How Should a Christian Wife Deal with A Cheating Husband?

“My husband is having an emotional affair with his ex-girlfriend whom he got  pregnant during our separation. How does the Bible say a wife should deal with a cheating husband?” This question was posed in one of two emails I have received recently from two different Christian wives.

This question above was part of an email I received from a woman that has commented on this blog calling herself “Soul Fruit Sister”.  Below is larger excerpt from her email to me.

“My husband is having an emotional affair with his ex-girlfriend whom he got  pregnant during our separation. How does the Bible say a wife should deal with a cheating husband? His ex-girlfriend also has a boyfriend and another child with the man she is with now as well.

I saw text messages from her to my husband asking our marriage was and him writing back that it has been stressful between us. I also saw texts from my husband telling her how great she is, how gorgeous she is, etc. Meanwhile, he has pretty much emotionally abandoned me, although he still has sex with me and requires me to give him oral sex whenever he feels like it.

I’ve tried talking to him about talking to her this way multiple times, calmly, and at first, he said he would stop. His mother even spoke to him about it, and he told her he would quit but as of recently he still continues to speak with her on a daily basis about things he should only be talking with me about. I found this out by looking at one of his old phone’s that he recently had switched over. I don’t normally go through his phone because he keeps it on him at all times and he would be furious if I tried too.

It is now to a point where I’ve tried talking to him about it, telling him how it hurts me and how I would like for him to start setting boundaries that would reestablish trust between us, but he just ignored me.

The Scriptures command us to expose evil.  And in Matthew 18 we are told if a believer sins against us and refuses to repent after we have brought that sin to their attention, we should bring it to the church.

My husband claims to be a Christian, but his actions are clearly not those of a believer and he does not attend church. So, what then should my actions be?”

Below is another email I recently received from another Christian wife calling herself “Martha”:

“Dear BGR,

My husband claimed to be Christian many years ago when we got married. He was actually very active in our church and taught Sunday School at one point.  But over the years he has fallen away from the church but still claims to be a Christian.  He has not been to church now in several years.  While he never drives drunk (but rather has me drive him), I am still not happy with the amount of drinking he does or how foolish he gets when he drinks.  He also gets very flirtatious when he drinks.

So here is my problem, my husband travels for work often and recently he even admitted that some of his buddies have taken him to a strip club a few times when he has been away for work.  He claims he did nothing with the girls, but how do I know that? I have seen places on your blog where you have said that a man going to a strip club is him having virtual sex even if he never touches the woman. My husband has at least had virtual sex with these strippers and in the worst case he actually engaged in physical sexual activity with them.  How does the Bible say I should handle this as a Christian wife?”

So, what is the Biblical answer to the difficult situations that both these women find themselves in? What does the Bible say a Christian wife’s response should be to her cheating husband? Before we can answer this central question that both these wives are asking, we must put their question in perspective from a Biblical world view.


The Biblical Definition of a “Cheating Husband” is Different Than Our Modern Definition

Today most people, including Bible believing Christians, would define a cheating husband as a married man that is emotionally or physically intimate with a woman other than his wife.  They will refer to such a man as an “adulterer”.

There are a small number of wives today that would not feel their marriage is threatened by their husband having an emotionally intimate relationship with another woman while the vast majority of women would feel threatened by this.

And the reality is that often when a man shares his emotions with a woman, eventually she shares her body – at least in the beginning of a new relationship between them.  So, this concern that emotional intimacy between a husband and a woman other than his wife might lead to physical intimacy, is actually well founded.

But for most wives, it is not just the worry of their husbands engaging in physical intimacy with another woman.  Most wives want be the person that their husband shares all of his feelings with from his joys to his sorrows and his worries.

Let me put this another way.  For many women, their husband could never go near another woman emotionally or physically but if he holds back things from her, they also consider this to be “a breach of trust”.

It is not uncommon to hear of women divorcing their husbands, not because of sexual infidelity or abuse, but because of a breach of trust.  Either the husband lied to his wife about various things or he held things back from her.  Many wives want to know everything their husbands are thinking or doing and this is the center piece of marital faithfulness for many women.

I have actually heard of women that have no problem with their husbands going to strip clubs as long as they take their wife with them.  Other women don’t even have to go with their husbands, as long as the husband always tells her when and where he is going.  Some women even go so far as allowing their husbands to have sex with other women as long as the wife is present.   The common denominator in these situations is simply that there are no secrets between the husband and wife and nothing is held back.

Again, this comes back to a woman’s concept of marital faithfulness which starts with complete and utter openness, no secrets, nothing withheld and then in most cases it extends to physical intimacy as well.

In other words, for the overwhelming vast majority of women today, their concept of marital faithfulness is that they own their husband’s heart and his body.

But as Bible believing Christians, we must test everything we believe or feel by the Word of God as the Scriptures exhort us to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Christian ladies, this is one of those times I am going to ask you to brace yourselves and take off your cultural lenses.

Nowhere in all the Bible is a married man called an adulterer simply because he is emotionally intimate or sexually intimate with a woman not his wife.  But rather he is called an adulterer for the following three reasons:

  1. If he has sex with another man’s wife and then his sin of adultery is committed against the husband of that wife, not his wife. (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22)
  2. If he wrongly divorces his wife. (Matthew 5:32)
  3. If he marries a woman who wrongly divorced her husband. (Mark 10:12)

In other words, based on the Biblical definition of an adulterer, a married man who has sex with an unmarried woman is NOT an adulterer, but rather he is a whoremonger.  A married man can only be labeled as an adulterer if he has sex with another man’s wife or if he wrongly divorces his wife.  Another way of putting this is the only way a married man’s behavior can Biblically be labeled as the sin of adultery against his wife is if he wrongly divorces her.

The Scriptures recognize this distinction between whoremongers and adulterers in Hebrews 13:14 where we read “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge”.

Some Christian wives may be reading this and saying “ok fine so my cheating husband is called a whoremonger by God and not adulterer.  Who cares? He is still a cheating husband and committing marital unfaithfulness by his actions.”


But then we must ask what is the Biblical definition of marital faithfulness of man toward his wife?

A lot of Christian teachers online and in Christian pulpits across America say that a man having sex with women other than his wife is him committing adultery against her, an act of marital unfaithfulness and grounds for divorce.  They say this based on Matthew 5:32 which we previously referenced:

“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

Matthew 5:32 (KJV)

The problem is they are ignoring the gender specificity of this statement by Christ. Christ says a man may “put away his wife” for “fornication”.

And now comes a Biblical truth that completely conflicts with our American cultural values.

While Scripturally speaking, marital faithfulness for a woman toward her husband does hinge upon on her exclusively giving herself sexually to her husband there is no Biblical warrant for making the same statement of husbands toward their wives.

The reason that emotional and sexual exclusivity is never given as a criterion of marital faithfulness of a husband toward his wife is found in the following passage of the Bible:

“10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”

Exodus 21:10-11 (KJV)

And there you have it right there in the Scriptures.  The reason emotional and sexual exclusivity is never given as a criterion of marital faithfulness of a husband toward his wife is because God allows men to practice polygamy or specifically polygyny.

