Divorced Preachers

[TheOliveBranch]

Anabaptist .org

I've also found info on Jerome, Chrysostom, Justin Martyr as being against. But the foremost authority is what I've found in the Bible.

 

[hrhema]

I also have found sites and books saying the same ones you mentioned was not against divorce and remarriage as long as adultery was involved. Also I am going by what Jesus said in Matthew twice. I will not just go by what Mark wrote. You have to balance scriptures which many people don't want to do when it effects their pet peeves.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by jimslade:

Bible boy;

You still do not understand the Jewish tradition of engagement and marriage. Study and get back to me.

The word for divorce and putting away are the SAME!!!!!! Thats why you don'[t understand the passage fully.

Hello Jim,

Let me assure you that I fully understand ancient Jewish culture/tradition regarding engagement and marriage. As far as study goes I have just finished my BA in Biblical Studies here at Southeastern Baptist College at Wake Forest. Now I am working on my Masters Degree here at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Likewise, I am not some “young hotshot preacher-boy,” I am nearly 40 years old and I have been a student of the Bible since I was saved in 1976 (going on 27 years of Bible study). It is not a question of my understanding or lack thereof. So please cut the condescension. It is a question of interpretation and I do not happen to agree with your interpretation regarding Matthew 1:18-25 or your attempt to use it to justify your position on divorce with respect to the qualification of a Pastor. Also, you still did not address my question. Can a man be divorced from a woman to whom he is not married? All that is required is a simple yes or no.

All sins are supposed to be forgiven? right?

First, most of these questions are red herrings. I’ll answer them, but please let’s stick to the issue at hand. We are talking about divorce with respect to Pastors. So let’s deal with the biblical texts that address that issue and stop with the rabbit chasing. With that said here are my answers:

If the sinner confesses and repents he is forgiven. Therefore, YES.

Would you allow A Christian that has a problem with Money to be the church treasurer?

Not one who currently has such a problem. However, I would allow one who had such a problem and has confessed and repented, and whose life and character now demonstrate that God has delivered that person from that problem.

Same with someone who cannot look after his wife to be able to look after a congregation.

You are assuming that the man cannot learn or has not learned from his previous life experience. Likewise, you are assuming that God cannot heal and grow the man to be the leader that He wants the man to be. It looks as if your view of God is somewhat small or that you are placing God in a box.

If you would, I have some swamp land in florida you may be interested in.

Actually, I would be. You see I used to be and Environmental Scientist before surrendering to the call to ministry. Specifically, I was a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Certified Wetland Delineator. Therefore, Florida swamp land would be very interesting to me. Again, let’s stick to the issue at hand and leave off with the sarcasm.

David sinned and was forgiven by God, what happened after his sin? He had to pay the price!

Yes, he paid the price for his sin. However, he remained King over a united Israel. He remained God’s chosen man for the job in which God had called/placed him. You need a better proof text.

No one today will take responsibility for their actions!

Sorry this is a false statement. This is the fallacy of “all-ness.” If I can find one person who takes responsibility for his/her actions your statement is proven false. I take responsibility for my actions. Therefore, your statement is false. BTW, now many posters to the board here would also say that they take responsibility for their own actions? Would you say that you do not take responsibility for your actions?

The bondage issue Paul is talking about, does not in anyway refer to the freedom to remarry.
Its reffering to . You are no longer under the authority of the husband and you don't have to live with him anymore.

You are not following the meaning of the text to its logical conclusion. You have stopped short of actually making the person free. If they are not free to remarry they remain under bondage. Free means free – no restrictions. Your statement above leaves the person under bondage and makes the biblical text contradict itself. The Word of God cannot contradict itself. Additionally, your interpretation does not make logical sense because if the unbelieving spouse has left then the believing spouse already is not living with him anymore. Why would they need to be told that they do not have to live with the unbelieving spouse anymore when they are already not living with him? Likewise, what if the unbelieving spouse who leaves is the wife? Your interpretation does not work because the husband was not under the authority of the wife. The biblical text says that the person is no longer under bondage and that means that the person is free. If you say that a person is free and then place some restriction over them they are not truly free. That is a limited freedom at best and as such does not reflect the meaning and intent of the biblical text.

Why dont we open the jails and forgive like Jesus said we should?

