A Little Leaven has found something so heinous, it’s taken me days to decide if I’d post about it and how to do so without acting as if I’m God and damning people to hell. This one required more prayer on my part than some other posts that stand against heresies, because while you think you’ve seen so much, sometimes something still drops your jaw.
I’ll just let you see the video. Let’s just say I was greatly disturbed in the spirit when I saw this. And there are other copies of this on YouTube minus the Christian commentary and people are feeling its a good thing.
Christian Singer Jaci Velasquez and Her Hoochie Dancers
…Jaci, of Mexican, French and Spanish ancestry, surpassed the expectations of many, becoming a new and imposing presence in Latin pop and Christian music.
This is why I honestly prefer to hear 5 year old children sing hymns over any adults. Matthew 21:15-16 continues to ring true in my ears. Adults too often do most everything including what is claimed to be praise to God for nothing more than an opportunity to promote themselves and ungodliness. I don’t care to hear people who are concerned with personal fame.
So I did more digging regarding this song Sin Ti No Puedo Vivir Lyrics, which translated to English is Without you I cannot live. It is from Velasquez’s Latin CD titled Jaci Velasquez - Mi Corazon, English translation Jaci Velasquez - My Heart. The CD also includes titles that when translated to English have names such as Blessed Love (track 2) and Go with God (track 12). So this was not some CD that was to be viewed as a non-Christian release. The lyrics for Sin Ti No Puedo Vivir Lyrics translate to have some the following in English. (You can feed the Spanish language pages to a site like Altavista’s Bable Fish Translator to check yourself.)
Without you I cannot live
You are the light of the sun
…
You are the your star of my night
…
You have filled my soul of fortune
…
In all way
You always go with me
You are my better friend
…
You illuminate the sky and my footpath
…
I go of your hand
…
My happy yearning
You are your my deep love
…
The infinite love, that I but want
Those are the kinds of things Jaci Velasquez was singing while the hoochie dancers were going. I mean it’s terrible enough when someone such as Beyonce claims to be Christian, while just totally doing garbage and singing nothing but garbage. Jaci Velasquez is trying to sing as if unto the Lord, while willingly surrounded by filth.
Having been south of the border, I know it’s hot and culturally they wear less. However, even there you don’t walk into a bank and see someone dressed like a slut. Like anywhere else, they know how to dress more modestly when they feel the need.
If anyone near Mrs. Velasquez or any of those dancers that claims to be Christian ever sees this post, can you please review the following with them, in addition to what was mentioned in the video.
1 Corinthians 6:18-20 (New American Standard Bible)
|
Dancing around like a slut or with people looking like sluts does nothing to glorify God.
1 Timothy 2:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)
|
Leading the vocals that hoochie dancers move to does not express modesty or godliness.
1 Peter 3:1-4 (New American Standard Bible)
|
Strive for modest and respectful behavior.
I can only pray there are saints south of the border speaking out against these kinds of things and contending for the faith.
update 11/17/2007: Matt Green informed me that she is divorced. But I thought that was odd, considering her web site has video of her talking about a recent marriage and new baby. So I looked around and found that she was just married again to someone else in December 2006. There have been copies of the video on YouTube for over a year. So she was possibly still divorced from her first husband (and she still is) when she made the video.
Anyway, she’s one of many in the Religious Industry, who sings based on the best deal her lawyer can get her. And is willing to do whatever in the name of fame. Like Yolanda Adams and all the others. They sing for fame and fortune, while claiming to be doing something for the Lord. You can’t serve 2 masters, Luke 16:13.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice
[powered by WordPress.]
32 queries. 0.484 seconds
November 18th, 2007 at 8:32 am
IC now when Bey goes on stage she is in creature, that is what is said in an interview. Now with the others calming to know God and have a personally relationship with him is a different story. Mrs. Jaci and Mrs. Adams are the one claiming to be about God. But that do not excuse Bey for her choose of dress. Mrs Adam wear here dresses so tight that she can hardly move. It looks as if she has been paint into them. She is the one who stand and clam our Lord.