I realize there is a lot of opposition in the Christian world and elsewhere to polygamy.  Often Christian preachers will say “polygamy was a sin God overlooked for a time”.  But such a statement is an assault on the holy character of God.  God never condones, regulates or allows something he considers to be sinful.

In Genesis 30:18, God rewarded Leah with another son because she gave her handmaid to her husband as another wife. God expressly set forth rules for the practice of polygamy in Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 and Deuteronomy 25:5-7. While God warned against Kings hording wives in Deuteronomy 17:17 as Solomon would later do, he told David in II Samuel 12:8 when he sinned with Bathsheba that he had given David many wives and would have given him many more wives.

In Ezekiel 23:1-5 God pictures himself as a polygamist husband of two wives, those being the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah.  And in Romans 10:19 we read that God is taking on a new wife in the form of the Church to make his first wife, the nation of Israel, jealous so that she may return to him.

Those who oppose polygamy as an allowable extension of God’s design for marriage and insist that “God’s design was for a man to be married to one woman as seen in his creation of one wife for Adam” must then say God violated his own design in allowing and regulating the practice of polygamy for Israel.

And those who say “well God allowed divorce to and that was not part of his design” fail to recognize that God said he hates divorce in Malachi 2:16 but never in all the Scriptures does he say he hates polygamy or that he had to allow it because of sin.

And before we move on from this subject of polygamy back to the Biblical definition of martial faithfulness, I want to quickly address one other argument against the practice of Biblical polygamy.  Some may say “Well maybe God allows polygamy for men, but the laws of various nations including the United States do not.  Therefore, even though God allows men to practice polygamy they cannot because it is illegal by the law of the United States.”

The problem with this belief is that is built upon the false teaching that civil authorities are unlimited in their power.  Many Christians believe the government can regulate and legislate any area of our lives as long as that regulation or law does not ask us to sin against God (Acts 5:29).  But Christ taught us that civil government is actually limited in its scope when he made the following statement below:

“And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.”

Mark 12:17 (KJV)

Jesus did not say render to God everything that is God’s and everything else render to Caesar.   No, my friends, he told us to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. God never granted authority over marriage to the either the civil government or the Church. Instead he granted authority over marriage to the family and specifically to fathers. This is why it is consistently seen throughout the Scriptures that fathers give or refuse their daughters for marriage (Jeremiah 29:6, Exodus 22:16-17) and neither the civil government nor church has any part in this.

For more on the subject of Biblical polygamy see my five part series on Polygamy which starts with “Why Polygamy Is Not Unbiblical Part 1”.


Now, having proven from the Scriptures why emotional and sexual exclusivity is never given as a criterion of marital faithfulness of a husband toward his wife we will return to what God defines as marital faithfulness of a husband toward his wife.

Unlike how God defines marital faithfulness for a woman, marital faithfulness for a man has nothing to do with the exclusivity of his relationship with his wife, but rather it centers on his loving provision for his wife.

Marital faithfulness of a husband toward his wife is defined by God in Exodus 21:10-11 as a husband providing his wife with food, clothing and sexual relations.   

So, we can see by looking at the Scriptures that like many other things today, our definition of a cheating husband is very different than God’s definition of a cheating husband.

God’s definition of a cheating husband is a man that does not provide his wife with the necessities of life including sexual relations.

The New Testament repeats the concepts we just read in Exodus 21:10-11 where we see these responsibilities of a husband toward his wife repeated in the following passages:

“28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”

Ephesians 5:28-29 (KJV)

“3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

I Corinthians 7:3-5 (KJV)

The word “nourisheth” has the idea of provision which would correlate back to Exodus 21:10’s command that a man provide food for his wife.  The word “cherisheth” does not carry the modern romantic definition of this word which has come to mean “putting one’s wife on a pedestal”.  It actually has the idea of a mother hen keeping her eggs protected and warm which correlates back to Exodus 21:10’s command for a man to properly cloth his wife which would protect her body from the elements.

And Exodus 21:10’s call for men to perform their marital duty with their wives, or in other words give them sexual relations is restated in the passage above from I Corinthians 7:3-5.


Are You Saying it is OK for Husbands to Have Sex with Other Women?

Unless your husband is properly practicing Biblical polygamy in which he intends to continue to provide for you and new wives he takes no it is not OK for him to simply have sex with other women. To do so is by definition whoremongering which God says he will judge in Hebrews 13:4.

The reality is that most men in western culture will not or cannot practice Biblical polygamy because of cultural and financial obstacles to doing so.  It does not make it wrong for the few men who can overcome both these obstacles, but the majority of men simply cannot.

Neither of the husbands mentioned in the two emails I received are attempting to practice Biblical polygamy.

Martha’s husband who is going to strip clubs is definitely engaging in a least virtual sexual relations in these clubs, if not actual physical sexual relations.  Therefore, he being a whoremonger which is a sin against God’s law.

But what about Soul Fruit Sister’s husband and his emotional affair with his ex-girlfriend? That one is a bit trickier.  Is he engaging in a virtual form of sexual relations with her? Right now, the answer appears to be no.

Is what he is doing still inappropriate? Yes.  And here is the reason why.

While he may not be having virtual or physical sexual relations with this other woman, he may still be guilty of making “provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” (Romans 13:14) and putting himself in a position where some type of illicit sexual relationship could happen and this is why is actions are wrong.

How Should These Two Wives Deal with Their Husband’s Sins?

As I just stated, Martha’s husband by attending strip clubs is definitely committing the sin of whoremongering by engaging in at least virtual or physical sexual relations with strippers.

Soul Fruit Sister’s husband is making provision for himself to fall into sexual sin which is a sin in and of itself.

In the case of Martha’s husband which is clear cut case of sexual sin it would not be inappropriate for her to bring this to her church elders if her husband was church member.  But my reasoning for this is not based on Matthew 18 which Soul Fruit Sister alluded to.

First let’s look at Matthew 18:15-17 (KJV):

“15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

Some Christians have wrongly interpreted Matthew 18:15-17 to mean we can go to our church elders anytime anyone in the church does even the slightest thing to us.  If they won’t admit their fault to us in private, we can run to the church elders and tattle on them.   But this is not what Christ is saying at all when we look at the entirety of the New Testament witness.

As Christians we must balance two principles.

On the one hand we are called to follow the Scriptural principle and example of Christ which in I Peter 2:19 states “For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully”. So, if our first instinct every time we are wronged in any way by a fellow believer is to run to the church and tattle on them then we are not following Christ’s example in suffering wrongly.

So, what is the standard of bringing one before the Church for Church discipline?  The standard is given to us in the following passages of the Bible:

“11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. “

1 Corinthians 5:11-13 (KJV)

 “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.”

2 Thessalonians 3:14 (KJV)

So, if a person is living an openly sinful lifestyle which includes him being a fornicator or if a person is a church member and telling people not to follow the Bible such people can be brought before the Church for discipline and possible expulsion if they refuse to repent.

