Divorced in Church Roles

So then you're placing sin over an institution of God?

 

Then you have left the door open to as many wives as any man might have one at a time and fail to regard what the Lord shows us as monogomous to remain committed to the one wife He has joined us to and have then become one flesh.

I'm afraid those who hold to the one wife at a time thought haven't really thought about it too much.

 

Recently, on another topic, you defended a certain female public KJO teacher, who has been divorced twice, as if her divorces were no big deal, when it was good for your argument. Have your views on divorce change since then? Do you think it only applies to certain people? Did the "'Til death do us part" rule not apply to her? You can't have it both ways.

 

Throughout these posts, imo, there was nothing which indicated this man cannot preach.

Regarding Adultery and his wife's former marriage, well maybe her actions regarding the divorce could possibly play into his ability to preach in God's eyes, yet I am unaware of a verse indicating such.

Though God allows divorce regarding Adultery, I believe most of the divorces which fault adultery are still sin. The Lord takes the institution of marriage seriously, as the two become one flesh. No one is to separate them.

Let's say my wife commits adultery. I can't just divorce her necessarily, nor would I want to. It wouldn't even enter my mind. How insane to throw away 17 years of marriage over a roll in the hay. (Unless she went all the way with him and then tried to get with me, then that's akin to trying to kill me. Attempting to kill someone with an STD is throwing a loaded gun into the air hoping it won't go off. Talk about nuts)

Anyways...getting back to it. If I have firm belief she will continue to sin, like let's say she appeared to show signs of a sex addict, or she actually told me outright she was planning on sinning again, divorcing her without trying to work it out is still not an option.

Men are the head of the household, and must take charge, not run away. Women are to submit to their spouses. Even when they fail to submit, thus sinning, this doesn't let the men off the hook.

When a couple fails to do all they can to work it out, then the putting away can become sin. Further sins are committed by the husband if he divorces his wife without trying to work it out, especially if they have children. This is because he is unable to fulfill his his godly obligations to his children due to his part time status resulting from the divorce. He also may not be able to afford the child support. Of course, if the wife continuously commits adultery, then divorce is the likely answer. But even then, i don't see a command.

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Tim 5:8)

Colossians 3:21 - "Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged

1 Timothy 3:4,5 [An overseer] must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?

1 Timothy 3:12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

Deuteronomy 11:18-19 Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.


When hardness of the heart continues, even after genuine attempts at reconciliation, well then that's different. Moses gave a divorce decree for that reason. Men need to be men, and taking off at the first sign of trouble is not the answer.

 

First Question:

1 Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore.
2 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
4 Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it. Ezra 10:1-4

How do these verses line up with what some have been saying in this thread? Not only are the men here putting away their wives, but also the children that were had with them. WOW! That is pretty severe!

It seems the fault here is that these men had taken strange wives. Would that not be the same as marrying someone outside the faith (i.e. someone unsaved)? What if both are unsaved, then one becomes saved and the other is very against Christianity of any sort? Regardless the efforts of the saved person the other refuses to have anything to do with the Lord or even tolerate discussion of God without entering into an arguement?

Next Question:

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 19:9

How about this view on the above verse:

If you divorce for any reason other than fornication, you can not remarry. If you divorce because your spouse was unfaithful, remarrying is possible.

Personally I believe that God has meant for man to marry only one woman and that union is meant to last a lifetime. They become one flesh.

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:6

This verse states "what therefore God hath joined together". What about those marriages in which God had no part (i.e. prior to either person being saved)? Are they to be held to the same "one flesh" standard. To me it seems Ezra 10 says no.

My view:

Prior to my salvation 25 years ago I entered into a marriage of convenience. Each of us knowing that the marriage was only temporary. It was a legal contract to benefit each party's worldly needs and nothing more. 1 1/2 years later we divorced and went our own ways amicably. I have since accepted the Lord Jesus as my savior, have been happily married to my wife of 19 years and have three beautiful children. Had I to do it over I would never have entered into that first marriage, but I was young, foolish, and unsaved. Because of this, however, I would never aspire to be a pastor or deacon. In my eyes 1 Timothy removes me from that short list of candidates. There are many other areas for me to serve, though, and I do. This even though I feel I have only one marriage that "God hath joined together".