November 18th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
It’s worse that Jaci and Yolanda claim to be doing it in the Lord’s name, but what Beyonce is doing is not saintly either, although Beyonce claims to also be a Christian. They all look as if they are serving money more than God regardless of what they sing.
November 18th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
The pastor of my old church once said that singing is a gift from God, used to edify the body of Christ. If you take that gift and use it for money, then it becomes satanic. Also using that gift for glory seeking is not of God either.
November 18th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
IC:
Jaci Velasquez’s first marriage lasted from 2003 to 2005. She initiated the divorce against her then - husband’s wishes, and no reasons for the divorce were given. She does not speak of it except to say "I sought counseling … it just didn’t work out." She married her current husband, a member of the Christian group Salvador, whom she had been touring with, in 2006. This information comes from Wikipedia and Christianity Today. No one is alleging that the problems in her first marriage began when she met the fellow from Salvador, but for a woman to go from a divorce in 2005 to getting married in 2006 and then adamantly refuse to speak of the divorce and "demand that her privacy be respected" (quoting Christianity Today) only opens the door for speculation.
November 18th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
And of course if the people buying her stuff held people that claim the Lord’s name to some sort of standard, she never would have toured very far with Salvador. Because nobody would have supported her once she decided to leave her husband who desired to reconcile and she provided no reason for doing something God hates.
If her fans that claim Christ said, we respect your privacy and hope you respect that we won’t give you our money, why do I just suspect she’d still be with her first husband?
November 18th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Well, I guess she’s no different than JLo.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Hey IC!,
After seeing this(and everything else) I am beginning to think that the USA is the Harlot and the Mystery Babylon in the Bible. And as you well know that does not bode well for this country. I can’t believe we call ourselves a Christian Nation. This could not be further from the truth. God help us all.
Kyle
November 19th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Hi IC,
informative as always! The body of christ don’t have to worry about the devil destroying us…we’re doing an excellen job on our own!
Great job!
November 19th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Jaci hasn’t given details of her divorce as she didn’t want to drag her ex-husband through the mud. She married a graduate of Anderson University’s Christian studies who claimed to be a Christian. Shortly after the marriage, he tried to convert Jaci to Buddaism. Jaci became physically sick and separated from her husband for a period. During that period, her ex-husband had an inappropriate relationship with her best friend. Jaci tried to show Gods love in not dragging her ex-husband through the mud like this site is doing. God has taken her on an incredible journey since then. She married a wonderful Christian man a year ago. By the way, this video was taped illegally and those aren’t her dancers. Jaci is dressed very appropriately.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:34 am
stancilkth - I knew eventually the fanatics would show up.
OK, lets say her first husband was a big time Buddhist, he still desired to be with her. Now consider this:
1 Corinthians 7:10-13 (New American Standard Bible)
Perhaps her even separating from him over this was inappropriate? If she refused to convert and he left her because of it, that would be a totally different story. She left and while she was gone he strayed to the arms of another, yet he still desired to reconcile and BE WITH HIS WIFE. If Jaci were showing "God’s love", I think she’d still be with him considering 1 Corinthians 7. But what do I know? It’s only written in scripture that she should have stayed so long as he desired to keep the marriage together.
Dragging her through the mud? The video has been broadcast to the world for over a year, dragging God’s name through the mud, because of her participation and choice of song. If it was taped "illegally" as you say, she could have had it removed in the past year or so. Still it does not dismiss that it’s total garbage.
Those were her dancers that night. They were the ones dancing to her song right beside her. It does not matter if she does not pay them. She was a willing participant and the lead for that performance. Jaci wearing a dress to sing her song while surrounded by hoochie dancers, that move to her singing is VERY INAPPROPRIATE. The video gives dishonor to God, not glory and honor. It makes God’s name a common thing, to be used in the middle of trash dancing.
As it is written:
Romans 2:24 (New American Standard Bible)
Jaci’s actions have for over a year now given unbelievers reason to trample God’s name as something for common filth.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
IC,
I have a question. Is the second spouse just as guilty as her because he married her, knowing that she has a living spouse?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Yes, Luke 16:18.
