Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: “Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
-Matthew 19:3, NLT
On Monday, I shared a post about how certain lines of questioning cross the line (click here). This inspired the following comment from OKRickety, which I plan on engaging in today’s post. He opens by quoting from my post:
“Adulterous spouses deserve divorce.”
That is a correct statement.
Now, I doubt that you and most of your readers will want to hear this, but I’d like to consider the topic of grace as it relates to adultery. It is true that the penalty in the Mosaic Law for adultery was death by stoning. This certainly would be a removal of sin from the people of Israel. But did Jesus teach that death was the appropriate punishment? In the account of the woman caught in adultery (John 8), Jesus prevented the stoning (if it would have been allowed by the Romans) and told her to go and sin no more. Jesus responded to her sin with grace.
When some Pharisees questioned him on divorce in Matthew 19:7,8, they said Moses commanded divorce, but Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce. In other words, even though divorce may be the ultimate response, it is not the only response. I have little doubt that giving grace to an adulterous spouse, forgiving them, and remaining married to them would be tremendously difficult.
However, I believe that Jesus would want grace and forgiveness to occur only when the sinner was truly repentant.
From what I know of your blog, you and most of your readers do not have repentant spouses/ex-spouses. If they are not repentant on their own, or through the biblical process of spiritual discipline for restoration (Matt. 18:15-17), then I definitely believe that divorce is appropriate.
To summarize, I wanted to consider the New Testament teaching on adultery so that truly repentant, adulterous spouses would be given the opportunity to continue in their marriage. I think that this would be a tremendous example of grace that would be glorifying to God.
For the most part, OKRickety and I are in agreement. Adultery is grounds for Biblical divorce. Someone who commits adultery deserves to be divorce. If ever a faithful spouse does take a cheater back, he or she should only accept back a truly repentant adulterous spouse.
Good.
However, we are in disagreement silently in the application of these principles and the reading of the Matthew 19 text. That matters because I believe this difference feeds into the divorce-shame culture so prevalent still for faithful spouses in evangelical churches.
Let’s dig into the comment:
“Adulterous spouses deserve divorce.”
That is a correct statement.
Good thus far. We are on the same page.
Now, I doubt that you and most of your readers will want to hear this, but I’d like to consider the topic of grace as it relates to adultery. It is true that the penalty in the Mosaic Law for adultery was death by stoning. This certainly would be a removal of sin from the people of Israel.
Uh, oh. Here we start to diverge. First of all, nowhere on my blog do I advocate a return to Old Testament stoning to death of adulterous partners. That is not the point of citing those Old Testament texts. My point is how God views adultery as marriage ending, and ergo, divorce is an acceptable (plus merciful in not killing the adulterous partner) option for faithful followers.
To be clear, I do not advocate for the death penalty here. I simply advocate for the greater principle taught from those Old Testament texts that marriages are effectively viewed as worthy of ending by God when adultery has occurred.
But did Jesus teach that death was the appropriate punishment? In the account of the woman caught in adultery (John 8), Jesus prevented the stoning (if it would have been allowed by the Romans) and told her to go and sin no more. Jesus responded to her sin with grace.
Next, we have a term confusion at work: The correct term to use about Jesus not stoning the woman caught in adultery (John 8) is “mercy.” Mercy is about not getting what we actually deserve. Grace is getting what we do not deserve.
Jesus does not deny the woman deserved to be stoned. He extended mercy by not condemning her to death. In other words, she got to keep her life when she actually deserved to be stoned to death.
Please note:
Nothing is said either way about the fate of her or the other man’s marriage.
When some Pharisees questioned him on divorce in Matthew 19:7,8, they said Moses commanded divorce, but Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce. In other words, even though divorce may be the ultimate response, it is not the only response. I have little doubt that giving grace to an adulterous spouse, forgiving them, and remaining married to them would be tremendously difficult.
Please see the verse quoted at the top of this post.
The debate was over what conditions were acceptable for divorce. It was NOT about whether divorce was ever permissible. That some sort of condition existed was already assumed in this exchange–e.g. adultery.
Assuming divorce as the starting point for situations involving sexual infidelity is just that…a starting point.
With this assumed, one can grasp how merciful and gracious a decision a faithful spouse makes to stay with such a repentant individual. Without it as the starting point, the cheater is taught he or she is owed the marriage reconciliation when God teaches no such thing as I read the Bible (e.g. Mt 1:19).
