Can a Divorced Man be a Pastor/ Preacher?

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Oh, that's better. It doesn't discuss divorce and remarriage. It discusses polygamy. It says that someone who marries another while their spouse is alive is committing adultery.

Contrast that to Jesus' words, that says anyone who divorces a spouse and marries another, EXCEPT IN CASES OF ADULTERY, forces a commission of adultery.

Are you just inventing this out of your imagination? Or have you found a lost gospel of Bartholomew or something? Jesus' own words were that anyone who divorces and marries another is continuously committing adultery--but His exception NEVER said moicheia. Jesus NEVER SAID "except in cases of adultery"--that is NOT found in the Word of God.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by showard93:
I will still say like Gunther and others have said that yes the Bible does say you can divorce because of Adultrey but it gives no reason to remarry except by death. I will also say that people can make the Bible say what they want it to say but Jesus meant One man and one woman for one lifetime.

The reason Moses commanded to give a bill of divorcement was because the men could prevent a woman from remarrying even though her husband had left. The certificate of divorced proved that she was free from her former husband and it allowed her to remarry.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
Are you just inventing this out of your imagination? Or have you found a lost gospel of Bartholomew or something? Jesus' own words were that anyone who divorces and marries another is continuously committing adultery--but His exception NEVER said moicheia. Jesus NEVER SAID "except in cases of adultery"--that is NOT found in the Word of God.

Once again, where is the specific Scripture that supports your statement that "anyone who divorces and marries another is continuously committing adultery." [emphasis mine]

Isn't it bizarre that the seven translations I have disagree with you?

 

[Don]

The topic is: Can a Divorced Man be a Pastor/ Preacher?

A preacher? We had better ALL of us be preachers, men and women alike (and the subject of a woman holding a position of authority over men doesn't enter into this; preaching the Word is something every Christian should do, period. As for women being pastors, well, now, that's a woman holding a position of authority, and a subject for another thread--although I believe it's already been done at least once).

Can a divorced man pastor? Sure he can, and a lot of them do.

Should he? No.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
Are you just inventing this out of your imagination? Or have you found a lost gospel of Bartholomew or something? Jesus' own words were that anyone who divorces and marries another is continuously committing adultery--but His exception NEVER said moicheia. Jesus NEVER SAID "except in cases of adultery"--that is NOT found in the Word of God.

Once again, where is the specific Scripture that supports your statement that "anyone who divorces and marries another is continuously committing adultery." [emphasis mine]

Isn't it bizarre that the seven translations I have disagree with you? </font>[/QUOTE]Luke 16:18 says: "PaV (o apoluwn thn gunaika autou kai gamvn (eteran moiceuei, kai paV (o apolelumenhn apo andros gamvn moiceuei."

The words apoluwn and gamvn are present participles, and apolelumenhn is a perfect participle; technically, participles do not declare absolute time because they are not in the indicative mood, but they are typically tagged with relative time according to context. In this verse they are respectively best translated dismisses or puts away, marries, and her who has been dismissed or her who has been put away.

However, moiceuei is a present-tense verb, and the only verb that appears in the verse. While the aorist expresses punctiliar action without regard to time, the Greek present is primarily durative or progressive. Both the Greek present and imperfect have the continuous aspect. Unless you would have the verb translated iteratively, you must accept that the present in Greek indicates action in progress, a linear Aktionsart. It's the same case with moiceuei (moiceia) in Luke 16:18 as it is with (amartanwn ((amartanw) in 1 John 3:6.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

So, are you saying that everyone, starting with Wiclif, got it wrong??

Both the Greek present and imperfect have the continuous aspect. Unless you would have the verb translated iteratively, you must accept that the present in Greek indicates action in progress, a linear Aktionsart.

So, how does the "action in progress" imply perpetuity?

[ September 27, 2003, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Baptist in Richmond ]

 

[Taufgesinnter]

2. The action is always in progress, which is why it's called the continuous aspect.

1. Do you know how tedious it'd have been to put "keep on," "continues to," "is continually," etc., etc., in with every verb having continuous aspect? It's like the wordy, "It has been written and stands written," which accurately conveys the Greek perfect--it's not very fluid in English. We just let it lose something in translation by rendering it "It is written."

 

[Don]

Baptist in Richmond, how would it NOT be continuously committing adultery?

If I'm unmarried and move in with a woman--with the purpose of living together as if we were married--then I'm living in sin. It's not something I do once at the beginning of the situation and then am no longer guilty of.

Same with Jesus' statement in Matthew 19:9. He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; not just once at the beginning, but the entire time he's married to the second wife.

However, I would caution: Don't get another divorce to try to fix the first one.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Don:
However, I would caution: Don't get another divorce to try to fix the first one.

Don: you cannot have it both ways.
If you believe that a person is re-married, but is not to get divorced, then the laws of marriage apply to the new marriage. The Apostle Paul was very specific about the conduct of husbands and wives. If there are a specific set of rules for the second marriage, then where are they to be found?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
2. The action is always in progress, which is why it's called the continuous aspect.