So, in the case of Martha’s husband if he were a member of a church than his fornication at strip clubs would constitute an assault on the purity of the church.  Therefore, she would be right in bringing his sin to the church.

But here is a key concept that must be understood.  His sin of fornication is against God, not his wife.  But that is the opposite of how most churches and Christians would approach this sin today.

Remember we have shown from the Scriptures that a husband can only commit adultery against his wife in one way and that is by seeking to divorce her for a reason other than her being sexually unfaithful to him. So, if a man wants to put his wife away, because his girl friend wants him to dump his wife and marry her this is absolutely something that should be brought before the church if he is a church member as it is a direct sin against his wife and also against God and the purity of the Church.

But in the case Soul Fruit Sister’s husband putting himself in a possible position to sexually sin I am not sure this rises to the level that she would bring this to the church if he were a member.

However, whether these husbands were both church members or not must realize the most the church can do is condemn their actions and expel them from the church if they will not repent.  In either case of them being members or not of churches, the wives will still be left with the aftermath.

So how should a Christian wife deal with her husband’s whoremongering or even putting himself in a possible position to sexually sin because of inappropriate emotional intimacy with another woman?

The answer is found in the following passage of the Bible:

“1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”

I Peter 3:1-6 (KJV)

Would the two wives who wrote me agree that their husbands are not obeying the Word of God in the behavior they are engaging in? I think they absolutely would agree.

So then it would follow that If they agree that their husbands are in fact being disobedient to the Word of God then they must also agree with God’s prescription for how Christian wives should deal with the disobedience of their husbands including but not limited to the sin of whoremongering or making provision for the flesh to fulfill its desires.

And Gods prescription for how wives should deal with their disobedient husbands is to win them to God without preaching the Word at them, nagging them and shaming them.  But rather he wants them to wind them by their pure and reverent behavior and to adorn themselves with a quiet and meek spirit.

This prescription for wives in dealing with the sin of their husbands is the exact opposite of what a wife’s sin nature will tell her to do and unfortunately it is also the exact opposite of what many Christian pastors and teachers will tell wives to do.  But it is the truth of the Word of God.

Do I Still Have to Have Sex With My Whoremongering Husband?

I have seen many women throughout the years try and take the approach that since their husband is whoring around and might give them some sexually transmitted disease, even one that is fatal like the AIDs virus, that this gives them a free ticket to divorce their husband or at the very least refuse to have sex with him until his whoring stops and he is tested for STDs.

But let’s change the situation a bit.  What if a woman’s husband worked for the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or some other medical group where he traveled around the country or even around the world and it might be possible for him to contract a whole host of infectious diseases non-fatal and fatal alike? Would it be right for his wife to say she does not have to have sex with her husband because it might be too risky?

Now from a non-Biblical, secularist world view the answer here is simple.  Your happiness as well as physical and mental health are the most important thing in the world.  You don’t owe your husband sex or anything else for that matter that you don’t want to do. In fact if makes you happier, just leave the bum.

But God gives this command to both husbands and wives in marriage:

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

I Corinthians 7:3 (KJV)

Except for limited agreed upon times for prayer, fasting or medical conditions like surgery, child birth or other things like that – a wife has no Biblical warrant to refuse to render under her body under her husband in the act of sex.

And if you are a woman that believes that God created you for a purpose and that the Bible is the Word of God and the guide for your life then your personal happiness and even health should not be your greatest concern.   Your greatest concern should be to bring glory to God and sometimes that means suffering wrongly because of others wrong actions.  We see the following example of Christ given to us in the Scriptures:

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”

I Peter 2:21-24 (KJV)

Just as Christ bore the consequences of our sins, sometimes a wife must bare the consequences of her husband’s sins.


The Reality of Whoremongering Husbands Reveals A Sinful View of Marriage in Women

Often times in life one person’s sin will also reveal another person’s sin.  For instance, sometimes we will find out after a man engages in whoremongering that his wife was sexually denying him for years before he ever committed the acts.  This in no way justifies his sin, but this is an example of one sin in one person revealing the sin another person.

The central question of this article was how Christian women should deal with what our culture calls a “cheating husband”.  There is no doubt that a whoremongering husband is sinning against God as we have pointed out here and we have just outlined the Biblical prescription for how Christian wives should deal with this.

However, the sinful reality of a whoremongering husband can also reveal our culture’s faulty and unbiblical view of marriage. And many Christian wives today have that sinful view of their marriage whether their husband ever engages in whoremongering or not.  It is simply that whoremongering by a husband brings this faulty type of thinking of wives to the surface for all to see.

And that sinful view of marriage is rooted in the false belief that wives are entitled to their husbands centering their hearts, minds and affections solely on them.   It is their belief that they are entitled to total transparency, to know their husbands every feeling and every thought. That in essence their husband’s heart, mind and life should belong to them exclusively.

God speaks of this sinful inclination in women in Genesis 3:16:

 “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

A lot of Christians do not understand what that last phrase means when God said to the woman “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.  Many people have seen the woman’s desire to her husband as a loving desire and Christian feminists present the phrase “he shall rule over thee” as saying man’s headship over woman was only because of the fall.

Both of the above interpretations of this very important passage of the Bible are wrong.  God knew his words in Genesis 3:16 would come to be distorted so he used similar phrasing just one chapter later when speaking to Cain in Genesis 4:7:

“If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”

Was God saying Sin’s desire for Cain was good? Absolutely not! Sin’s desire was to dominate and control him.  God knew this so he told Cain that he must rule over his sin nature, otherwise his sin nature would desire to control and dominate his life.

So, looking back at Genesis 3:16 in light of what God said to Cain, what kind of sinful desire was God saying a woman would have toward her husband?

The sinful desire God is referring to in women is their desire to know their husband’s every thought and to have his complete desire, affection and really life’s focus be on them and them alone.

The scary thing is – what I have just stated is now the central philosophy of modern marriage counseling and teaching both within the church and outside the church. And it this modern ideology which totally turns the Biblical model of marriage upside down.  Does the Bible say the husband was created for his wife or does it say his wife was created for him?

The Scriptures have an unambiguous answer for this question.

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

I Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)


In the case of a whoremongering husband a wife may have to bring this to the Church if he is a church member.  But her motive in doing this should not be from a position that he has sinned against her in his whoremongering or adultery if he has been with another man’s wife.  But rather that he has sinned against God and possibly another man in taking his wife and his sin is polluting the purity of the Church.

But if he is not a church member or he has been excommunicated from the Church she has no biblical right to divorce him.  Instead God calls her to continue to submit to him and attempt to win him to God by her reverence and pure life style that she displays before him.

And a wife must also remember that often as God reveals the sinful actions of her husband, he may also reveal the sinful inclinations in her heart to be possessive and controlling toward her husband thus forgetting her place in God’s creation order.

34 thoughts on “How Should a Christian Wife Deal with A Cheating Husband?

  1. bgr it was well reasoned, logical, and right from the word without apology. Good job.