Have all convicts confessed and repented of their sins? Do their actions and character demonstrate that they have repented, that God has radically changed their lives, and thus should be released? And… (see my answer to your next question)

Its because there are consequences for our actions,

You are correct. However, Jesus did not give and exception for murder, rape, child molestation, etc. He did give an exception for divorce in cases where one spouse has committed adultery.

Today the consequence of the marriage breakdown is a single life, you no longer qualify for marriage.

This statement cannot be supported from the Scriptures. The Bible gives two exceptions for divorce: adultery and desertion by an unbelieving spouse. In these circumstances one is free to remarry. If you are going to espouse literal interpretation of the Bible then you must apply literal interpretation across the board. If you find yourself having to make up a bunch of reasons why a verse does not “really” mean what the text clearly says you have departed from literal interpretation. Likewise, the Bible says that it is better for someone to re-marry than to burn. That passage is referring to a person who has been married and experienced sexual intimacy. The burning referred to means to burn with sexual desire. These types of “no divorce/no freedom to remarry” interpretations place people in the position to burn with sexual desire and leaves them open to sexual temptation and sin. We must follow our interpretations all the way through to their logical conclusions. We cannot stop half way just so we can make our interpretation fit with our preconceived notions/doctrines.

If you knew that you could not remarry then I think people would put all their efforts into reconciliation.

Perhaps. However, what if an adulterous spouse refuses to repent and be reconciled? The non-adulterous spouse can attempt to reconcile until he/she is blue in the face and no reconciliation will occur. It takes both partners being willing to reconcile. If this adulterous spouse professes to be a Christian and the church puts him/her through the process of church discipline as outlined in Matthew 18 and he/she refuses to repent and be reconciled, then the church and the non-adulterous spouse are to treat him/her as a heathen and a tax collector (Matt. 18:17). Additionally, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 says that in such a case we are not to keep company with the sexually immoral, which includes adulterous persons, and are to “put away from yourselves the evil person” (1 Cor. 5:13, NKJV). Now according to you “divorce” and “putting away” mean the same thing. Therefore, once again the “no divorce/no remarriage” interpretations make the Bible contradict itself. I hope that we agree that the Word of God cannot contradict itself.

One of the problems here is that your suggested idea does not address the exception passages found in Matthew and Corinthians. I agree that all efforts must be made to reconcile. However, if an adulterous spouse is unrepentant and will not be reconciled to the non-adulterous spouse Jesus provided an exception for divorce and thereby freedom for the non-adulterous spouse.

Why is the exeception rule found only in Matthew?
otherwise there would be a conflict with Matthew 1-18-20.

Because Matthew was there when Jesus said it, he remembered that Jesus said it, and the Holy Spirit led him to write it down in his Gospel account.

How would the absence of Matthew 19:1-12 cause conflict with Matthew 1:18-20? According to you there is no exception for divorce and that is why Joseph did not put Mary away secretly. In fact, the position that you are trying to maintain would be much more valid if Matthew 19:1-12 was not in the Bible. It would be a completely different story if the exception passage of Matthew 19 was not in the Bible and Joseph had actually put Mary away. Then we would have a contradiction between Matthew 1:18, Matthew 5:31-32, Mark 10:1-12, and Luke 16:18.

The one of the points of the Matthew 1:18-25 passage is that Joseph did not put Mary away secretly because the angel of the Lord led him to understand that she had not committed adultery. Therefore, Joseph had no right to put her away in the first place, which actually adds support to the Matthew 19 exception passage.

[ January 03, 2003, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Originally posted by hrhema:
I also have found sites and books saying the same ones you mentioned was not against divorce and remarriage as long as adultery was involved. Also I am going by what Jesus said in Matthew twice. I will not just go by what Mark wrote. You have to balance scriptures which many people don't want to do when it effects their pet peeves.

I know that there are those sites and books that will side with whatever mindset a person chooses. This was my point.

I am not going only by what Matthew is saying, but also by what the whole Bible is saying. You are picking one particular point that Jesus is addressing, the area of fornication in the marriage.

Jesus was trying to be placed into a trap. His answer is as what I believe, the two are one and not to separate. The Pharisees continue on with the bill of divorcement.

A woman caught in an adulterous relationship was to be stoned, Deut. 22. She would not need a bill of divorcement, unless you believe she was alive after the stoning. Today we tend to equate legal divorce with this bill, but the Law has not been followed, as it was written.