However, I believe that Jesus would want grace and forgiveness to occur only when the sinner was truly repentant.
From what I know of your blog, you and most of your readers do not have repentant spouses/ex-spouses. If they are not repentant on their own, or through the biblical process of spiritual discipline for restoration (Matt. 18:15-17), then I definitely believe that divorce is appropriate.
We agree on all these points.
To summarize, I wanted to consider the New Testament teaching on adultery so that truly repentant, adulterous spouses would be given the opportunity to continue in their marriage. I think that this would be a tremendous example of grace that would be glorifying to God.
Jesus gives faithful spouses permission to divorce a sexually unfaithful spouse (e.g. Mt 5:32 and 19:9). Whether or not a faithful spouse exercises that permission is up to him/her. Jesus does not shame someone who chooses to divorce under those circumstances.
Divorcing a cheater is not sin regardless of the state of repentance demonstrated by the unfaithful party.
Jesus was addressing those parties in Matthew 19 who were using divorce too lightly. He denied that any reason is acceptable to divorce for a faithful follower of God.
For example, one is not given permission to divorce if one is just generally unhappy with one’s spouse or even disagrees with one’s spouse over whether or not to have children. I see nowhere in Scripture that as a biblical grounds. To initiate a divorce with only those reasons would be sin.
We are close in are assessment, but we do diverge in the place of application.
Many of us–present company included–have felt the pressure to take back a cheating spouse even if we really had no say in the matter. Most resources insist upon that as a Christian duty–often with no regard to requiring the cheater to repent. They fail to take Jesus’ permission to divorce a sexually unfaithful spouse seriously.
In reality, such teachings totally obliterate any hope for mercy and grace by making the marriage restoration mandatory per Christian duty. Gifts are not mandatory–i.e. grace. If divorce is not deserved for cheating, then it is not a mercy to choose to avoid divorcing the cheater either.
Bottom line:
Personally, I doubt any testimony that does not start from the assumption that the divorce was fully deserved for the adulterous betrayal. That does not give God glory. It merely minimizes sin.
Absolutely, it is an attempt to minimize sin. The vast majority of cheaters use any sort of mercy/grace/forgiveness, etc as an opportunity to continue on exactly as they were during adultery, usually even more boldly and belligerently.
Excellent explanation of John 8 DM! That was yet another verse I got from my church leadership as support for unconditional forgiveness (Christian duty). Suggesting that is suggesting that Jesus contradicted the Old Testament, which is just careless theology for the sake of a “feel good” gospel. The illustration in John 8 is that no one is righteous and that He is willing to forgive so long as we repent. Understanding the difference between grace and mercy is the lynchpin here.
I am not surprised that you would express disagreement with me. However, much, maybe most or all, of the disagreement is the result of misunderstanding. I think there is reason for the misunderstanding, which I will try to explain at the end.
“To be clear, I do not advocate for the death penalty here.”
I did not mean to even possibly imply that you want the death penalty for adultery. I was looking at the topic in light of the entire context of the Bible, and I believe there was a significant shift in attitude with the new covenant.
Yes, I should have said mercy rather than grace. My mistake.
“Nothing is said either way about the fate of her or the other man’s marriage.”
True. However, Jesus’ response was merciful, not in line with the Mosaic Law. So, it seems reasonable to me that just as Jesus extended mercy to her, He could have encouraged the faithful spouses to also extend mercy and remain married. But we don’t know and neither of us should argue from silence.
“The debate was over what conditions were acceptable for divorce. It was NOT about whether divorce was ever permissible.”
I agree. However, I believe you misunderstand the point of the use of permission here. It is contrasting permitting divorce with the absolute necessity (command) to divorce. Let me try to explain. As I understand it, there were two schools of thought regarding divorce: those who believed it was allowed for adultery only, and those who allowed it for much lesser violations. I believe that Jesus was emphasizing that Moses permitted divorce for the lesser violations, but he did not command divorce for them. In the same way, Jesus did not command divorce for adultery, but He said it was permitted for that reason. That is a different response to adultery than in the Mosaic Law where death by stoning was commanded.
One of my points is that Jesus was more merciful than the Mosaic Law in one case of adultery. That was why I gave the example of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus does not ever say that divorce must or should occur when there is adultery. But He does say divorce for fornication (which includes adultery) is acceptable (and is the only acceptable reason He gives).