Although given adultery there is the Matthew 19:9 concession. That is NOT the "godly" option, but a concession. The godly option is always to reconcile back together. (I’m not talking about the guy trying to kill his wife, but sends her flowers in hopes of finishing his efforts to kill her. In such a case the wife must use discernment regarding if she should ever return and of course she should not if she knows he’s going to kill her. I say to continually try killing your spouse is a failure to provide and worse than an unbeliever, 1 Timothy 5:8. And trying to kill a spouse is an effort to "put them away" permanently!)
Regarding Jaci’s, case (assuming all that has been said is true) the exercise of the Matthew 19:9 concession, by claiming her husband committed adultery is VERY WEAK because SHE DECIDED TO SEPARATE FROM HIM. I mean she practically invited the resulting adultery.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
IndependentConservative:
Let us say that is stancilkth is correct in her version of events. Although it is missing from Mark 10, in Matthew 5 Jesus Christ said that "pornea" was legitimate grounds for divorce. Now my preferred KJV says "fornication", your NASB says "unchastity", but the translation that Paul used (inside joke there
) calls it correctly in translating "pornea" as sexual immorality.
As such, if her ex - husband had an inappropriate relationship with another woman, according to the more liberal standard (which is consistent with Jesus Christ, who is considered to have taught after the more lenient Hillel Pharisee school rather than the more strict Shammai Pharisee school) then Ms. Velasquez was free to leave her husband and marry another.
Incidentally, the "illness" that stancilkth was speaking of included but was not limited to bipolar disorder according to a Christian Mexican magazine (one of the benefits of doing web searches on Google is that they have a "translate this page" feature). Now you know that one who reads up on spiritual warfare and deliverance such as myself is not going to have a problem with believing that being married to a Buddhist - or even allowing one to stay in your house - is one of the best ways for Christians to pick up evil spirits that can mess with your body and mind. So if stancilkth is correct, we have nothing to say against Ms. Velasquez on the divorce issue.
Incidentally, Ms. Velasquez has been trying to cross over into secular music for quite awhile. She is already a crossover star in Latin America, and is aiming to do so over here. How she represents Jesus Christ in that arena will be interesting to watch, especially in the Latin markets, because quite truthfully the American market is only now catching up to Latin America in terms of how female artists are exploited. Charo, Celia Cruz, etc. were doing what Destiny’s Child, Britney Spears, etc. are doing now decades ago. There is a reason why Galavision, Univision, and Telemundo have long gotten pretty good ratings in male household where no one speaks Spanish
November 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
art123: I gotta disagree with IndependentConservative here. If the fellow committed sexual immorality, the other party is free, and both she and her new spouse are innocent.
IndependentConservative: I cannot say that "she practically invited the man to commit adultery by separating." I understand that Paul wrote that married folk ought not to defraud one another except by mutual consent for fasting and prayer (there I go again with my KJV) if she had married some Buddhist that duped her into thinking that he was a Christian and was mentally and physically ill from being bewitched by that fellow, that is a more than a valid reason to get out of the house for a time. If he used her condition that he contributed to with his own idolatrous behavior as an excuse to commit adultery (based on a Christian fan magazine that I skimmed they were still living together as late as mid - 2004!) then Matthew 19:19 applies. I am not willing to call Matthew 19:19 a concession as you do for it is scripture, but even if you go that route concessions exist for a reason and it is further proof that God is merciful.
If Darren Potuck (who was in your neck of the woods recently) wanted to hold onto Velasquez, he should have either A. kept his pants on or B. remained a Christian. Had he done either, her leaving would have been on her. As it was, it is all on him. That is, IF the version of events told are true.
It appears that Potuck’s music group AutoVaughn is now singing secular music by the way, and they are now based in Nashville on the indie/rock scene. http://www.myspace.com/autovaughn
November 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I agree that practicing paganistic religions and wearing certain jewelry can draw evil spirits. I’ll admit that I don’t know anything about this so called gospel singer except for what I’m reading, and another thing that I would like to consider. There’s her side, his side and the truth. The truth always prevail.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Healtheland,
All the other apostles including Barnabas used NASB
. Timothy and Titus both used NASB behind Paul’s back 
.