    Those who don’t want to accept it would rather think they can write the rules to suit themselves, like Eve, making a judgement that their own ideas are “good for food and pleasing to the eye” instead of accepting His way even if they do not understand the big picture or can see past themselves in the big picture.

    I personally do not think a wife can bring her husband before the church as I see this as an out of order action. She is simply not in a position to do this. God gives her specific instructions on how to deal with her husband’s sin. None of those instructions include going to find another man to come against her husband, even if he is wrong. Quite simply, it is not her place.

    I understand that she is tempted to do this, but I still think it is wrong.

  2. Thank you for writing this article, BGR. I just want to clarify although now after reading the entire thing, I do not believe it would make a difference, but my husband did not have a child with the other woman before we met. We had two children of our own together, before he met the other woman. He got her pregnant during our seperation.

    I find it very ironic that you mention polagny. I’ve read your previous articles on this subject, and I kept asking myself… What if we were in a polganist marriage? My stance would be different. But only if that polgany was something that I agreed too. Doesn’t the husband have to have the wife’s consent to bring another woman into their marriage?

    In my case, I am not ok with my husband talking to this other woman behind my back. I was never ok with him moving on with her after our temporary seperation. I knew that my husband and I would get back together and I didn’t even have any idea that he had a child with her until later after she was born, because him and his family kept it a secret from me.

    So my question now is… What about the wives who were not ok with their husbands polagny? Did a wife biblically have to consent to her husband’s polagny? Did she even get a choice? She just had to deal with it while her husband is ignoring her to focus and love on this new other woman? What if he is providing for his first wife unwillingly, only because he has too. He would much rather only be with this other woman, and he is just using his first wife. She just has to put up with it and pray?

  3. I got through about 50% (maybe 40%) of the post and will have to return to it later, but if you could, BGR, I’d like to know what this “virtual sex” you refer to comes from with regards to a man going to a strip club. I don’t frequent them myself, but I’d like some biblical clarification on what your referring to here, if you’ve got time. Thanks!

  4. I also feel very much like Leah in my situation. The only difference is that my husband loved me first. I feel that this other woman just took my place. I do admit that it is my fault for leaving him to begin with, and for denying him sex before our seperation… If I had not of done those things then he might not have ever gotten with the other woman in the first place. It’s all just very hard to swallow and deal with.

  5. anonymouswoman,

    I fixed the part about your husband having the child with the woman before you were married. I told you I would change up some details to protect your anonymity but I agree that is not one that needs to change.

    And regarding your question about men marrying other wives – there is no Scriptural requirement for a man to get his wife’s consent for this.
    Think of this another way. If you as parents only had one child and had that one child for many years by themselves up to 7 or 8 say, then you decided to have another child, would you have to ask that child’s permission? The answer is no. Now might that child be a little jealous and still want you all to themselves as they have had for many years? Sure.

    We often hear that polygamy is wrong because it causes jealousy in wives and we are directed to look at the jealous wives of some polygamous husbands in the Bible(take Jacob and David for example). But these people who use the “it causes jealousy among wives” argument against polygamy never even stop to consider that it was the wives who were in the wrong for being jealous, not the husbands for taking new wives just as an only child would be sinning for being possessively jealous over their parents for wanting to have another child.

    This all comes back to what I talked about in this article, this whole type of thinking is a failure on the part of a woman to recognize her place in God’s creation and her place in marriage. A woman does not have the right to be possessively jealous of her husband as he does toward her.

    So here is the summary of the problem with the jealousy of wives argument that is made against polygamy:

    1. It makes the marriage center on the wife’s feelings.

    2. In saying polygamous marriage is wrong because it may cause jealousy in first wives we then condemn God for allowing polygamous marriage for men. Since we know God is perfect and can allow nothing sinful or wrong and all he does is right our only Scriptural option is to instead condemn the jealousy of wives of polygamous husbands rather than condemning the husbands for engaging in polygamy.

  6. anonymouswoman,

    Your Statement:

    “She just had to deal with it while her husband is ignoring her to focus and love on this new other woman?”

    First of all, when a man marries a second wife God does not look kindly on him not showing love toward his first wife.
    The Scriptures show us this in the story of Leah and Rachel:

    “30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
    31 And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.”
    Genesis 29:30-31(KJV)

    So God showed his disapproval for Jacob’s lack of showing love for Leah in making Rachel barren.

    There are many ways God says a husband and wife can sin against one another. Here is a way a wife can sin against her husband:

    “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.”
    Proverbs 12:4 (KJV)

    A woman can sin against her husband by shaming him in her words or actions. Maybe Jacob was bitter at Leah for going along with her father’s plan to trick him into marrying her. But God says a husband does not have the right to be bitter at his wife for wrongs she commits against him:

    “Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.”
    Colossians 3:19 (KJV)

    But having acknowledged that husbands can sin by not loving their wives and being bitter against them and wives can sin against their husbands by shaming them we must then acknowledge that God only allows husbands to divorce their wives for fornication and he only allows wives to divorce their husbands for failure to provide food, clothing and sexual relations.

    Let’s now put this in very practical terms. I have seen the following scenario from countless husbands that have written me and I have experienced this first hand in my own marriage at certain points.

    What if a man has a wife that that belittles and disrespects him both in private and in front of others? What if his wife utterly refuses to submit to him? What if she tries to make his life a living hell at times? What if she knows the only way he can divorce her is if she defrauds him of sex or has sex with other men? So she grudgingly has sex with him showing her displeasure and frowning the whole time only because “she has too”? Can he divorce her? No.

    Now there is a major difference between a husband and wife in the reaction to such sins. The wife is NOT her husband’s spiritual authority and therefore has no right to rebuke him. But the husband has every right to “rebuke and chasten” (Revelation 3:19) his wife as Christ does his churches. So a husband can rebuke and chasten his wife for failure to submit to him or shameful actions she commits toward him. The wife however must exercise the I Peter 3:1-6 principle of continuing to submit to her husband and being reverent toward him regardless of his wrong treatment toward her.

    So yes as a Christian wife must as you say “put with up with it and pray“.

    But here is what you miss in this. Even though a husband has the right to rebuke and chasten his wife while the wife does not have this right toward her husband at the end of the day the husband must still learn to live with his wife who is sinning against him and guard himself from growing bitter towards her. So in this way after a husband does all he can to rebuke and chasten his wife, he too must “put up with it and pray” and seek God’s strength in dealing with his difficult wife who hates him and does not love and respect him.

    Trust me, I can think of many men right now who frequent this blog that have to put up with a lot of sin from their wives just as women sometimes have to put up with a lot of sin from their husbands.

  7. Snapper,

    Yes I have spoken many times about the concept of virtual sex and this being just as wrong outside of marriage as physical sex is. God makes the following statement in Hebrews 13:4:

    “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

    What this means is that all sexual relations that do not occur withing the convenant of the marriage are by definition whoremongering or adultery.