“Without it as the starting point, the cheater is taught he or she is owed the marriage reconciliation when God teaches no such thing ….”
God does not teach that any adulterous spouse is owed marriage reconciliation, regardless of whether or not they confess and repent. If that is being taught, it is wrong. Jesus does teach that fornication (including adultery) is an acceptable reason for divorce.
“We are close in are assessment, but we do diverge in the place of application.”
Actually, I think we only slightly diverge in application.
If you read my earlier comment and this one carefully, I have never said that:
– the faithful spouse must take back a cheating spouse
– the faithful spouse must forgive the cheating spouse without repentance
– Jesus did not allow divorce for fornication (including adultery)
– it is wrong for the faithful spouse to divorce because of adultery
I think we slightly diverge in application in this way:
– You want to start with divorce should happen unless there is what I would call a minor miracle and the adulterous spouse is truly repentant, and the faithful spouse is willing to try for marriage reconciliation.
– I want to start with divorce is allowed but let’s give the Holy Spirit time to move in the heart of the adulterous spouse before proceeding. If they confess and truly repent, then let’s proceed slowly and very carefully with appropriate counseling, teaching, and accountability to build trust before attempting reconciliation.
[However, for both of us, if the faithful spouse wishes to divorce, it is absolutely acceptable action.]
“Personally, I doubt any testimony that does not start from the assumption that the divorce was fully deserved for the adulterous betrayal. That does not give God glory. It merely minimizes sin.”
Assuming you are referring to my comment as testimony (I don’t), you demonstrate a tremendous misunderstanding. Here is what I quoted from your post and my response to begin my comment:
“Adulterous spouses deserve divorce.“
“That is a correct statement.”
In other words, I agreed with no equivocation that divorce is fully deserved for adultery. I don’t think it is possible to demonstrate agreement any better than that!
As I said, I doubt that you and most of your readers will want to hear this. I wonder if it is because of your experiences with the “divorce-shame culture so prevalent still for faithful spouses in evangelical churches.” In other words, your personal ill treatment has understandably made the experience very unpleasant. Additionally, your spouses have not been truly repentant, so the possibility seems incredibly unlikely.
The fact that unrepentant adulterers manipulate others to prevent negative consequences to themselves, and that church leaders ignorantly teach falsely regarding forgiveness and divorce does not mean that we should not have an attitude of mercy, allowing for the possibility of marriage reconciliation with truly repentant adulterers.
I think the reason for your misunderstanding is because you have experienced incorrect usage of these scriptures. When you hear them or the idea of forgiving the adulterer and reconciling, you suppose (involuntarily, I presume) that I am also using them incorrectly.
My comment on the previous post was intended primarily to ensure that readers were familiar with the possibility of giving mercy to truly repentant adulterous spouses resulting in reconciled marriages. I believe that this would glorify God and be a tremendous witness to the world of God’s power and love.
Although you and most readers have not experienced reconciliation, I know a couple who have a good marriage following significant adultery. I have read of other adultery survivors who say their marriage is better than it ever was, but the path to reconciliation was very difficult.
In short, in spite of the odds and the difficulties, God has the power to work miracles in Christian marriages today. But Satan will make every effort to destroy Christian marriages. That’s not intended to shame any faithful spouse who has divorced. I am sorry for those who have experienced adultery by their spouse, and I ask that God will give you peace and strength.
I think the notion of “shifting attitudes” when it comes to the Holy Trinity is bad theology in general. God is the same, then, now and in the future. He is unchanging. (Hebrews 13:8, Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19, just to name a few) I think what is missing in this idea is the price that was paid for our mercy: mainly Jesus’s suffering and crucifixion. I think this is something that allot of modern Christians tend to forget due to the “feel good” attitude that is perpetuated in churches to drive attendance and new membership. Though we don’t know what happened to the woman in John 8, we can assert that if she repented and was forgiven and made it to heaven, it is not because God shifted his attitude towards adultery; it is because His Son paid a dear price for her. So the mercy received WAS in line with the Old Testament. Her death by stoning was what she deserved but her mercy was paid for by the death of the Son. Only through this can we be reconciled to God. This foundational error I think is fatal to one’s faith. As Christians believe Jesus to be so much more merciful than the God of the Old Testament, they lose the fear of God which we know to be the beginning of all wisdom. It also paints a false picture of the Trinity; that they are different in character.