Don't you find Deut 24 a little strange, that she be given a bill and is free to marry, but if the second huband gives her a bill, she can't marry the first? The explanation that jimslade gives seems to fit best. Fornication was done during the betrothal period. The woman was promised to one, but was seeing another. Fornication was commited. She is then given the bill to be free to marry that man. She can't go back to the second because she is still married to her first. She was given a bill for the second time, but can't use it like the first, because she is now undefiled.

Jesus addresses the bill as it being given out of the hardness of the heart. I then take into account Rom 7. We are married to Christ. God's perfect plan in marriage is to be together forever. We cannot divorce Christ, just as in marriage we cannot divorce our spouse. We may try to leave Christ, and we may think we cannot possibly be saved any longer, but that is not true, once saved always saved. Once married, always married.

ICor 7 also backs up scripture, especially v39. If Jesus or Paul were backing the right to remarry, they would have stated doing so, as in the case of widows.

The hardness of man's heart causes alot of problems. It is out of the hardness of the heart that man refuses Christ. With divorce, forgivness is not given because of hardness. For the one that leaves without explanation, two parties are involved, not taking in the third. If all was well in the marriage, and she chooses to leave, she didn't have much regard for the husband, so all couldn't be well. Then lies the question, was that household in order? And if he thinks it was, then he needs to find out what went wrong because he did not run it well, so, how can he run a whole congregation well? And are we, as a congregation, willing to take that chance? Not in my circle. This is the consequence of sin.

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Bibleboy,

The answer is that they were not married at the time that Joseph considered putting Mary away secretly. Additionally, the biblical text is being relayed to us after the fact of their eventual marriage according to the command of the angel of the Lord to Joseph. Thus, Matthew 1:19 refers to Joseph as Mary's husband due to the fact that at the time of its writing he was her husband, or had been and was now dead. With all of that said, clearly Joseph could not have divorced Mary at the time that he was considering putting "her away secretly" because she was not yet his wife. That is why the biblical text does not say that Joseph considered divorcing Mary. So you are going to have to find another proof text to support your position on divorce with respect to Pastors.

Jesus uses the phrase "to put away" in reference with writing the bill of divorcement, Matt 19. He was thinking of putting her away when the angel appeared to him and to stop him from doing that. The angel told him to "fear not to take unto thee Mary", v20. And then in v24, after he woke up from the dream, "took unto him his wife". Betrothal was a vow that wasn't taken lightly. Mary was already considered his wife. Deut 24 refers to this time, that is why she could have been given the bill of divorcement, and free to marry the man that was the father of the child. But if that man gives her a bill in the future, she could never return to Joseph because was was now defiled.

 

[romanbear]

Hi Hrhema;

If you truly want to go by the Bible then Read all these scriptures.This is what the majority of scripture says about divorcing your spouse and remarring.There are a lot of people here who would just as soon not dwell to much on the truth.Thr truth hurts.Never the less truth is truth.

Luk 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Mar 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife

If you can deny all these scriptures say that to divorce and remarry is wrong then your not being true to your self.No where in the Bible does it say that it is OK.This is testimony of three, Paul
Luke, and Mark...And thus is proven to be so

Romanbear

Peace

 

[jimslade]

Romanbear

 

[hrhema]

In Jewish law they did not consider the betrothed couple as married. Let them have sex and see what happened. They both would have been taken to a public place and whipped for their immorality.

In the Jewish law when there is a contract of betrothal it can be broken. Sexual impurity is not the only reason it could be broken. If the man could not come up with the full bride price the contract could be broken. If the couple had an argument and the man was physically abusive it could be broken. If she contracted a illness that during the time of engagement that left her barren the man could break the contract.
They were not married nor did they live together until the marriage ceremony took place. Basically the betrothal was not much different then an engagement of today except all the rituals that went with it then. The period of betrothal was to allow the man to build them a home so they did not have to live with his or her parents.

Mary was not impregnated until after she got engaged to Joseph. I guarantee you that if they were as if they were married she would never had the Lord because she would not have been a virgin.

I could not believe the post where I was told that Jesus did not tell us not to judge. I think you need to go back and read the Beatitudes.
It is there in black and white.

I also love it when a person quotes scripture that fits their doctrine but leaves out the others that refute it.

