is the only One who can GRANT it.

I am glad what I shared resounded with you. Once we stop fooling ourselves... by LYING to ourselves... as to what we are and/or may have done... we can then stop lying to him... and thus, to God. THAT is yet another way in which we can be... FREE!

Again, peace to you!

Your servant, sister, and a fellow slave of Christ,

SA

GLADIATOR SAID



They were too busy trying to control marauding tribes worry too about the fire going out!

By the way your new avatar is more appealing. Will you share with us - is it you as a child or perhaps your daughter?

AGUEST SAID

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:13 pm Post subject:
'Tis yours truly, dear one (peace to you!)... age 6. Hence, my 1st grade pic.

Peace!

SA, on her own...

GLADIATOR SAID

Sure is pretty...light under a bushel and all that.

VANDERHOVEN7 SAID

Hi Aguest,




Not to argue...but then what is divorce? If a wife decides she no longer wants to be married and determines never to allow her husband access to intimacy, would she be divorcing him? This is actually happening to a consistently kind and generous personal Christian friend who I have known many years (37 years old), and whose wife claims to be a Christian, witnesses, serves in the church etc. It seems to me that there is no marriage except what is on paper, no touching, no kissing, nothing...in over 2 years. She has rejected counseling. He is distraught.

PAULSACRAMENTO SAID

The issue of abstinence and Chasity is one that is used by many religions to show how "pure" they are ( typically Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
The reality is that what makes one "pure" is the intentions, not the act.
Note that Christ said that the mere desire is a sin, making the statement that INTENT is also judged, not just the act.
There is nothing morally superiour to being a virgin till marriage.
There is something morally superiour as to not have sex with anyone other than someone we love and are devoted to ( which, ceremony or not, equals marriage in the eyes of God).
Because of the value of an "unspoiled" woman in the "olden days", it was instilled in women to NOT "give up the milk" because "no man would buy the cow if he was getting the milk for free".
Sex became a commodity and not an expression of love and commitment.
Organized religion understood that if one can control the sex lives of their followers, then they can control them.
Hence high control cults always place a "value" on "correct" sexual behaviour.

AGUEST SAID

Not to take anything away fro what dear PSacto posted, I would like to respond to your questions, dear VDH (the greatest of love and peace to you, both!):




"Divorce" is the situation whereby a marriage comes to an end by a means other than death, dear one. There is "lawful" divorce, and "unlawful" divorce.

Initially, lawful divorce was only that which came about as a result of fornication or adultery, where a man could legally leave off caring for a wife under such circumstances. This changed due to the hard-heartedness of Israel (on the part of both men AND women), such that men could eventually gain a "certificate" of divorce (from the priest) and leave off a wife on other grounds (i.e., contentiousness, contrariness, failure to care for her children/household, etc., and eventually, showing just how far the men's hard-heartedness had gone, "just because"). It was not available to women, as women were only permitted one husband.

Christ re-established the initial law when he said that any man who divorced his wife "except on the grounds of adultery/fornication" and married another... committed adultery. In addition, he made the wife so loosed "a subject of adultery" should she take another husband (i.e., it was the husband who initially illegally loosed her who was at fault - this was because women were dependent upon men for livelihood, so she pretty much had no choice BUT to remarry. Her doing so made HER an adulteress, however).



You are thinking of "constructive" divorce, yes? But that would not be the case. The marriage "vow" is supposed to be a lifelong vow... regardless of what occurs in the marriage, save adultery, fornication, or death. Hence, "A wife is bound to her husband all the days he is alive."

Now, can she LEAVE him? Yes, she can. If he is no longer agreeable to dwelling with HER (and beating/abusing her, withholding HIS affections, etc., constitutes not being "agreeable")... she is "loosed" from his law; however, she so long as he is ALIVE... she is still HIS wife... to the extent he is responsible for caring for her. If, then, she marries another (for whatever reason, including needing to be cared for), she commits adultery; again, however, it's on him that she does because it's because of him that she left. And if he takes another wife... he, too, commits adultery and the woman he takes shares in that with him.

Can he leave her? Again, yes... because she is not holding true to HER vow; however, if she has not committed adultery/fornication, then his taking another wife would constitute adultery, as well as him making her a potential candidate for adultery.

BUT... what one must understand is that none of this is an unforgivable sin. Adultery is not blasphemy and thus, one CAN be forgiven by means of the blood of the Lamb. One need only ask; however, most DON'T ask... because most don't know/believe they are committing adultery. This is because our modern society and outlook has changed this truth... because of its desire not to be JUDGED... by the over-pious, self-righteous clergy and their associates who wrongfully use their so-called "relationship with Christ" and its PRIVILEGES. Rather than using such to FORGIVE, which is the purpose FOR such privileges - to RELEASE the "captives" [to sin] - they use it to judge, condemn, place burdens on others that they themselves can't carry... and ultimately "ruining" the consciences of the sheep... so that these DON'T go and ask forgiveness... because they don't believe they are worthy OF forgiveness!
This was not and IS not the GOOD news... of the kingdom and blood of Christ.