    So then comes the next question, can we as human beings sexually relate to one another without ever touching? The answer is absolutely yes! Think phone sex, web cams and yes strippers. A man and woman can have 10 feet between them in a strip club and be mutually masturbating while looking at one another and this is a form of virtual sexual relations. Now if a husband and wife do this within the context of a marriage covenant, there is no sin. But a stripper and her customer are not engaging in this kind of sexual relation within the covenant of marriage.

    Even if she is not masturbating, nor is he, he the fact is that sexual interactions between strippers and their customers take place in dozens of different ways without them ever touching.

    Now I have had some people ask me what the difference is a stripper and a model who poses nude for an art class at a university and the answer is simple. The model who poses nude for an art class to serve as inspiration for paintings or sculptures is not interacting with the students in a sexual way, therefore there is no virtual sex going on. But a stripper, even if she never touches her customers, is very much engaging with them in a sexual away and is engaging in virtual sexual relations with her customers.

  8. Thank you for elaborating, BGR. I understand what you’re saying about wives being difficult just like husbands… I’m by no means perfect. But I don’t hate my husband. I try to be as respectful as I can when I’m around him. He does make it extremely hard though, because he tells me he hates me often. All because I do not work outside of the home. Meanwhile, I am picking up & cleaning up after him and his/our children and doing everything I need to do around the house. I will admit that it is extremely hard not to become bitter towards him for his mistreatment of me. The only way I’m able to withstand it is if I take my emotions out of the relationship and ask God to fill me with His love, which I can then give to my husband, even though he does not love me back. I’ve wrestled with the “happy or holy” statement for quite some time now… But I do believe that this life is not about being happy. It’s about obedience to our Saviour. Loving God and loving others.
    Once again, I want to thank you for responding and bringing me clarification. I realize that it is only my flesh that wants to try and bring justice to myself. I know that God sees and hears and he will judge all.

  9. anonymouswoman,

    I am so glad to see you have a heart that wants to serve God and you realize something so few women (even Christian women) realize and that is that we cannot live by our feelings, but instead we must live by God’s Word.

    I have said here and on my podcasts that each day we as men and women of God must make a conscious decision to let God and his Word guide our hearts (feelings) and actions or let our hearts (feelings) get in the driver’s seat of our lives. Those who write me all the time here or on Facebook and say “God just wants us to be happy and we should do whatever makes us happy” are not reading the same Bible we are. They making up their own Bible and there own version of God.

    God created us for his glory and his pleasure, we were not created to live for ourselves and do whatever makes us happy.

    But then we must realize that happiness is not just a feeling, but it can also be a choice. We cannot fall into the trap of thinking God is OK with us just doing the right actions while harboring feelings of bitterness and resentment. We can actually choose to be happy, even in the worst of situations and this is a truth that escapes most Christians today.

    Whether it is a woman whose husband shows her no affection and gives her none of his time or a man whose wife constantly tells him she hates him and grudgingly gives him sex because she knows she has to – we all as men and women of God can choose to to find joy even in these tough circumstances.

  10. Anm1,

    I agree that the default position of a wife in how to respond to her husband’s sinful behavior is the I Peter 3:1-6 model and as his spiritual subordinate she does not have the right to run out and tell on her husband for every sin he commits.

    However there are I believe some exceptions to this rule. What if her husband has kidnapped some young girls and is holding them in his basement as he goes down each day to rape them? There have been women that allowed this to go on and did not tell authorities on their husbands. I believe they were wrong in doing this and this is not what God had in mind in his commands in I Peter 3:1-6 to wives.

    In regard to the church, the wife is also a member of the church and I Corinthians 5 tells us as the church that we cannot tolerate fornication among our members. Fornication in the church is a cancer that must be removed. Here are some examples I had in mind when I wrote about this. What about a woman who knows her husband is molesting young boys in the church? (This actually happened in church near me). What about a woman who knows her husband is having affairs with men’s wives in the church? I could come up with a dozen different examples but you get my point.

    So it is not really a matter of finding “another man to come against her husband”, but rather is a matter of protecting the purity of the church. She is informing on her husband’s wickedness, not literally dragging him before the church. That is my point – a wife has a duty in some extreme cases to inform either the church authorities or civil authorities of his actions.

  11. This section really nailed it:

    “The sinful desire God is referring to in women is their desire to know their husband’s every thought and to have his complete desire, affection and really life’s focus be on them and them alone.”

    Hence the oft-alleged (and over-dramatic) “emotional affair”. I was warned against them twice in Christian pre-marital counseling. To ward off these insidious, but undefined trysts, I’ve seen girlfriends or wives become pathologically jealous – looking through the phone, demanding access to social media, wanting to know who every girl that’s been ‘friended’ is, and even reaching out to those women in personal mark their territory. Not a shocker, these women quickly ruined their relationships by trying to keep a muzzle on their man. I have Christian friends who have only a joint email account, social media accounts, etc, and consider this a normal and prudent best-practice. Silliness.

    What I’ve seen, is that the strongest marriages are based on actual trust and good communication, not 24/7 surveillance, demanding to know every detail of inter-gender friendships, and otherwise trying to lash your husband or wife to the mast lest he or she fall prey to the sirens – as if we have no self-respect or self-control.

    IMO, a healthy relational distance and the accompanying erotic tension is good for a relationship – it’s that thing where you see your husband out doing his thing, engaged and vibrant, without you – maybe even (gasp!) talking to an attractive member of the opposite sex! And maybe that person is digging his vibe! So naturally, you up your game, get your husband back to your lair, and jump his bones until he’s way too exhausted to even think about sex with anyone else.

    Honestly, this stuff isn’t hard, but we’d rather sit around whining about how our rights are being violated and our needs aren’t being met, than get busy winning!!

    To a wife whose husband is being a jack-wagon and orbiting his ex… my two cents of advice is this: instead of trying to control your man, decide what kind of wife you want to be and then go be that. Pro tip – if he seems a little stressed, tell him so, and then rub his temples and forehead while he lays back in a chair. Tell him he can talk about his day if he wants, and you’ll just listen, or not talk about it, and you will just be silent and let his mind relax. Stop trying to force emotional intimacy- it doesn’t work that way. Instead, create the conditions for it to grow organically. It will take some time.

    If great sandwiches are his thing, up your sandwich game. If oral sex is his thing, make it y’alls thing. Whatever it takes. Get fired up and go win. Guys don’t usually cheat for straight sex – they cheat for ego. You’re going to let some home-wrecking female be a better cheerleader for your man than you? A better listener? A better lay? O helll no… Go win.

    And if after all that, he leaves anyway, it’s not you, it’s him. Win by finding someone better to cast your pearls before.

  12. Yes, exactly! This was confirmation for me. Because I was recently convicted of doing that very thing. I WAS harboring the feelings of bitterness towards my husband. I can take my emotions out of it, but I also can’t just hold them all in, or they WILL turn into bitterness and eventualy hatred. It is necessary to cry out to God and let Him take it all so that He can heal. It is only then that He can fill us with His love. If I do it all without love, then it is meaningless, And “He who comes weeping, bearing seeds, will come again rejoicing with his sheaves.” Psalm 126:6 Thank you for reminding me this.