If we marry, God wants that one marriage to be forever. Man has proven since Adam and Eve that we can not do what God wants us to do. This is why it was necessary for Jesus to come down and sacrifice Himself for our sins. This atonement, however, does not minimize God's standards.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Romans 7:6-7

God does not change. The standards set forth in the OT as well as the NT law are still applicable today, but thank God for Jesus, we no longer have to bring an animal to the altar for our sin. If we did I think PETA would have a very small population of critters to be concerned about, AMEN?

Do we really want to water down the standards of the church because this world can not keep itself from sin? I don't think anyone is trying to cut divorced people from the roles of service, just from the roles of spiritual leadership (Pastor/Deacon). These positions need to be filled by those who, while obviously not sinless, can hold up to a very close scrutiny. You know that there are people out there that will say..."Well Pastor So-and-so was divorced so I"... As one from the roles of the divorced, I see no problem with keeping the divorced from the positions of Pastor or Deacon at all

 

In principle, I agree.

But I disagree with the interpretation of the Scripture that got you there.

I don't think it's addressing divorce, but rather monogamy

 

Actually the context is about divorce and as NOTHING to do with monogamy.....

Christ in Matthew 19 was reaffirming the law given by Moses through the Spirit in Deuteronomy 24. Divorce is only permitted for adultery which adultery was punished by death and so the spouse was free to remarry since the adulterer was put to death. If government does not do their job and the adulterer remains alive then the spouse can not remarry... Only Death can truly separate a marriage.

Man who put away their wives can not hold the office of Pastors and Deacons. They must be above approach. The Greek word for "One" that is used in Titus "A Bishop must be husband of one wife" is the word "MIA" which literally means "First" wife or in other words a sequential order . So a Bishop which is Pastor can not put away his first wife.

Prophets and Elders in the Old Testament could not be divorced and the same holds true for the Pastors and Elders of the New Testament...

A Bishop must be blameless.... This is a moral imperative....

Even if a Pastor became divorced by no fault of his own but by the wife only then he is still required to step down from the office. So it is written, So shall it be done.

 

The Titus and 1 Timothy passage, using the "mia," does not exclude the interpretation of being a prohibition against polygamy.

I still contend that the prohibition is not one of divorce but of polygamy.

Having said that, there is no doubt that any divorce must be carefully examined. Is it recent? Was the minister the cause? Was it due to the other party's unfaithfulness? Has there been forgiveness? And other questions...

I still come back to the fact that in many churches, divorce is the "unpardonable sin."

 

I refuse to get into the whole monogamy vs. polygamy debate..... Maybe another time...

But with regards to Titus and 1 Timothy and "Mia", That word "mia" (mee'-ah), meaning "first", is the exact same word for FIRST in John 20:19, Acts 20:7, and 1_Corinthians 16:2. All three of these verses refer to "the FIRST day of the week". Indeed, we can see this word for "FIRST" as meaning, "The position-number-one of a sequence". For example, the FIRST day of the week is the Day-number-one of the sequence of seven days in a week. Thus, even simpler, "the FIRST day of the week" can be seen as "the day-number-one of the week", which, of course, is Sunday.

Thus, because we can see that Greek word "mia" (mee'-ah) in that way, it also my be applied to those references to "ONE WIFE". That is, instead, it can thus be seen as "FIRST wife", or as "Wife-number-one". Which was the same requirement in the Old Testament. A Elder can not be divorced.....

It completely excludes the issue of monogamy vs. polygamy.... Paul is referring to the issue of divorce....

So man can not be a pastor and be divorced... Adulterers were commanded to be put to death and only then allowed to remarry. Those who divorce without the just cause of adultery commits adultery by allowing their spouse to marry another person... Thus a Pastor is not blameless and so does not qualify to be a minister of the word ans sacrament regardless of circumstances... It is not the unpardonable sin and can be forgiven but forgiveness does NOT erase consequences of the man...

If I murder I can be forgiven and still go to heaven but that does not mean that I can get off scot free from the consequences.... God's law still requires that the government shed MY blood for murder... It is Justice, It is God's justice. I am still forgiven by the church and by God but I still must pay for my crimes, God is holy and Just and requires justice.

