Husband of one wife

You can't be serious. Are you tellimg me that divorce is not scripturally permissible in the case of adultery?

 

Proposed conditional marriage vow:
"For better or worse as long as you are faithful to me . . . . for as long as both shall live or one violates this vow through unfaithfulness . . . . "

Perhaps God can divorce us if we are unfaithful to him (see 2 Timothy 2:13). What do you think?

I'm sure that if we work at it long enough, we can rationalize divorce much like the followers of Hillel who believed that a man could divorce his wife for any reason. Shammai taught divorce only in the case of adultery but Jesus did not agree with either school in Matthew 19. Jesus said, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)” Like modern Christians, the Pharisees opined, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (Matthew 19:7)”
Christ answered: “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.(Matthew 19:8-9)” In shock, the disciples responded: “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.(Matthew 19:10)” It seems that modern Christians have lost the sense of seriousness and permanence of the marriage covenant. Like the schools of Hillel and Shammai, we make the Scripture say what we want and fit our situations.

 

Questions for paidagogos:

A person married and divorced before becoming a Christian. He later marries again to a Chritian. Would this disqualify him to be an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher (Eph.4:11)?

Does the same standard for a deacon apply to the above positions?

 

Yes--this is a definite possibility. It is by no means an open and closed subject. This seems to be quite a surprise for you. Then you don't know all the in and outs of the debate. You've obviously come to a one-dimensional conclusion without studying all the views and scholarly research. As an introduction, I recommend that you read Wayne House’s little book: Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. Then, you ought to read Jesus and Divorce by the scholars Gordon Wenham and William Heth. You will be enlightened, no doubt. These books are available on amazon.com.

Personally, I question whether πορνεια in Matthew 19:9 should be translated fornication or not. It is better-translated uncleanness. I do not think it is referring to adultery here since Christ used μοιχαω, which obviously does mean adultery, in the very same passage. If Christ intended to say “except for adultery” he would have said it. When he intended to say adultery, he said μοιχαω, not πορνεια. Most people take it to mean adultery but it just doesn’t fit or make sense semantically. IMHO, πορνεια, in this case, is some vile uncleanness that even God grants as grounds for divorce. Generally, πορνεια is the general term for sexual impurity. Adultery, μοιχαω, is specific. Since πορνεια could possibly refer to any type of sexual sin, it is too broad to include any sexual impurity here but πορνεια appears to refer to some one sexual sin of extreme vileness. Some think it denotes incest or some other wicked perversion. IMHO, the best candidate is lesbianism or homosexuality. Thus, one may divorce his wife if she becomes a lesbian and leaves the natural sexual affections. This is an unnatural, vile sin against mankind as God’s image bearer.

What do you think. Please address the issues, not some silly sentiment.

 

Yes as I understand the Scriptures. It is hard and we may not like it but it is what God has laid down as the standard for his servants. Having once broken the marriage covenant, one is barred from serving as deacon or pastor. The Bible is not as specific as to evangelist or teacher except where it is the dual office of pastor-teacher (Ephesiand 4:11). As for prophets and apostles, these offices are not credibly operant today--I don't know any Baptist prophets or Baptist apostles. Do you?

 

Jesus dislikes Divorce.

 

"it is what God has laid down as the standard for his servants."

A divorced person before becoming a Christian is not a servant of God and not accountable to Biblical standards for deacons and pastors. Instuctions in Timothy apply to those in Christ, not those in the world. We are told not to judge those outside of the Church (1 Cor. 5:12). In essence, you are not forgiving the past sins of the divorced person as God has forgiven yours.

Although the Bible is mute on the standards of evangelist, apostles and prophets, they should be included in the standards for deacons or else there is a double standard.

Prophets and apostles are not offices in local churches, they are positions in the body of Christ. There were secondary apostles in the early church, Rom 16:7; 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25; and secondary prophets; Acts 11:27-28; 13:1; 15:32; 1 Cor. 12:27-28; 14:29-30.

From Pentecost to the Rapture the Church is of the same substance, same spirit, same dispensation, and same ministries. Denying any of the ministries today creates two different entities dividing the Church that God created as one.

There are many apostles in the Church today, they are called missionaries who are chosen and sent out by the Holy Spirit to preach the gospel. The original 12 were chosen by Christ, witness his resurrection and served under him.

Church prophets are few, but like missionaries they must be included as part of the Church. They don't speak with God or receive new revelations, instead they "prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up;" they "encourage and strengthen the brothers."

"Having once broken the marriage covenant while in Christ's body, one is barred from serving as deacon or pastor."