"In progress" does not equal "continuous." There is a vast difference.

1. Do you know how tedious it'd have been to put "keep on," "continues to," "is continually," etc., etc., in with every verb having continuous aspect? It's like the wordy, "It has been written and stands written," which accurately conveys the Greek perfect--it's not very fluid in English. We just let it lose something in translation by rendering it "It is written."

I strongly disagree with you. You are opening the door to a complete re-interpretation of God's Holy Word. If your postulate is accurate, every single same-tense verb would fall in this category. Moreover, if this was to be interpreted in this manner, then why is this so arguably ambiguous while the Apostle Paul was very specific?

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
2. The action is always in progress, which is why it's called the continuous aspect.

"In progress" does not equal "continuous." There is a vast difference.

1. Do you know how tedious it'd have been to put "keep on," "continues to," "is continually," etc., etc., in with every verb having continuous aspect? It's like the wordy, "It has been written and stands written," which accurately conveys the Greek perfect--it's not very fluid in English. We just let it lose something in translation by rendering it "It is written."

I strongly disagree with you. You are opening the door to a complete re-interpretation of God's Holy Word. If your postulate is accurate, every single same-tense verb would fall in this category. Moreover, if this was to be interpreted in this manner, then why is this so arguably ambiguous while the Apostle Paul was very specific? </font>[/QUOTE]Regarding your first paragraph, please explain what the difference is between something always occurring in every moment beginning at a certain point in time and something that is occurring continuously from a certain point in time.

As to your second paragraph, this is elementary Greek grammar. It's not my postulate. Funk, ed., transl., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Blass and DeBrunner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), sec. 318. Edward W. Goodrick, Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek (Multnomah Press, 1976), 4:13. Punctiliar or momentary action is carried by the aorist, completed past action with effects continuing into the present by the perfect, action in progress in the past by the imperfect, and durative (linear or progressive) action in the present, or iterative action, both by the present tense.

 

[Don]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Don:
However, I would caution: Don't get another divorce to try to fix the first one.

Don: you cannot have it both ways.
If you believe that a person is re-married, but is not to get divorced, then the laws of marriage apply to the new marriage. The Apostle Paul was very specific about the conduct of husbands and wives. If there are a specific set of rules for the second marriage, then where are they to be found? </font>[/QUOTE]BIR, in the military, we call what you're doing "quibbling".

The principle for not getting a SECOND divorce, in order to try to rectify the first divorce, is very simple: Two wrongs do not make a right. If a first divorce was bad enough, how can a second divorce be "better"? It can be as bad as, or worse; but it can't be better.

Admit you've done wrong, ask forgiveness, receive the forgiveness, and then continue on (not YOU in particular; just the generic pronoun applying to all of us).

 

[Emory]

Hello,

1 Cor. 7:12-16 Paul gives instructions for believers who are married to unbelievers. He says in 12 and 13, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."

The verse that I would like to point out is verse 15:

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

What "bondage" is Paul refering to? Marriage? That seems to be the context here. Are believer/unbeliever marriages binding? Paul says no, doesn't he? What does this mean for a unbeliever/unbeliever marriage?

God Bless,

Emory

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by Don:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Don:
However, I would caution: Don't get another divorce to try to fix the first one.

Don: you cannot have it both ways.
If you believe that a person is re-married, but is not to get divorced, then the laws of marriage apply to the new marriage. The Apostle Paul was very specific about the conduct of husbands and wives. If there are a specific set of rules for the second marriage, then where are they to be found? </font>[/QUOTE]BIR, in the military, we call what you're doing "quibbling".

The principle for not getting a SECOND divorce, in order to try to rectify the first divorce, is very simple: Two wrongs do not make a right. If a first divorce was bad enough, how can a second divorce be "better"? It can be as bad as, or worse; but it can't be better.

Admit you've done wrong, ask forgiveness, receive the forgiveness, and then continue on (not YOU in particular; just the generic pronoun applying to all of us). </font>[/QUOTE]You're saying confess you've sinned, ask forgiveness, receive forgiveness, and then continue in unrepentant sin. The laws of marriage do not apply to living in adultery. Divorce from the "second" marriage would be only to satisfy human law, since under it the unmarried party is free to be married to someone truly eligible to be married to them under God's law, and opens the way for "re"-marriage of the married party to their true spouse. Divorce under human law to someone God doesn't consider someone married to is not a wrong. The second divorce is only artificial because it's terminating adultery. Second divorce or not, separation is mandatory immediately upon repentance of the adultery, by definition. And the married adulterer must be open to reconciliation with the real spouse.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Don:
BIR, in the military, we call what you're doing "quibbling".

Okay, Don: let’s look at what you said:

Same with Jesus' statement in Matthew 19:9. He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; not just once at the beginning, but the entire time he's married to the second wife.

Where is the implied perpetuity here, Don? Are you saying that divorce is an unforgivable sin?