As far as saying a person cannot divorce Jesus you are barking up the wrong tree addressing that to me because I don't believe in OSAS and don't waste your time trying to convince me of that erroneous doctrine because it won't happen.

"You have heard that the law of Moses says, A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a letter of divorce. But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marrys a divorced woman commits adultery." matthew 5: 31-32.

Let's look at what Jesus said here. The only reason why a woman could be divorced is if she committed adultery so if anyone married her they would be guilty of adultery too because they would be partaking of her sinfulness.

In Matthew 19: Jesus again address this issue by saying: Moses permitted divorce as a concession to your hard hearted wickedness, but it was not what God had originally intended. Let's look at the reasons men could divorce their wives under the law. They could divorce if she had an issue of uncleanness. They could divorce is she was childless. They could divorce if she burned his meals. Jesus went on to say "And I tell you this, a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery unless his wife has been unfaithful.

People say there are no innocents in this situation but Moses said there was. REad in Numbers about the jealousy offering. The last part of that scripture it says the husband will be innocent of any guilt in this matter, but his wife will be held accoutable for her sin.

Also what was said in the old testament about divorce and remarriage was not talking about engagement. "Suppose a man marries a woman but later discovers something about her that is shameful. So he writes her a letter of divorce, gives it to her, and sends her away. If she then leaves and marries another man and the second husband also divorces her or dies, the former husband may not marry her again, for she has been defiled. That would be detestable to the Lord.
Deuteronomy 24: 1-4. The scripture starts with suppose a man MARRIES.

One more thing to think about. Why did Moses not command the priests that they could not divorce. The only thing was said was that God forbad them from every marrying a divorced woman. If you study the talmud the priest could get a divorce only if his wife had been unfaithful but he could only remarry a virgin. He could not marry a widow or a divorced woman.

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Originally posted by hrhema:
In Jewish law they did not consider the betrothed couple as married. Let them have sex and see what happened. They both would have been taken to a public place and whipped for their immorality.

I never said that

In the Jewish law when there is a contract of betrothal it can be broken...

Ex 21:9 treats the betrothed woman as a daughter already. Similar in Lev 20

Mary was not impregnated until after she got engaged to Joseph. I guarantee you that if they were as if they were married she would never had the Lord because she would not have been a virgin.

It was a promise of betrothal, treated as if already married. The two were promised to each other in the betrothal. You added your own interpretation of what is said.


As far as saying a person cannot divorce Jesus you are barking up the wrong tree addressing that to me because I don't believe in OSAS and don't waste your time trying to convince me of that erroneous doctrine because it won't happen.

I figured that much. hat's why you are having such a problem believing in the two becoming one and no man putting it asunder.

Also what was said in the old testament about divorce and remarriage was not talking about engagement. "Suppose a man marries a woman but later discovers something about her that is shameful. So he writes her a letter of divorce, gives it to her, and sends her away. If she then leaves and marries another man and the second husband also divorces her or dies, the former husband may not marry her again, for she has been defiled. That would be detestable to the Lord.
Deuteronomy 24: 1-4. The scripture starts with suppose a man MARRIES.

Answer why she cannot return to the first.

Why do you not refer to ICor 7 and Rom 7?

I believe the answer to be that man's morality will dictate his theology.

 

[romanbear]

Hi Olive Branch;

Quote from Olive Branch;
_________________________________________________________
I believe the answer to be that man's morality will dictate his theology.
_________________________________________________________
Amen to this Statement,

Romanbear
Peace

 

[jimslade]

hrhema: Do you live by the TALMUD? if not please don't quote it. Its amazing to me how people only take out of scripture what they want and discard the rest.

Keep following the Laws of Dueteronomy. Don't forget to wear your tasils, you know if you don't wear them, then you are an abomination unto God.

Permit divorce now: you had better keep a eye out for that second wife!

 

[timothy 1769]

in jewish law, kiddushin (betrothal) is like marriage in that it requires a get (divorce) to dissolve. also, if the engaged woman were to have sex with someone else from that point it would count as adultery. this certainly is the current halachic view - in the first century, i'm not so sure. orthodox jews today certainly think so.

[ January 04, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: am ha'aretz ]

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Thank-you, am ha'aretz.

 

[hrhema]

Olive Branch: just because a person does not believe the same thing about eternity does not make them immoral.

You and Jim Slade and a few others are in the minority on your beliefs about divorce and remarriage and just like another person if you cannot keep your nasty opinions to yourself then you need to stay off of the site.