  13. Old soul, I Was that overly possesive female you are referring too, in the beggining of our relationship. I was constantly going through his phone and wanted to know who every female was that he spoke too. I thought it was normal back then though, because I wasn’t a christian. We shared everything with each other and it was his idea. Passwords, bank accounts ect. But then I think I let it all get to my head. I had that “he’s all mine” mentality and I was proud of it. This was narcissism and that’s what I was. I do still struggle with jealousy from time to time but that’s only because I want that fire back that we once had for each other. But you’re right, it can’t be forced. And those are good examples of how I can do my part better as a wife.

  14. So the new covenant re-established a lot of rules. The old covenant allowed for polygamy, but it was never encouraged. Nowhere in the New Testament is polygamy allowed, and Paul even says in 1 Timothy that a pastor should be “the husband of but one wife”. At no point in the history of Christianity has a polygamy been allowed.

    Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge”.

    What Paul is saying is that those who have sex outside the allotted context (marriage) will go to hell. Included in this are both those who have sex with no emotional commitment (whoremongers) and those who have emotional commitment but outside that proper context (adulterers). It’s not meant to be an all-encompassing statement. He’s just saying that you should only have sex in its proper context.

    While I definitely admire that you are willing to take Scripture at face value and go against our culture, you really should be more careful. Scripture doesn’t have this hidden meaning that can only be revealed if you put all the puzzle pieces together.

    My answer to the question, “How should a wife deal with a cheating husband?” is that if he repents then she should forgive him but if he doesn’t repent then she has the right to divorce him. But neither of the two women who wrote to you have cheating husbands.

  15. anonymouswoman,
    I’m glad my comments were helpful – I pray you and your husband get that fire back!

    I also should caveat my talk of winning – of course it’s not our race we need to win, but God’s. That’s just a little bit of rhetorical “coach-speak” to get you fired up!!

    I think you’re showing a lot of maturity, self-reflection, and willingness to work at this, and I think you can get an outcome that ultimately glorifies God.

    Last thing – I saw your comment about your husband saying he hates you often, because you don’t work outside the home. That bit worries me – BGR has written eloquently about when it’s time to endure and time to pull the rip cord and GTFO. Read that carefully. I’d be remiss to not caveat my advice that you go all-in with the caveat that if/when the fire alarm goes off, you call 911 and get out, immediately.

    God bless you and your family.

  16. blairnaso,

    Your Statement:

    “So the new covenant re-established a lot of rules. The old covenant allowed for polygamy, but it was never encouraged. Nowhere in the New Testament is polygamy allowed, and Paul even says in 1 Timothy that a pastor should be “the husband of but one wife”. At no point in the history of Christianity has a polygamy been allowed.”

    I have many Pastor friends who come from the hermenutical school of thought that the New Testament and the New Testament alone provides the complete basis for Christian morality. To both my friends and you I respectfully disagree with this hermenutical approach to the Scriptures. The New Covenant cancels out the civil law and the ceremonial law found in the Old Covenant but it does not cancel out the moral law found in those Scriptures.

    Theologians throughout Church history have recognized this concept that the Old Testament does not become completely null and void with the introduction of the New Testament. For instance John Calvin, in his “The Institutes of the Christian Religion”, made the following well understood view of the correct hermenutical approach to the Old Testament:

    “We must attend to the well-known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the Ceremonial, and the judicial law.”

    We can see the Scriptural principle that only the ceremonial and civil laws of the Old Covenant are done away with in the New Covenant and not the moral law:

    “1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary… 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”

    Hebrews 9:1 & 10 (KJV)

    The Apostle Paul made the following statements regarding the moral law of God found in the Old Covenant and elsewhere in the Old Testament:

    “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”
    Romans 3:31 (KJV)

    “7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet…12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”

    Romans 7:7 & 12 (KJV)

    It is for this reason that Christians are given the following admonishment in 2 Timothy 2:15:

    “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

    And the KJV is actually very literal in it’s phrase “rightly dividing” in the sense that we must be able to correctly separate out the moral law of the Old Covenant and Old Testament that remains from the ceremonial law and civil law which has been done away with in the New Testament. We can’t just say that the New Testament alone contains the moral law of God – the Old Testament does as well, and it is our job especially as teachers of the Word to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

    So respectfully, the hermenutical approach to Scripture that you and some of my other Pastor friends purpose leaves off half the Word of God. To say that that just because something is allowed and regulated in the Old Testament but not encouraged in the New Testament makes it forbidden is not rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

    I will address your statement about I Timothy 1 in a separate followup comment.

  17. I’m not saying that the Old Testament is irrelevant — just that the New Testament supercedes it. The Old Testament (for lack of a better term) Bible heroes did not have the Holy Spirit. The requirement for being righteous was to not do bad things and to show mercy on the poor. Polygamy was allowed because it was important to keep the nation of Israel going.

    In the New Testament, with the Holy Spirit we are called to a higher state of sanctification. So we are not supposed to be consumed with lust, even with our wife. Sex is for the years of your youth when you (and your wife) are fertile, and once those years pass, you are supposed to quit having sex. Instead people get married in their 50s and take pills to get an erection.

    So the way of life in the new covenant is to become less attached to your earthly, carnal desires (even if these aren’t necessarily sinful) so that you can become more Christlike. This is, obviously, almost entirely absent in protestantism and Catholicism, and very few of them ever fast in any meaningful way.

  18. blairnaso,

    In regard to your statement:

    “Paul even says in 1 Timothy that a pastor should be “the husband of but one wife””

    Here is my reply to the “Bishop must be the husband of one wife” argument that is commonly used to say the New Testament condemns polygamy:

    “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”
    I Timothy 3:2(KJV)

    Some point to the fact that the Bishop had to be the husband of one wife and they surmise that if a Pastor must be the husband of one wife, then this must be God’s only allowable pattern for men entering into marriage thus making polygyny a sin.

    The first problem with this interpretation is that it calls on us to believe God violated his own design of marriage by blessing polygamy before the Old Covenant(Genesis 30:18) and then allowing and regulating polygamy in the Old Covenant (Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Deuteronomy 25:5-7) followed by him picturing himself as a polygamist husband after he gave the Old Covenant(Ezekiel 23:1-5).

    Such a belief is in my view an assault on the holiness and character of God. God said he hated divorce in Malachi 2:16 and we can see in other Scripture passages that he only allowed it because of sin in the world. But he never makes this same statement of polygamy but in fact he blessed polygamy and regulated it.
    But there is second problem with the interpretation of I Timothy 3:2 that says it is a blanket condemnation of polygamy.

    Is the “husband of one wife” requirement (I Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6) for a Pastor speaking of monogamy or divorce? I would argue based on the qualifications of widows who could be supported by (and became servants of) the church that Paul was speaking of a Pastor or Deacon not having been divorced from his first wife:

    “Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.”
    I Timothy 5:9 (KJV)

    Even if the apostle Paul is stating that the Bishop must literally be monogamous, this is ONLY applied to Bishops and deacons and never to Christians at large. This would be very similar to how the Old Testament has stricter marriage practices for Priests as opposed to the general population.