NASB says "immorality" in Matthew 19:9. Ask these kids who are fornicating what "fornication" means and they have no clue what the word means. They have a better idea of what "immorality" means and I can help them gain a better understanding of that term without a full lesson in 1611 English :p . Never mind going Greek with "pornea".
I never mentioned it in the initial post, but as an update after being informed of the divorce. However, Jaci left her husband who did not desire for her to leave. Buddhist or not, you can’t dance around 1 Corinthians 7:10-13. She was not to leave. She left, and then he strayed. If you leave your wife alone and she sleeps with another man, are you going to act as if YOU did not play a big role in her stumbling and refuse to take her back if she desired to reconcile? The adultery was a problem of Jaci’s own creation via her leaving her husband. Did God and even Paul not know of demons when God had Paul to write 1 Corinthians 7:10-13 and tell the spouse who was married to an unbeliever to remain with them?
Adultery when one spouse is not offering to fulfill desires for affection and is not there AT ALL for an extended period is a lame charge to hold over the person who stumbles. In fact, the person who left should be holding some of the blame for withholding affection, consider 1 Corinthians 7:3-5.
Separation is NOT about seeing who will stumble first. It’s to take time away and return to reconcile if any is possible.
Jesus did not seek to condone divorce, this is why He said:
Matthew 19:8 (New American Standard Bible)
Divorce is a concession for man, not the desire of God. That’s why no place but Matthew is the sexual immorality concession noted. Because the book of Matthew was directed towards the Jews primarily, who were divorcing at the drop of a hat, by taking Mosaic rules for divorce to the most Liberal extreme.
So Jaci leaving and her husband stumbling, then Jaci leveraging that as a "gotcha" to divorce is tremendously lame. If they sought counseling and he wanted to reconcile, what kept her from accepting his offers to reconcile? His being a continual Buddhist does not hold water against scripture. If she wanted to divorce because of the sexual immorality, what was the point of counseling?
Hence the video.
Correct. America has been doing better in some respects than some know, but America is as you said, working to catch up and be on par in all areas of immorality.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Healtheland, the only slight bit of leeway I’ll grant you in this exchange is that Jaci is a female. If she were a man, I’d post even more to show divorce was a terrible option and divorce always is a terrible option. I’d just be harder on it if she was a man.
Still she should have stayed with her first husband unless and until he desired to leave.
1 Corinthians 7:13-16 (New King James Version)
I’m just not seeing that separate because he’s not really saved line in scripture.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
art123: I will say that from what little I know if Ms. Velasquez, I was not a fan of hers. (I do own one of the albums produced by her husband’s band however.) I did not like how her handlers were marketing her, using the fact that she is thin and looks younger than her age to maximum advantage. I also found her performance on Robert Schuller’s TV show - especially her chat with Robert Schuller’s (divorced) son afterwards - a couple of years back to be strange. So I was predisposed to view her negatively, especially after viewing that clip.
But hey, if she married an adulterous Buddhist out to deceive her and use her as a tool to convert Christians into Buddhism with her music (you know, by inserting the little messages into her lyrics and telling her fans to do "Yahweh yoga" and "contemplative spirituality" and talking about how "Jesus was this great moral teacher who did a lot of meditating" … you KNOW positive thinking Schuller would have had her on every week had she gone that route!) then whatever else can be said about her actions, scripture frees her to get a divorce.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Does scripture free any of these artists to peddle the Lord’s name for the greatest profit their lawyers can attain for them?
2 Corinthians 2:17 (New American Standard Bible)
November 19th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
IndependentConservative: Separate because he is unsaved? No. Separate because he married you on false pretenses and you are suffering from bipolar disorder and are physical ill? Yes!
Look, I am not holding Ms. Velasquez up as a model for Christian living. I only saying that her divorcing the fellow was not a sin, not out of any desire to defend her, but rather to defend what is in scripture and its purpose for being in scripture. I am certain that there was a reason why Matthew, who heard the teaching first hand, was led by the Holy Spirit to recall and include it. With that said, I do concede that you are correct in presuming that the reason why the Holy Spirit did not suffer Mark to include that passage when he was writing constructing his gospel from Simon Peter’s notes because God does not want women to up and divorce their husbands for being adulterers based on perusing the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition. But Matthew 19:19 is there for women who find out what their husbands have been up to while in prison.