 

I don't understand why divorce disqualifies the man, but what about his home being in order? There are MANY Pastors whose wive are not even remotely submissive to them (in the Biblical sense of submission, not the worldly sense). Why are these men allowed to pastor? Or what about the pastor whose children are unruly? Doesn't the same text say something about that? Let's look:

An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not addicted to wine, not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy-- one who manages his own household competently, having his children under control with all dignity. (1 Timothy 3:2-4 HCSB Emphasis mine)

I think we need to take into consideration that, as someone said above, people make mistakes. Looking lustfully at someone other than his wife makes him not a "one woman man". But we let this slide because of the fallenness of man.

God calls who He wants to call. We have no authority to decide who God can and can't call to His ministry. As Rebecca St. James once said, "God doesn't call the qualified, he qualifies the called". Let God do His work, don't quench the Spirit, and trust that He knows what is best for His kingdom.

 

IOW's, Christ can completely forgive these other sins and a person can overcome them but not divorce or polygamy?

Divorce isn't even a sin in and of itself or else there would be no exceptions, ever. Christ Himself made an exception and Paul added abandonment.

You still have not made anything more than an "I said so" case for saying this but allowing that the other qualifications aren't lifelong.

You insist that divorce can be forgiven but then deny that a divorced person can have that sin fully covered and be completely reconciled. Does the blood of Christ really cover this sin or just obscure it somewhat?

That would be all well and good if this passage said "no divorced men allowed." It doesn't.

It says "one woman man". Just be consistent. Either a one woman man excludes all men who have ever had romantic/sexual desires/acts with any one other than their wife or it means something other than a person's whole past. How many pastors here would be qualified if "one woman man" were applied to their entire past? How many have never so much as desired a woman other than their wife? Are there any here that can honestly say they have never had romantic or sexual inclinations toward another woman?

You can't just ignore what the text actually says and replace it with what you think the text should mean. You can't just arbitrarily supply the words you think are missing.

 

Is this ex catherdra or is it merely your opinion?

 

paidagogos, can you answer this? If a divorced man is not allowed to be a deacon / elder, why is a man who was never married allowed to pastor and be a deacon? They clearly are not the "husband of one wife".

 

Is a man to be disqualified because his wife was unfaithful and walked out on him and divorced him? He is the victim. Should he be victimized by the Body of Christ as well? Is he to be held accountable for the decisions and actions of someone else? That is decidedly unbiblical!

And, finally, if a man is the victim in the divorce and, some years later, remarries, is he then in the wrong?

 

Yes, anytime one applies the man is disqualified until he repents and purges the sin from his life. The catch is that the other qualifications are in the present whereas divorce remains—once divorced, always divorced.</font>[/QUOTE] That's probably why divorce is specifically NOT listed among the disqualifiers. The qualifications are contexually a measure of the man's current behavior and character.

A man who was a drunk can never take back his drunkeness. A man who was a brawler can never take it back.

There is not a single qualification that once violated can be undone. Many have left lasting scars on the lives of other people.

More to your point. Can a man who looked at a girly mag as a teen and lusted after the woman (and perhaps more) ever take it back? Can they honestly be considered a "one woman man" in any way consistent with your treatment of divorce? I don't think so.

How many men do you think ever reach their marriage night an absolute virgin? No sex at all to include fantasies and self-gratification.

Any?

That's my point. All of the things listed can and almost always do have consequences that aren't undone by forgiveness.

The man who spent his money selfishly rather than on health care for his baby doesn't necessarily get a healthy child just because he gets forgiveness. Does that mean that you disallow men who have unhealthy children as a direct result of poor health care? Do you then get to evaluate which health problems are severe enough to disqualify the man the way you have set divorce apart from other manifestations of not being a "one woman man"?

If this analogy is really what you want for a rule then just be consistent and disqualify all men who are not strictly "one woman" men.

Not true. Past sins cannot be undone period. No matter what they are. Failure to be a "one woman man" can be overcome by a divorcee every bit as much as the bottle can be overcome by a drunk.

Nothing specious in my questions. They simply point out the inconsistency in your interpretation and application.

I don’t know. Are you one? </font>[/QUOTE] For my lifetime, no. I kissed a girl named Rita in the 8th grade. You aren't privy to the rest but I am willing to admit that if "one woman man" applies to my whole life then I am terribly disqualified. If it applies to my demonstrated character then I think my marriage is a good testimony.

This is hogwash! You are confusing marriage and sex.</font>[/QUOTE] THAT IS BECAUSE THE TEXT DOESN'T MENTION MARRIAGE. IT SAYS "ONE WOMAN MAN"! PERIOD.

Inserting a human dogma when one is dissatisfied with what the text says is also a Roman Catholic idea, not a biblical doctrine.

 

True. But this passage doesn't mention marriage.

The passage says nothing about a covenant.

Contextually, you are just wrong. The passage deals with the character of the man- not covenants, not marriage.

That's a false charge.

I am thinking biblically. I am allowing the text to speak for itself without inserting my bias. I am allowing the text to speak contexually rather than arbitrarily lifting one portion of it out and re-writing it to suit my preconceived biases.