    In any event, no passage in the Bible, either Old or New Testament, gives a blanket condemnation of the practice of polygyny.

  19. blairnaso,

    Your Statement:

    “My answer to the question, “How should a wife deal with a cheating husband?” is that if he repents then she should forgive him but if he doesn’t repent then she has the right to divorce him. But neither of the two women who wrote to you have cheating husbands.”

    As I pointed out in this very article, even if you only use Christ’s Word on divorce and ignore what he said through his prophets before him and Apostles after him (which is a mistake in my view), Christ never granted women the right to divorce for sexual immorality. He specifically only granted this right to men:

    “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away HIS WIFE, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
    Matthew 5:32 (KJV)

    So there is no Biblical allowance for us to say women can divorce their husbands for having sex with other women. None whatsoever.

  20. Yes, I read your other articles where you detail all of this. And I’m sure everything I’m saying you’ve heard before.

    In the beginning of the world, God allowed sibling marriage because it was necessary at the time. But at the time of the Mosaic Law, God no longer allowed it. Does that mean that God had allowed sin — no, it’s that God has progressed his people into a higher morality.

    For the same reason, when we go to war against some country, we don’t take home a bunch of Iraqi women as slave wives, even though the Mosaic Law allows and regulates that. The OT morality was for a wild west world that was a radically different place (even though, of course, humanity never really changes).

    Aside from a few early protestant groups, is there anywhere in the history of Christianity where polygamy has been allowed by the Church? If the Holy Spirit guides His people as the Bible says, then surely at some point Christianity would have allowed polygamy.

    Even with 2000 different protestant denominations over 500 years, it has almost always been disallowed, because the message of the New Testament is clearly about learning self-restraint.

    We aren’t chickens where there’s one man with ten wives and we kill off the weaker males. That may have been necessary in early humanity, but civilization has coalesced and the Holy Spirit has advented.

  21. Well you may be right on this one. Personally I find it disturbing how Christians take that the Bible sort of allows divorce and then run with it to say it’s always okay. So churches have divorce group therapy and almost never excommunicate someone for it. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a civil court can null the vow you made before God.

    I’m in my late 20s. A woman I grew up with at church and school left her husband and has started dating again. I ran into her grandmother, and she suggested I give her granddaughter a call. I find this suggestion revolting. How is that not adultery? Just because the civil court says so?

    I haven’t perfectly worked this out, but I think divorce is kind of like chemotherapy or radical amputation. Occasionally it’s necessary, and it may not be totally definable when it’s necessary, but it’s always a horrible thing that will scar you for life.

    I’m not normally a gender equality person (like, at all), but I think when the Bible uses specific language above like in Matthew 5:32 that the speaker is doing so for the ease of pronouns. I could be wrong.

  22. Thank you for your prayer. I understand the concern. I’ve dealt with physical abuse in the past, and I have called 911 before because of it. This was actually the reason for our seperation. And I know I said that I shouldn’t have left him, but what I meant by this is that I don’t really know what would have happened had I decided to stay, draw near to God, and start obeying him. (Because back then I was not a true believer.) He never tried to kill me, he only wanted to scare me. I was also provoking him. I also could have waited until I got all my ducks in a row and left on my own, after taking things to the heavenly court, rather then involving the earthly court system and other people. If I hadn’t of gotten the police involved, then perhaps we could have reconciled a lot sooner before he developed such strong feelings for the other woman. We were not allowed to communicate or see each other for 2 full years because I exxagerated his actions on the report. All because I was emotional and upset that he had been talking to this other woman and meeting up with her behind my back. Which was due to me denying him sex.

  23. blairnaso,

    I do not think it accurate to say the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. The more accurate statement would be to say the New Covenant supersedes or sets aside the ceremonial and civil laws of the Old Covenant as the book of Hebrews tells us below:

    “In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
    Hebrews 8:13 (KJV)

    But again in reference to the Moral law of God Paul made it clear that we in the new Covenant that we do not make “void” the moral law found in the old covenant, but rather “we establish the law” (Romans 3:31).

    Your Statement:

    “In the New Testament, with the Holy Spirit we are called to a higher state of sanctification. So we are not supposed to be consumed with lust, even with our wife. Sex is for the years of your youth when you (and your wife) are fertile, and once those years pass, you are supposed to quit having sex. Instead people get married in their 50s and take pills to get an erection.”

    Will all due respect to you, you are mixing in a little truth with a whole lot of error. You are correct that as Christians, “we are not supposed to be consumed with lust” and that would have been the same for people in the Old Testament as well.

    Being consumed with lust is the very definition of lasciviousness or what we call today sensuality. This is when we make the pleasures of the senses, whether it be sex, food, or anything else that brings us physical pleasure the central focus of our lives thus removing serving God as the central focus of our lives.

    But the Bible nowhere, not in the New Testament or the Old, condemns people for seeking out experiencing pleasure in and of itself. It only condemns people for being “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:4) and that really is a great definition of lasciviousness or sensuality.

    But what you are describing about us only having sex for procreation and stopping sex after the procreation years is very old heresy that originated in church not long after the Apostles died. What you are describing is the false doctrine of Christian Asceticism. Paul condemns this doctrine in the following passage:

    “20 If you died with the Messiah to the elemental forces of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations: 21 “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”? 22 All these regulations refer to what is destroyed by being used up; they are commands and doctrines of men. 23 Although these have a reputation of wisdom by promoting ascetic practices, humility, and severe treatment of the body, they are not of any value in curbing self-indulgence.”
    Colossians 2:2-23 (HCSB)

    Some in the early church falsely did as you suggest and had older married couples take vows of celibacy and this was violation of God’s Word that couples are to come together often lest they be tempted by Satan:

    “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”
    I Corinthians 7:5 (KJV)

    There is absolutely no expiration date on a husband and wife coming together in the act of sexual union which is the physical symbol of their “one flesh” relationship.

    I am sorry sir but what you are saying is not found in the Scriptures, in fact if a couple were to practice what you have said they would be violating the Word of God.

  24. >In the New Testament, with the Holy Spirit we are called to a higher state of

    There is nothing (un)sanctifying about a husband and wife having passion for and with each other. God is glorified when husband and wife are one as He designed them to be.

    >So we are not supposed to be consumed with lust, even with our wife.

    This is false. The bible says: Proverbs 5:19: As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be [a]exhilarated always with her love..

    >Sex is for the years of your youth when you (and your wife) are fertile, and
    >once those years pass, you are supposed to quit having sex.

    The above verse says “at all times”, not just before 50.

    It says be exhilarated always, not just before 50.

    1 Cor 7 lists the only reason to abstain and that would be by “mutual agreement” and only “for a time” for the purpose of “being devoted to prayer”. Note that the couple not having sex requires BOTH to agree to abstain and even then only under specific conditions…

  25. Yeah, I can tell we aren’t going to agree.

    That’s the problem with you prots (well, one of many). You take vices like lust and call them virtues.