The principle for not getting a SECOND divorce, in order to try to rectify the first divorce, is very simple: Two wrongs do not make a right. If a first divorce was bad enough, how can a second divorce be "better"? It can be as bad as, or worse; but it can't be better.

Admit you've done wrong, ask forgiveness, receive the forgiveness, and then continue on (not YOU in particular; just the generic pronoun applying to all of us).

Once again, you cannot have it both ways.
If you are saying that divorce is a sin that can be forgiven, then you and I are in agreement. If you are saying that a remarried person is to remain celibate, then we disagree. This is not stated anywhere in the Bible. If a divorced person asks for forgiveness, then the sin is forgiven. If the divorced person is to remain married (as you stated), then the laws of marriage absolutely apply to the second marriage. If you do not agree that the laws of marriage don't apply to the new marriage, then provide the Scripture that outlines the behavior for remarriage.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
As to your second paragraph, this is elementary Greek grammar. It's not my postulate. Funk, ed., transl., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Blass and DeBrunner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), sec. 318. Edward W. Goodrick, Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek (Multnomah Press, 1976), 4:13. Punctiliar or momentary action is carried by the aorist, completed past action with effects continuing into the present by the perfect, action in progress in the past by the imperfect, and durative (linear or progressive) action in the present, or iterative action, both by the present tense.

So, you are saying that the present-tense verb in Classical Greek refers to “durative (linear or progressive) action in the present, or iterative action,” but not to a simple present-tense verb? I am not a Classical Greek scholar (nor have I presented myself as such), but I really find it incredibly hard to believe that the Ancient Greeks, with all their accomplishments, could not grasp the concept of present-tense verbs.

Moreover, if this is indeed "elementary Greek grammar," then how did this evade every translator? Why is it not presented in such a manner to state that the sin is continuous? Let's examine an earlier statement made in this thread:

Do you know how tedious it'd have been to put "keep on," "continues to," "is continually," etc., etc., in with every verb having continuous aspect? It's like the wordy, "It has been written and stands written," which accurately conveys the Greek perfect--it's not very fluid in English. We just let it lose something in translation by rendering it "It is written."

You have referred to the "Greek perfect," and the thrift utilized in English does not change the meaning of "It is written." [In other words, the concept of "It" being re-written is not implied.] In contrast, if your argument concerning the Greek present is true, then the translators completely changed the concept that Jesus was laying before the Pharisees. [If you are stating this, then the KJVO's are going to attack you en masse!] Starting with Wiclif, every translation of God's Word that I possess is essentially the same. This is opening Pandora's box with respect to the interpretation of the Scriptures.

Let's take that thought further. If adultery is a "continuous" sin as you contend, then why wasn't the rule of celibacy you claim specifically stated in Scripture? Even if your theory of "continuous adultery" is true, why didn't Jesus state that re-married people are to remain celibate?

 

[Taufgesinnter]

It's not "my" argument, it's basic Koine Greek.

Jesus was pretty specific when He said remarriage is adultery. And the fact of Greek tenses aside, the adultery would only last as long as a remarriage.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
It's not "my" argument, it's basic Koine Greek.

So, do you believe that every single translator got it wrong?

Jesus was pretty specific when He said remarriage is adultery. And the fact of Greek tenses aside, the adultery would only last as long as a remarriage.

The "fact of Greek tenses aside?" You didn't address my question as to whether or not the present verb in Ancient Greek refers to present tense. Am I to believe that this is true?

You didn't answer my question, so let me try again: If adultery is a "continuous" sin as you contend, then why wasn't the rule of celibacy you claim specifically stated in Scripture?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Once upon a time David married Bathsheba. This marriage was contrary to the will of God and was a sin to have entered into.

But the marriage, once in place, was always counted as a legitimate marriage after that, and in fact the offspring from that marriage became the next king of Israel.

A marriage, even if wrongly entered into, is still a marriage. A divorce, even from a marriage wrongly entered into, is still hated by God.

However, a divorce does, in fact, end a marriage so that is is no longer a marriage. This is shown by the answer Jesus gave the woman at the well, for she said "I have no husband" and Jesus told her she was telling the truth. And this was the truth although she had been married five times and he whom she now had was not her husband.

Given all this, any past history of marriage and divorce clearly should not count against a present candidate for the ministry, providing his life indicates he has repented of previous sins of divorce and remarriage (and all the other sins in his life also, of course) and his current marital status qualifies, that is, he doesn't have more than one wife.

On the other hand, I have a fear that we do very little in the way of actually examining a candidate in terms of the moral standards; Jesus had a lot to say against the pharasees that did not at all involve divorce, but do we ever judge a man on those things Jesus complained about in them?

 

[newlady3203]

A male divorcee definitely cannot be a pastor. As stated previously, he must be the husband of one wife, not one at a time. The same holds for women. Women cannot be pastors because you canot be a woman and be the husband of one wife. But, that is whole other discussion.

The Bible says no, and we are supposed to follow His Word.