As for marriages that recover from infidelity, yes that is possible and entirely reasonable given that both parties are all in. But I do not think it is wise to think that this is some sort of miracle, meaning God miraculously changed hearts. The God who values our free will enough to allows Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and the world to fall, is not then going to manipulate ones will. In a successful reconciliation situation, His glory is shown by the strength He gives to get through such adversity. (Philippians 4:13 – if there’s a miracle this is it) He may encourage both spouses, in ways only He can. But He would not force an unrepentant heart to repent. Reconciliation would still take much effort on both spouses and they would both have to choose.
Michael,
I will accept that “shift in attitude” is not a good description. Perhaps it would be correct to say that there was a change of paradigm. If you have a better phrase, please provide it and your reasoning.
God is indeed unchanging, but the agreement between God and His people changed significantly when the Mosaic Law was replaced with the New Covenant. For example, the agreement went from including only Jews to including all people accepting Christ.
Is God now more merciful than He was in the Old Testament? No, He is unchanging.
But it is true that God now extends mercy that He did not in the Old Testament. Let’s look at the case of adultery. In the Mosaic Law, the penalty was death by stoning. No mercy given. In the New Testament, if they do not repent, God’s punishment will be meted out at the Judgment seat, not immediately. But if they do repent, the adulterer will be forgiven by God. Mercy is given.
Again, is God more merciful now? Yes, He is, because now the repentant adulterer is forgiven rather than stoned to death, and the consequence avoided. How can the answer be both yes and no? It is because, although God’s attitude toward sin is unchanged, the covenant has changed according to His desire and plan.
Regarding reconciliation, I should have chosen my words more wisely. I did not intend that repentance is an actual miracle when I described it as a “minor miracle”, a phrase I learned in my youth, meaning that something was greatly out of the ordinary.
I agree that we have free will, but I, for one, do not understand what the Holy Spirit does in the minds and hearts of men when He is given the opportunity. Jesus said this of the Holy Spirit:
[John 16:8 NASB] 8 “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment”.
“Shift in attitude” or “change in paradigm” are different ways of saying the same thing. I do not think a third descriptor is necessary here. What you are asserting is that God changed and that He is more merciful now than before. I believe the body of your assumption comes from an angle that God is an evolving God and that is not a Biblical view of Him.
If you view God as scripture has revealed Him to us, then you would understand that He is unchanging. From that angle you would then see the difference between the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant is not a diversion to plan B, or God evolving or shifting or whatever you want to call it. It was the plan all along. You pointed this out yourself when you said this was “His desire and plan.” Unfortunately you then said “but” by which you then contradicted yourself.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but regarding reconciliation: there was a time when I longed for it. If my then cheating wife would have truly repented then I would have forgiven her and we would have moved on together, no matter how difficult. That would have been the Christ like thing to do and I gave her every opportunity. But repentance never happened. In fact, she also renounced Christ. So I had to leave her alone, which I think is also the Christ like thing to do.
I just wanted to add that as iron sharpens iron, I think this is a healthy conversation for all.
I do not consider that God changed, but that He changed the covenant, and the new covenant had different requirements and consequences. God’s plan never changed. He always knew that He would do this.
The New Covenant does not mandate immediate death to the adulterers as the Old Covenant did. To the average man on the street, that is being more merciful.
“Nothing is said either way about the fate of her or the other man’s marriage.”
True. However, Jesus’ response was merciful, not in line with the Mosaic Law. So, it seems reasonable to me that just as Jesus extended mercy to her, He could have encouraged the faithful spouses to also extend mercy and remain married. But we don’t know and neither of us should argue from silence.
DM: It is not completely an argument from silence. We have the Scriptural backdrop of a case where sexual infidelity was suspected and choosing divorce was viewed as a righteous action (e.g. Mt 1:19).
“The debate was over what conditions were acceptable for divorce. It was NOT about whether divorce was ever permissible.”
I agree. However, I believe you misunderstand the point of the use of permission here. It is contrasting permitting divorce with the absolute necessity (command) to divorce. Let me try to explain. As I understand it, there were two schools of thought regarding divorce: those who believed it was allowed for adultery only, and those who allowed it for much lesser violations. I believe that Jesus was emphasizing that Moses permitted divorce for the lesser violations, but he did not command divorce for them. In the same way, Jesus did not command divorce for adultery, but He said it was permitted for that reason. That is a different response to adultery than in the Mosaic Law where death by stoning was commanded.