The reason the woman cannot go back to her first husband is she has been with another man sexually.

AS far as my quoting the Talmud. I have the right to quote whatever I want to on this board.
so please don't tell me what I can do and cannot do as long as I don't violate the rules.

I don't have to believe in OSAS to be moral. That was highly insulting.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by jimslade:

There is no such thing as an INNOCENT party.
Its NOT scriptural. Whatever happen to TIL DEATH DO US PART. This vow is taken before GOD and whoever divorces His wife TAKES GODS NAME IN VAIN.

So then, what do you do in the case of someone like Gary Chapman who did everything he reasonably could to preserve their marriage?

Even their pastor said that he was the one who asked her to seek counciling and reconciliation and she refused.

She refused counseling and she openly and braenly defied the Bible's commands.

There was literally nothing else he could have done, short of tying her up and holding her hostage.

 

[hrhema]

Mike McK: This is exactly what they think we should do. Hogtie them and force them to stay.

People who have never experienced something like this in their lifetime likes to sit in religious judgement just like the Pharisees and Sadduccees did. Even when Jesus said we are not to judge one another. One of these days when it is their turn to either face it themselves or with one of their kids etc the tide will turn and they will change their status and they will get offended when others just like they are now shove their opinions on them.

Its sad that Christians want to hold on to such erroneous dogmas that they alienate everyone from themselves. Its also sad that they have to resort to antagonism or sarcasm or right out insults.

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Originally posted by hrhema:
Olive Branch: just because a person does not believe the same thing about eternity does not make them immoral.

You and Jim Slade and a few others are in the minority on your beliefs about divorce and remarriage and just like another person if you cannot keep your nasty opinions to yourself then you need to stay off of the site.

The reason the woman cannot go back to her first husband is she has been with another man sexually.

AS far as my quoting the Talmud. I have the right to quote whatever I want to on this board.
so please don't tell me what I can do and cannot do as long as I don't violate the rules.

I don't have to believe in OSAS to be moral. That was highly insulting.

You like to take words and twist them. I had that when I was a JW. Sad state to be in. I didn't say you were immmoral. Is that what you think you are when I told you that your morality dictated your theology?

I have never been nasty to you or anyone else. Because I have shown you several times how you have taken scripture out of context doesn't make me nasty.

Your reason you gave did not answer my question. If she was given her bill, which you state the only reason was for adultery, why was she allowed to marry the second husband, but not allowed to marry the third after her second bill, given, in your thought, for the same reason?

When someone points out to you that you are wrong, with proof, you only make yourself look foolish by your continued effort to prove your false assumptions. am ha'aretz also backed up what he knows from his personal life and knowledge, yet you ignore him.

You have fully judged me by making the statement that I would force you into believing something you have chosen for yourself to not believe. I have never had any intention on insulting anyone. My purpose for standing so firmly on what I believe is because I will be held accountable for whatever I say when I stand in front of the Lord at the Judgement seat. I have given multiple proof and Biblical thruth to back what I say. If that puts me into the minority, so be it. I would rather be in the minority and have God's Word as proof, thaan to insist on a lie that still hasn't been proven. (No insult intended

)

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jimslade:

There is no such thing as an INNOCENT party.
Its NOT scriptural. Whatever happen to TIL DEATH DO US PART. This vow is taken before GOD and whoever divorces His wife TAKES GODS NAME IN VAIN.

So then, what do you do in the case of someone like Gary Chapman who did everything he reasonably could to preserve their marriage?

Even their pastor said that he was the one who asked her to seek counciling and reconciliation and she refused.

She refused counseling and she openly and braenly defied the Bible's commands.

There was literally nothing else he could have done, short of tying her up and holding her hostage.</font>

Is he now a Pastor? The original question was is it biblical for a preacher to have had a divorce. The answer is still a resounding: No

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by TheOliveBranch:

Is he now a Pastor? The original question was is it biblical for a preacher to have had a divorce. The answer is still a resounding: No

No, he's not a pastor but if you re-read thr post I was responding to, you'll see that it's clear that wasn't specified.

 

[Aaron]

Depends on the reason for the divorce in the first place, in my estimation.

(Someone else probably said this, but I didn't read this entire thread. In fact, I only read the first post.)

Unfaithfulness is the only exception.