 

I agree that many churches view divorce as the "unpardonable sin" The rest of this post's questions made me think. Even if the person is carefully examined with the intent to point fingers at someone for past sin, is that biblical?

A couples private sex life needs to remain just that, private. Examining a candidate, imo, is causing them to sin by forcing them to disclose their version of what happened regarding their past divorce. Imo, it's a sin to listen to this highly personal information describing acts taking place between two consenting adults. Maybe he withheld himself from her, etc...does everyone really need to know this?

Tale-bearing, gossip, backbiting, babbling, mischevious tongue is sin so repeating information pertaining to the private sex acts in a marriage is sin. It could also cause problems between the parties if they remain friends to this day.


Proverbs 16:28 A froward man soweth strife: and a whisperer separateth chief friends.

Proverbs 17:9 He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends.

Proverbs 11:9 An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.


Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Psalms 15:3 He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.

Proverbs 25:18 A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.

Ecclesiastes 10:13 The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness.

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.


It is unfair to a person to have to wonder for the rest of their life if their ex husband is gossiping about them at each and every job interview.

Slander is wrong

Imo, a divorced person is not suitable to hold the office of Pastor

 

Is this what you really intended to say?

 

I now pronounce you corpse and wife?

 

Freudian Slip? LoL

That is way to funny on my part...... The fun of Keyboard errors...... :BangHead:

Only the bible also condemns Necrophilia, So there can be no Corpse and Wife....

:tonofbricks:

Anyway, it was suppose to say "Then the spouse may remarry" after the death of the Adulterer.

 

The literal translation of that particular passage is "one woman man". If you want to ignore tradition which influenced the choice of "husband of one wife" and cling to God's word for "what it truly says" then that qualification is just like the rest- character traits.

A divorced man can potentially be a "one woman man" and be a better expression of genuine fidelity than a once married man.

A man married to a divorced woman can decidedly be a "one woman man".

Ultimately, you'll have to deal with this for yourself as I have.

I would contend that anyone who holds that a divorced man is precluded by the original intent and language is inconsistent if they allow any man who has ever had any sort of sexual contact or thought with/about a woman other than his wife.

 

Source??

Japath Could you please provide your Source for "MIA" as "FIRST"?

I've never encountered this translation. I've allways seen 1Tim 3:12 and Tit 1:6 as "one woman man" You seem to be saying that Paul changes his wording in Titus from 1 Tim. This is also something I have not encountered before. If you could provide more details I would greatly appreciate it.

 

μία = Strong's #G3391

1) only one, someone
AV — one (62), first(8)

 

I agree that the passage is talking about a "one woman man" and I don't think that a divorce is an automatic disqualification. That said, I believe that the vast majority of men who are divorced are not qualified.

I do know one pastor who was divorced at a very young age (late teens I think) He was then saved in His early 20s.
He has been a "one woman man" for about 40 years now.

Is he qualified for the ministry? I think so.

Would I attend his church? Probably not but I won't break fellowship with him over it.

 

My Strong's says:

3391: mia, irreg. fem. of 1520; one or first.

1520: heis, a prim. numeral; one.

Strongest Strong's:

3391: mia, n.num.f. of 1520; one, single.

1520: heis, one, single.

The Strongest Strong's lists all the words in the KJV that translate from heis and one of them is the word several combined with 303 (ana), pp. each, in turn, among.

The word "one" in Titus 1:6 translates from heis, 1520.

 

Especially and specifically if he marries his first and only iwfe again.

Notr according to God's decision in the matter. They are no longer twian but become one flesh. Divorce performs no divine operation to disjoin.

In response, I recommend no one ever sear theuir conscience when it comes to divine ordinances nor God's institutions.

You seem to be avoiding the vow, sir, and implying ramifications of the spiritual aspect to the physical. Big mistake.

I can think to have murdered, but I am not guilty of murder as to be convicted in a court of law, although I would be spiritually guilty in God's eyes.

That guilt and accusation to indict is covered by the Blood, but the physical action has consequences of which, in this case of divorce, many seem to ignore.

My thought of murder has no consequence unless action is taken.

You have, again, misapplied Scripture to try and justify sin.:tonofbricks:

 

I will have to ask, where is the limit found beyond "one"?????