One of my points is that Jesus was more merciful than the Mosaic Law in one case of adultery. That was why I gave the example of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus does not ever say that divorce must or should occur when there is adultery. But He does say divorce for fornication (which includes adultery) is acceptable (and is the only acceptable reason He gives).
DM: My point in writing what I do is to advocate for a default to divorce perspective. I do not say one MUST divorce after discovering adultery. That is up to the faithful spouse to decide between him/her and God. My advocacy to default to divorce is to say that grace (i.e. the gift of rebuilding the marriage) ought NEVER to be extended UNLESS the cheater repents. I think we agree on that condition.
DM: Second, I feel like your interpretation of Matthew 19 is muddying the waters. Jesus is addressing the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This is NOT a discussion about permitting or not permitting divorce over adultery. In fact, some suggest divorce was actually COMPULSORY in Jesus’ day for the sin of sexual infidelity. Jesus was not providing commentary on adultery or sexual infidelity writ large but rather on a rabbinical debate where one school was willing to allow men to divorce their wives for any reason they chose. This Jesus denied in his teaching here.
I think we slightly diverge in application in this way:
– You want to start with divorce should happen unless there is what I would call a minor miracle and the adulterous spouse is truly repentant, and the faithful spouse is willing to try for marriage reconciliation.
– I want to start with divorce is allowed but let’s give the Holy Spirit time to move in the heart of the adulterous spouse before proceeding. If they confess and truly repent, then let’s proceed slowly and very carefully with appropriate counseling, teaching, and accountability to build trust before attempting reconciliation.
DM: Agreed. This IS where we diverge. I believe the biblical perspective is to default to divorce. If the cheater repents, then it is up to the faithful spouse to decide whether or not to rebuild the marriage. It is not even compulsory in that case.
My comment on the previous post was intended primarily to ensure that readers were familiar with the possibility of giving mercy to truly repentant adulterous spouses resulting in reconciled marriages. I believe that this would glorify God and be a tremendous witness to the world of God’s power and love.
DM: Tens of thousands of people have visited this website, and I have received literally hundreds of emails. I have yet to encounter a faithful spouse who was unfamiliar “with the possibility of giving mercy to truly repentant adulterous spouses resulting in reconciled marriages.” However, I consistently encounter people who are hurting because pastors and others are pressuring them to stay in marriages with unrepentant cheaters.
DM: Plenty of “Christian” resources exist out there preying on faithful spouses and stoking false hope in marriage reconciliation following infidelity. This is not such a place. I am not one bit ashamed to stand firmly here in stating that divorce ought to be assumed first and reconciliation only considered if a miracle of repentance occurs. I will continue to make my case as to why I take this position from biblical sources.
DM: If someone prefers a more reconciliation-positive perspective, they can go elsewhere. From my own experience, Divorce Minister might be the only such place where an evangelical pastor is publicly and regularly teaching such a firm stance against adultery. The other perspective is “a dime a dozen” to use a tired cliche. A local Christian book store has selves full of such drivel shaming faithful spouses and otherwise blaming them for being victimized or exercising the permission Jesus gave them to divorce a cheater. I refuse to do that here!
Yes, Satan does attempt to destroy all marriages, not just Christian ones. And if one party commits adultery, Satan has been successful in his task.
Anita,
You put your finger right on the issue. Too often, Christian leaders focus on the divorce over the adultery. They fail to see that God recognized that the adultery destroyed the marriage as seen in the Old Testament teachings on such matters (e.g Deut. 22:22). To suggest that Satan is destroying marriages via the faithful spouse divorcing is akin to saying the Old Testament Israelites were operating under Satan’s influence by following God’s commands regarding divorce. It is yet another lie.
DM,
I have a question for you. Here is the reference you give:
[Deut. 22:22 NASB] 22 “If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.”
Adultery in the Old Testament consisted of a married (or betrothed) woman having sex with a man other than her husband. However, it did not include a married man having sex with a woman other than his wife. This behavior is never described as breaking the Law.
In other words, what we call adultery today is not what the Mosaic Law calls adultery.
Isn’t that a significant difficulty in your use of references to the Mosaic Law as support for the idea that what we call adultery today destroys the marriage?
Check the verse again: It says “both” are to be put to death. The verse does not make reference to man’s marital status as it does not seem to matter.