Scripture gave her an opening and she took it. Regrettable? Yes. A sin that makes her an adulteress and Nic Gonzales (her new husband) an adulterer? No.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
IndependentConservative: No, scripture does not condone pressuring people for money.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Just my opinion, but this sounds like a very sticky situation, especially with nowadays, people marry for the wrong reasons anyway. I don’t have supporting statistics, but from what I heard, 50% of all marriages in this country ends in divorce.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Healtheland, do you know any of these (we’ll just call them) gospel celebrity types that starts divorcing and stops the practice? And does not come with all these claims of THEM being the one supposedly wronged? How many times have we seen these same stories repeatedly, sometimes by the same person?
We have heard nothing from him and he’s wise to not say anything. I do know art123 is right in saying there are more facts to this story than we are being told or may ever know. And I can’t say the person we are discussing has the most upstanding testimony to accept (if this is what she has claimed are the facts to anyone). She’s peddling the Lord’s name in song for whatever her attorney can maximize in profit and will do that with hoochie dancers at her side.
Often people that claim they didn’t know, knew a whole lot more than they are willing to tell others. Especially when there is a certain image to uphold for profit.
If she was ill she should have calmed down a bit and remained with her husband. So he wanted her to be a pagan, disagree with him and stay with your husband. Separation was not going to make him accept Christ. If the original issue was that he’s not saved, separation does nothing to remedy that.
Healtheland, you’re making some great emotional cases for their separation, however you’re not able to support it with any scripture, you know this. Looking at scripture she should have remained, even during these issues. And if he strayed because of HER leaving, it’s rather lame to make him out to be the bad one. This man was not taking his hand to her, he was not failing to provide the basic necessities to the household.
If the Bible said you have a concession for divorce when your spouse wears a red hat, I’m sure all these gospo-celebs would be running around divorcing with pictures in hand of their ex wearing a red hat, but who’s to say how the hat got there.
If I did give money to the gospo-celebs, I would not give any to her, but that’s right, I don’t give any money to any of them.
Anyway, this is past material and was never the thrust of this post.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
That is a bogus stat.
Just the same, a saint does as the Lord commands, period. Not what society dictates.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
To IC or Healtheland
Although we don’t have all the facts, lets just assume because it is mentioned or lets take any given situation for anyone that the husband or wife enticed you to worship another god. I need for you to read Deut 13:6-end and tell me what you see.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
IC:
I have no cause to defend Velasquez. I do not even know if the version of events as given by the Velasquez fan (not an impartial source) is true. I am just saying that Matthew 19:19 says that if a person commits adultery, their spouse is free to get a divorce. Applying the language that prevents a Christian person from leaving a spouse because he or she is unsaved if the unsaved spouse wants to remain married really does not fit. Having an unsaved spouse and having a sexually immoral spouse is two different issues. Plenty of unsaved people never commit adultery, plenty of Christians do.
The issue here is not so much the husband or the wife but the institution of marriage. Sexual immorality is the one thing that dishonors the institution because two people are supposed to join and become one flesh. Leaving apart the predestination and election implications, if a person decides to reject Christ, while that is regrettable, that does not defile the marriage or the institution of marriage. But if even a saved person commits adultery, it does. Matthew 19:19 prevents people from being able to make a mockery of the institution of marriage by getting with a Christian spouse because you know that no matter how much you run around on him or her, your spouse cannot leave.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
To be honest, I see both sides of your statements, but again, we don’t have the full picture because its one sided.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
To add, I am also aware that if it was up to the old covenant ways, false prophets and pagan worshippers would be stoned today. I’m sure that it’s got to be a better way for a spouse to get away from this type of witchcraft because those wicked spirits are real. As you can see, I observe both sides of arguments here.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Art123, regarding your comment #25, consider Mark 6:4, Matthew 10:34-39 too. Consider folks like our brother Melvin Jones over at Pulpit-pimps.org who has a wife that would like for him to embrace prosperity doctrine. There are so many men there facing what he’s facing and women too. They are sticking in there and not leaving their spouses. For some it’s caused divorce, but not because the person who knew sound doctrine desired the divorce. Although it brings plenty of pain, Christ asked us to hang in there even when we are at odds with our spouse, see Ephesians 5. As Christ loves the church a man is to love his wife, Christ never leaves us when we do Him wrong. I love my wife, praise the Lord He saw fit to give me a wife who may have typical marriage disputes with me over some things, but we’ve been able to walk straight out of prosperity doctrine to more sound doctrine together in full 100% total agreement. Perhaps the Lord knows something about me that I don’t. Maybe I’m too weak to handle if my wife had desired to remain in false doctrine? I don’t know, but praise the Lord He knows best for each of us.