  26. >That’s the problem with you prots (well, one of many).
    >You take vices like lust and call them virtues.

    And the problem with others is that they invent all sorts of sins that the bible does not say and they put a heavily yoke on Christians when His yoke is easy…

    The word translated as lust in the NT is also used positively in other areas of the NT.

    Your idea of lust in based on the false teaching of men, not God. If you were correct, then the bible would not include the Song of Songs, a completely lustful love story.

    And yet many churches keep teaching young men that it is not Godly to desire women. How is that working out? Who is getting served with that falsehood?

  27. @blairnaso “So the new covenant re-established a lot of rules. The old covenant allowed for polygamy, but it was never encouraged. Nowhere in the New Testament is polygamy allowed, and Paul even says in 1 Timothy that a pastor should be “the husband of but one wife”. At no point in the history of Christianity has a polygamy been allowed.” Neither is polygyny disallowed or forbidden in Christianity, and the word translated as “one in 1 Timothy is also the word for “first,” which could therefore easily mean and be saying that if a bishop is a polygynist, he must at least still be the husband of his first wife(and married period) to qualify for his position. Scripture’s authorization of polygyny is absolute, OT and NT alike in the absence of express forbidding of the practice. You’ve disproved nothing BGR has said with your comment. “Hebrews 13:4 ‘Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.’ What Paul is saying is that those who have sex outside the allotted context (marriage) will go to hell. Included in this are both those who have sex with no emotional commitment (whoremongers) and those who have emotional commitment but outside that proper context (adulterers). It’s not meant to be an all-encompassing statement. He’s just saying that you should only have sex in its proper context.” No, Paul is saying that those who have sex outside of a marriage will be punished by God, but those who are saved will not be punished via Hell as proven by King David’s example as he isn’t in Hell. The Bible says God told David He would build him a house(referring to, for one thing, our heavenly mansions, which one can’t inhabit unless one goes to Heaven. Same thing goes for those who you call whoremongers and adulterers. If they are saved, they will not go to Hell as only lost people do. Having sex within it’s proper context is correct, and what BGR teaches. As do all true Christians. The rest that you have said is not.

  28. @blairnaso When you spout heresies, they should be denied and pointed out, and when you call things the Bible says is pure(such as sex in marriage) and try to say they are vices, you call God a lie.

  29. @blairnaso
    Your statement:
    “I’m not saying that the Old Testament is irrelevant — just that the New Testament supercedes it. The Old Testament (for lack of a better term) Bible heroes did not have the Holy Spirit.”

    Then perhaps you might consider Psalm 51:11 where David (ya, he’s a Bible Hero), in his prayer of repentance for the murder of Uriah the Hittite and the taking of his wife, prays, and I quote “11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” Would not this be David, the “man after Gods own heart”, who, according to Jeremiah 30:9 and Ezekiel 37:24, will reign with Christ at his return? Poor desperate fool didn’t know that he couldn’t lose what he didn’t have!

    Perhaps you might want to vet your dogma (Webster Definition: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds) before impressing us all with it.

  30. Sorry can’t agree with you on this one BGR. .. you seem to take a hard line stance against what YOU define as virtual sex, but you’re ok with masturbation over porn. …I personally don’t have a problem with either, but the question I put to you is there is any real difference between jerking off to porn and watching some girl masturbate in a strip club? Because there is no physical contact at all so why do you see that as sinful but not the porn watching
    Can you clarify this for me thanks

  31. feministdestroyer,

    It is a well know fact that sex is not just a physical activity, but rather a mental activity as well. We as Christians understand it has a spiritual significance as well.

    Sex is a type of human relation, a connection. Of course there are many other non-sexual human relations and connections as well.

    I work from home and I have working relationships and even friendships with some of my coworkers who are actually several states away from where I live. Our relationship is pretty much 100% virtual except for once a year when I fly to that company for a visit.

    Human beings don’t need to physically connect to have some kind of working relationship or even friendship relationship. If we can simply hear each other, see each other or even write letters, if we can communicate in any way we can have that relationship.

    And then of course we have simpler relationships. For instance the lady who works in the deli at my corner grocery store knows me and when I come in she knows exactly what I usually order and she just says “the usual?” and sometimes it is or sometimes I will shake it up a bit.

    I even have relationships with my two cats. We connect – they come sit on my lap and want me to pet them or when I sleep they like to come lay next to me. It is not a human relationship, but I do care for them. When my oldest cat was very sick I spent a great deal at the vet to make her well.

    Now we come to sex. There is a reason that a common euphemism for sex is “relations” as in “did you have relations with her?” Because the most intimate connection any two living beings can have is to sexually relate to one another.

    God says in in Hebrews 13:4 that “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

    Basically what that means is only sexual relations which occur within the covenant of marriage are honorable and pure before God, and therefore all sexual relations which do not occur with the covenant of marriage are by definition dishonorable, defiled and either whoremongering or adultery.

    Just as I can have a relationship with my coworkers over the phone or via web cam without ever coming into physical contact with them or even being in the same room with them, in the same way two human beings can have sexual relations without ever touching. It is a human connection, just as I have a human connection with my coworkers.

    But there is a major difference in that is a sexual connection, a sexual relation. God restricts sexual relations between human beings to that of a man and a woman within the covenant of marriage. Some sexual connections may involve having an orgasm or not. When that stripper is looking into her customers eyes and they are looking at one another’s bodies they have just formed a sexual connection and they are having sexual relations even if they never touch. Sex for human beings is more than physically touching, it is also a mental exercise as well and the stripper and her customer are fully mentally engaged in a sexual manner.

    Relations require two living beings to interact, whether it me with my cat or me with my mom, my kids or my coworkers. And in the same way sexual relations require at least two human being to connect in some way, even if it is not a physical connection but just a virtual connection through phone or internet or texting.

    You asked what the difference was between a man engaging in mutual masturbation while watching a stripper masturbate in front of him and him masturbating to porn? The difference is very straight forward and simple. The porn image, whether it is picture or movie is not a woman. It is an image, not a person. The image is not relating back to him or connecting with him because it is not alive.

    You cannot have relations with an inanimate object, contrary to what some crazy movies or others have portrayed. If you use an inanimate object like a sex toy or image and masturbate those things are no more than masturbatory tools – it is impossible to truly connect with those items and therefore have relations with them.

    If a man is watching a porn movie and masturbating he is no more having sexual relations with the image of that woman than he would be having sexual relations with a rock.

    Sexual relations, from a Biblical perspective require two living beings connecting in some way(physical or virtual) to occur. That is why God condemns both bestiality and all other forms of sexual relations between persons outside of marriage.

    And it is for this reason that all sexual relations outside of marriage, including those of a stripper to her customer are a violation of God’s moral law. He restricts all sexual relations to marriage and in masturbating to porn there is no relationship going on as you can’t have a relationship with a picture. You can only have a relationship with another living being.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.