It is by no means "humanistic" rationalizing to simple accept what God said in the way that He said it. He very easily could have said "divorce". HE didn't. That came from you and others who are dogmatically demanding a very narrow and inconsistent interpretation.

You’re sniveling. No if you understand marriage to be a covenantal relationship, not a sexual liaison. You don’t get married to legitimatize sex.</font>[/QUOTE] The text says nothing about a covenant or even marriage. The dynamic translation that grew into traditional acceptance is unfortunate since it doesn't accurately reflect the words of the original.

btw, nowhere in scripture does it say that divorced people are still married. A divorced, remarried man can reflect the covenant you cite very well with his wife. Scripturally, he has only one wife.

IOW's, you have no Bible based response. You refuse to let the text stand as given by God, insist on reading between the lines, and are offended that someone would question the human authority to do so.

Your interpretation is not a clear biblical teaching. It is not a consistent teaching. Indeed the bulk of your response to my very direct and simple assertion that the text should speak for itself was to introduce babble- you limited the meaning to one area then expanded that area to the extreme.

It belongs to the "Which is more authoritative category... human interpretations (which are necessary I realize) or the literal thing God said in context.

I choose what God actually said over what you say He said.

Do you accept the Biblical definition of marriage as a lifetime covenant of companionship?</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. With the exception of the exceptions given by Christ and Paul.

Yes. And a divorced man can mirro this relationship with his wife.

But that really doesn't matter since the texts qualifying church officers doesn't mention, marriage, divorce, or covenants. It discusses the character of the man under consideration.

To include every stray thought and moment of lust? That's without even entering into how false your argument is that acts before marriage have no impact on a later marriage covenant... that is "humanistic rationalization" that has led to most Christian marriages not being between two virgins... or even including one virgin.

No. It speaks to the character of a man being considered for a church office. That is the context.

Christ purifies his bride by grace. Christ blood covers sin... including those related to divorce.

Not unless you use this rule to establish the context for the whole passage.

No one said it could. We said that this passage deals with demonstrated character and not one's entire sinful past.

 

Interesting comment- even in jest- from someone who has supplied the words covenant, divorce, and marriage where God didn't see fit to inspire them.

 

Yes--this is a definite possibility.</font>[/QUOTE]Then Jesus lies when he permits divorce in cases of adultery. No thanks, I'll stick to what Jesus says.

 

There is no way one can dogmatically argue that "one-woman man" means "never divorced under any circumstances". The biblical and historical contexts, the word itself, the nature of marital covenants, and the other teachings of Scripture on this subject matter simply will not allow this interpretation to be the only one.

One is entitled to this opinion and has the right to believe and maintain this position when serving as a church leader, but it is nieve to assume this is the only viable and defendable position.

Regardless of one's position on the divorce/remarriage issue, grace must prevail. There are those who have "stricter" views than I do and there are those who have "more lenient" positions than me. I must exercise grace in both instances.

 

Words well spoken.

 

Yes. It’s rather like the situation of the husband who sleeps around until he contracts aids and passes it to his poor, faithful wife. Sin hurts more than just the sinner. The wife is not morally guilty for her husband’s sin but she suffers the horrific ravages of aids nonetheless.

This is pure emotional appeal, not reason. He is not being victimized because he cannot pastor. A person is not victimized just because he can’t do everything he wants to do. No one has an entitlement to the pastorate. This is the politically correct, humanistic, liberal mindset. I am really surprised that you would fall for this line.

How so? We’re not talking about his being held morally accountable for someone else’s sin but we are arguing whether the consequences affect him. They do. Seems you are throwing around this term, unbiblical, for effect rather than content.

Yes if Scripture forbids remarriage. Life's not fair. Furthermore, I don’t buy the victim mentality. It’s rather like the guy who invests his life savings in the Stock Market and loses his shirt. Choices have consequences that are hard to accept but righteousness and obedience to God's Word are paramount. You may ask questions that I cannot answer from a finite, human perspective. However, we must trust God’s directive and obey accordingly.

There are factors to consider that we do not and cannot know. Only God, Who is omniscient, can judge. Can you answer these questions?
1. What role did the man play in his wife’s leaving? He may have had failings as a husband. There are always two sides to a story. She may have left in a sinful relationship with another man but the husband may be a contributing factor because he failed to faithfully do his duty as a husband. After all, who is the perfect husband?
2. What residual responsibility does the husband have in that he made the original choice to marry the woman? Perhaps he didn’t foresee but he may have rushed into a marriage from his own lust and desire too.
3. If my wife becomes a subversive operative for a hostile foreign power, is the CIA justified in refusing me employment and security clearance? I would think so even though it was not of my doing.

I did notice your and others’ arguments are based on emotional appeal and human reason rather than what has God said. Methinks you got it wrong. Righteousness and obedience are based on what God has said, not where our sympathies lie.