Healtheland, do you feel that Jaci leaving her spouse contributed to his infidelity if the statements made about them are true?
I read 1 Corinthians 7 and I can’t square what has been said against it. She had an unbelieving spouse. She was not to leave him.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
IC, I do agree that in Matt 19:19, Christ gave the living spouse a way out if there’s fornication involved. However, I do see what you are saying, based on your scriptures. It is all about forgiveness. Therefore, in my opinion, based on the scriptures and I stand corrected that divorce is discretional. Also, it is also best to get to know what you’re marrying before you do it. I was just reading this website http://www.bibleprobe.com/marriageanddating.htm and I believe that it supports what Heatheland was saying and you, IC was saying. I found it to be interesting.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
IC, something just dawned on me. Was His words for the man because it seems like the man in the scriptures were pursuing divorce more and I cannot say that I have read anywhere that the woman was allowed to pursue it.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
In response to Mr. Jones situation, I know that he’s been getting rash comments about his situation. However, I hope things work out for him.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Art123 said:
The Matthew account is written to men because it was documented as an account for the Jews. Since under Mosaic law only the man could initiate divorce it was written in a manner to keep with their existing custom. And yes men were very out of hand with it.
The account in Mark was directed towards Gentiles. With the Gentiles such as Romans, a man or woman could initiate divorce. So it was written with more of that (paraphrasing) "if he does this or if she does this", versus how in Matthew it’s mostly directed towards the man.
Really the man is the head of the household. Ephesians 5 shows how it relates directly to Christ’s relationship with the church and this is why certain men being church leaders is such a critical issue. Even in places where women were allowed to do various things, like even divorce her husband, instruction always was that the man is to be respected as the head of his house and certain men as church leaders. We can’t deny that Adam was first and Eve created to help Adam, because Adam was pretty lame on his own
. And women hate when I say it, but God had Paul say it, Eve took a taste of the forbidden fruit first, 1 Timothy 2:13-14. So Healtheland has a point with the fact that in divorce the man always must be found at fault because he’s the head. Man must give to woman like Christ for the church to the point of death. Man bears the burden to provide for his house too. (Although the wife may work, for the man it’s never optional, always mandatory.) For all the headship, comes all the heavy burdens and all the weight of blame when there is failure. I just found our example to be a what did you expect to happen matter, given she left an unbelieving spouse.
Yes with Melvin’s situation, some folks think that saying something about it will hurt his feelings. However, it really shows the weakness in his opponent’s argument, because everybody knows about that and God willed that unfortunate circumstance because Melvin had to be the man doing what he’s doing with his blog. And from his painful situation, he’s been pressed to help countless saints and we all thank God he’s contending for the faith as vigorously as he does. Talking about his wife is like telling him why he’s got additional inspiration to keep it up.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:49 am
IndependentConservative: "Healtheland, do you feel that Jaci leaving her spouse contributed to his infidelity if the statements made about them are true? I read 1 Corinthians 7 and I can’t square what has been said against it. She had an unbelieving spouse. She was not to leave him."
Again, we are dealing in general terms, for all we know Ms. Velasquez may have left never intending to return. As she went on tour with Salvador while her marriage was on the rocks and married Nic Gonzales before the ink was dry on her divorce papers, that is a reasonable inference to draw.