Those who belong to Christ, however, know... or SHOULD know... that our Lord directed US to "STOP judging" and to go RELEASING. Showing mercy and FORGIVING sins. Because ALL of us are sinners, in one manner or another... and the Most Holy One of Israel does not "rank" sin. Hence, as when the woman "caught in the act of adultery" was brought to HIM, his same words apply to us, that "Let the one of you WITHOUT sin cast the first stone."

It is not our job, then, to worry about or concern ourselves with another's sin in this regard; true, if we simply cannot overlook a matter involving sin... due to our own concern about "law" and/or one who has been sinned "against" (say, perhaps a child)... we should speak to our brother in the manner given us by our Lord at Matthew 18:15-20; however, in MOST cases we can simply DO as HE did... and just FORGIVE the sin. Let OUR love cause US to surpass the "law"... rather than bemoan that someone else has transgressed it. Matthew 6:14 (Note, the words "against you" do NOT appear in the Greek. So it is NOT just another's sins against us that we can... and should... forgive. As "ambassadors substituting for Christ, we have authority to forgive ALL sins... and so should. John 8:10-11; 20:22, 23; Luke 6:37




This is a conundrum; however, neither you nor I should assume that the wife is purposefully "withholding" anything that she is able to give, either physically, mentally, emotionally, psychologically, etc. It is something he and she are going to have to deal with, as others rarely know what's really going on in another couple's marriage. It may or may not have anything to do with the WTBTS; indeed, that harlot may only be an excuse for other underlying issues either or both have. In that light, it could be that he would face the same circumstances even were she not a witness.

And if a lack of sex/affection is his only issue, what if she had some physical event that caused the same thing? A paralyzing accident or something that caused her to be unable to provide sex. What then?

Bear in mind, what I've shared is the "letter" of the law (although reiterated by Christ under the "New" law, so...), whereas it is the SPIRIT of the law that is most important. In that light, a man is supposed to be loving his wife "as he loves his own flesh." So, he may need to put himself in HER "shoes" and try to understand WHY she isn't making herself available to him, etc. As he would want HER to do should HE be the withholding one ('cause it CAN cut the other way, dear one).

He may believe that she "owes" him, simply because she is his wife... and so her body doesn't truly "belong" to her, but to him, and so regardless of her feelings for/about him... or his for/about her... she MUST give him her body. I can tell you, though, that THAT view won't work with many women today. Indeed, unlike many men (not all, of course), WE are SO much more than our bodies. Even so, she would have to consider whether she is living up to HER vow, as well.

Bottom line: he and she need to come to terms with the void in their marriage... one way or another. The possible anger one or both have for the other, if not resolved... will fester... and lead to hatred, which, regardless of the outcome of the marriage, shouldn't happen. Especially if there are children because the manifestation of that hatred can have devastating effects on the children. Whether he continues to cope with his "loss"... or chooses to move on... is between him, her, and God/Christ (if he is a believer). He should, however, be aware of all of the potential ramifications of leaving... NOT so that he will feel guilty, but so that he will know what to ask forgiveness FOR... so as to have his conscience CLEANSED (if indeed that is the result). He should keep in mind, though, that as with forgiveness for any other sin... one cannot "use" this privilege to commit further sin.

Note, I don't mean that he can't remarry and be forgiven for that "adultery." He will not be "lawfully" remarried if he hasn't been forgiven for any sins as to the first one. Again, though, it's not blasphemy so perhaps he can receive such forgiveness - depends on what's truly in his heart when he asks, including whether HE forgives others THEIR sins... or hypocritically judges them for them. He cannot, though, leave this wife, take another, ask for forgiveness, receive it... and then, perhaps tiring of the new one... leave HER... and find another, etc., asking for forgiveness, then do it again, etc. In THAT sense, he will be "practicing" sin/adultery... because he is using the forgiveness privilege to justify. If, however, circumstances keep dictating that he has no other choice (i.e., perhaps the subsequent wife is abusive herself, etc.)... and he ends up with, say, another wife, even another... and another... for similar reasons (abuse, etc.)... then he should be comforted by the knowledge that Christ would not have US do anything HE wouldn't do himself... and he left the admonition for US to forgive... "up to 70 times 7 times."

The Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, IS merciful, dear one... except as to blasphemy, which includes trying to fool holy spirit. Which includes trying to use the "undeserved kindness (of mercy and forgiveness)" for one's own unlawful gain. That would be to "miss its purpose"! So, as with ANY thing of this nature, your friend would want to scrutinize HIMSELF... being absolutely honest with HIMSELF... checking out what's in HIM... including his true motive... before taking any kind of action regarding this marriage and/or any subsequent marriage.

Because if HE is not clean... if HIS hands are "dirty"... if HE judges others... holds hatred in HIS hearts... and/or fails to forgive others THEIR sins... then he risks having ALL of the sins he's ever been forgiven for... reinstated. In full. With no "covering."

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

SA