“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” -Leviticus 20:10, KJV
Both adulterous parties under the Law were to be executed for committing adultery. The Law did not discriminate based on gender or marital status on that matter.
DM,
Yes, Deut. 22:22 and Lev. 20:10 say both the man and woman who commit adultery will be put to death.
I was not as clear as possible. The Mosaic Law does not consider a married man having sex with a woman who is not married or betrothed to be adultery.
Isn’t that a significant difficulty in your use of references to the Mosaic Law as support for the idea that what we call adultery today destroys the marriage?
“Thou shalt not commit adultery” seems a pretty clear counter example to such an interpretation. That clearly is not just directed at women. So….No, the Mosaic Law does not undermine my interpretation.
‘“Thou shalt not commit adultery” seems a pretty clear counter example to such an interpretation. That clearly is not just directed at women. So….No, the Mosaic Law does not undermine my interpretation.’
It’s only a clear counter example if adultery in the Mosaic Law means what you think it means. Based on your statement, it seems you think it means sex between any married person, man or woman, and someone of the opposite sex who is not their spouse.
But it does not mean that. Adultery in the Mosaic Law only refers to a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband. That’s why the laws detailing adultery specifically refer to this scenario, and do not refer to a married man having sex with a woman who is not his wife.
If you doubt this, a short amount of research should provide sufficient verification. I especially recommend looking at the opinions of Jewish scholars. For example, Fatal Attraction: The prohibition against adultery states ‘The term “adultery” specifically refers to a married woman. A married man and a single girl, while still impermissible, is not an adulterous relationship.’
Adultery is the English word used in most, if not all, translations of these verses in the Old Testament. It is the English word nearest in meaning to the original language. However, the word adultery leads to a misunderstanding of the Mosaic Law if you insist on using the current meaning of the English word to understand the original language.
I am surprised that you seem to be unaware of this argument. As I understand it, there have been men who have tried, maybe even succeeded, in using this argument to justify their sin when they have been caught cheating.
Note: I do not accept that the meaning of adultery in the Mosaic Law determines how we view cheating today. I believe that cheating by either spouse is sin. However, it is important to understand that adultery as we think of it today is not the same as the adultery found in the Mosaic Law.
It is an argument for a rather narrow interpretation that I find unconvincing. The totality of Scripture condemns adultery including men involved in adultery (e.g. Hebrews 13:4). Furthermore, Malachi 2 is really about Jewish men having sex with women who are not their wives (i.e. adultery) and this is condemned with some of the strongest language in Scripture.
And yes, I am aware of cheaters trying to make up their own definition of words like “adultery does not mean a married man having sex with a third party as long as that third party is not a married woman.” I just don’t buy it.
Finally and most importantly, that definition does not stand the test of Jesus’ own teachings on the matter. Clearly, single women were marrying divorced Jewish men. Jesus called that adultery (e.g. Mt. 5:32). Married Jewish men could clearly commit adultery in Jesus’ view.
And by the by, “Reconciler” here. Attempted , at least. After numerous chances, forgiveness, mercy, whatever you want to call it, I have to say the treatment I received then was even more heinous than the adultery. I didn’t even know that was possible.
Do you mean the treatment from the adulterer? Or the treatment from the church/counselors? I tried reconciling too. My ex-husband’s attitude got much worse as time went on. The rudeness and insults were more difficult to deal with than the adultery. I would have never thought that was possible. Of course, he was cheating again or still as he never canceled his adultfriendfinder account. From what I hear, it can be common for unrepentant adulterers to become cold, rude, etc. to their faithful spouse.
No, Janna G, fortunately my church was very supportive of me and not the cheater. I’m southern Baptist and I have never heard any support of cheaters. Ever. But maybe i was just lucky.
My pastor who baptized me but who had retired, when I called him for advice, he said specifically that I should not tolerate my ex sneaking around with another woman even if he would not admit to sex. Also, he said that if he would not break contact and quit calling her secretly I should leave him. He was so right !
Glad to hear that you had such a wise pastor who gave you sound counsel, Anita. It is nice to be reminded that some truly solid pastors exist out there who don’t tolerate cheating.
Anita,
Thank you for stating that you have never heard of any support of cheaters in Southern Baptist churches. I am familiar with both Church of Christ and Christian Church (independent) churches and have not heard of it, either.
Maybe you were lucky, or maybe it’s not as common as some believe. Note: Any support of cheaters over faithful spouses is too much, as well as unbiblical.