But in general terms, if a person decides never to return, then it is abandonment. I do not know how scripture deals with abandonment. I personally have viewed abandonment as a de facto unbiblical divorce that frees the abandoned and condemns the abandoner and whoever the abandoner takes up with. In other words, I view abandonment as the same as adultery/sexual immorality.
But if a person leaves temporarily intending to return until various issues are worked out … is that a sin? Even if it is, it is a sin against God and not against holy matrimony as sexual immorality is a sin against holy matrimony (and abandonment also).
November 20th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Hi HealtheLand,
Here are my thoughts on the issues of abandonment. Consider this:
1 Timothy 5:8 (New American Standard Bible)
I hope we can agree that was directed towards men. If a man fails to provide for his household, he is NOT a Christian and WORSE than a heathen. Not to say if a man is trying but unable to provide he’s bad, but if he abandons his household, the above applies.
Now again consider this:
1 Corinthians 7:12-16 (New American Standard Bible)
I think we’ve always found it acceptable if a saint is put away by an unbeliever, if they let that unbeliever go and even OK if the saint remarries. By apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 7:25 and John 20:23) Paul declared that Christians can let an unbelieving spouse go if there is no desire on the unbeliever’s part to keep the marriage together. (One of so many examples of why we can’t act like anyone today is an apostle, there are no more apostles, that office is closed and the foundation already laid by them.) The apostle Paul declared that in such cases the saint is not under "bondage". Meaning they are free to move on and remarry. It’s not like when 2 saints are married and one desires divorce. When it’s 2 saints, the other should strive to have reconciliation and bring the one who desires the sin of divorce to turn from that evil. (We’ve already reviewed the Matthew 19:9 concession and know that’s there, so we don’t need to go there again.)
So when you consider abandonment BY A MAN puts that man at a position worse than an unbeliever and and he’s gone, so he’s obviously not wanting his wife. It seems to me scripture fully supports the woman going her own way. I feel this also applies in cases where a man is flat out trying to murder his wife. When a man is trying to literally murder his wife, he’s certainly not providing for her or desiring to keep her. I see this as a concession for women only. I don’t see this as something a man could exercise given the scriptures noted. The man is the head, if it goes bad, it’s on his head. The only concessions given to a man are sexual immorality by his wife or if his wife is an ubeliver that leaves him, but she’s not the one responsible for providing to keep the household, the man is. So if a wife who claims the faith leaves her husband, the man can’t treat it like she’s an unbeliever, she’s not the designated household provider to begin with. Of course he can separate if his wife is trying to kill him, but not divorce.
I’m going to assume that your statement above was to read "..intending NOT to return until to return until various issues are worked out … is that a sin?"
I’m hoping I’ve offered enough scriptural proof throughout these comments without rehashing it, to simply say that neither spouse is to abandon the other if they know that their spouse honestly desires reconciliation. Marriage is very much about sacrifices and self denial. The standard is to seek reconciliation, not concessions. God still hates divorce as much now as when mentioned under the old covenant in Malachi 2:16.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
IC: We substantially agree on most things. It is a shame that this issue has to be discussed in the context of the behavior of a Christian celebrity, because that taints things a bit. I was just trying to make a general case that if a woman or man sins by leaving while continuing to communicate with their spouse and making their intent to return clear when they are able to handle it (for we are all subject to weaknesses of the flesh), that should not be seen as a "mitigating factor" to Matthew 19:19. In short, having to temporarily go move in with mom (or go get a hotel if you are a guy) because "I just can’t take it any more and I do not know what will happen to me, my spouse, the kids, the furniture, the dog, etc. if I have to spend one more minute here" should not give license to the other party to call up the hold high school flame for a visit while left to his or old devices with regards to the marriage contract.
But I understand your desire to hold fast on this issue. I was listening to a radio preacher recently, and he counseled this woman who insisted that the Holy Spirit told her that it was OK to divorce her unsaved husband (who wanted to remain married). When he told her that the Holy Spirit will never contradict the Bible she A. said "you don’t know what it is like to live with an unsaved man for 40 years!" and B. "But I prayed and God told me it was OK!" He stuck to his guns and she to hers, and you can tell how it ended.
So I understand your point, but I cannot join you in it.