Husband of one Wife

Wrong again, TC. Husband of one wife is the topic. (I can't believe I'm hearing this but.....) Posters are saying 'one wife at a time'. I ask, 5 wives? 8 divorces? 2? How many does it take to disqualify a man as husband of one wife?

D .L . Moody said "Those who say they will forgive but can't forget, bury the hatchet, but they leave the handle out for immediate use."

 

This topic always generates a lot of discussion, but it is one of those topics that can never be definitively determined one way or the other. Try as we might, the scriptures do not definitively promote one thought to the exclusion of the other.

I am of the opinion that a divorced preacher should not be a pastor, but my opinion is based on my experience that the questions surrounding divorce are never completely resolved and a pastor's credibility is compromised as a result. Paul said that all things were lawful for him, but all things were not expedient and it is in this light that I think a divorced preacher should view being a pastor.

 

I want to pose a hypothetical situation, and I’m going to extremes to make the point, OK?

-------------------------

George marries at 18, and divorces (wife’s adultry) at 26. He is a model citizen from “the day of his birth” so no character blemishes EXCEPT one divorce.

George has totally lost contact with his ex, although he tried several times after becoming a Christian.

George accepts Christ at 32 and become a powerful force for leading others to Christ from that point. He is the local Boy Scout leader, Gideon, and SS director and teacher. At 35 he meets & marries a great Christian woman and remains true to her AND God to age 48. He is then nominated as deacon. Qualified or not? AND WHY

-------------------------------

Larry is also married, but loves to pitch a drunk with the boys every Saturday night. He is “married” only in the sense that he occasionally sleeps with his wife and lives in the same house.

He injured one pedestrian at age 23, who is now walking with a decided limp due to Larry’s DUI. At 27 Larry kills the pet of a blind child, again DUI. At 30 Larry is involved in a 3 car crash, again due to his DUI, and one person is rendered paraplegic, another lost a baby in the 7th month of pregnancy and her husband, and another woman & one toddler were killed; leaving a 34 year old husband and 6 year old daughter. Larry had a broken arm, and a few minor bruises!

Larry is convicted of negligent homicide and is sentenced to one year in the county jail, and 5 years probation.

Larry’s wife leaves him, but NO divorce as she is totally against divorce. Since she made no claims against Larry, whether he is legally married or no is of no consequence to him

While in jail, Larry is introduced to Christ and he make a profession of faith and becomes a crude but positive witness for the remainder of his sentence.

After being released, Larry became a vital member of a local prison ministry, a strong active member of a local church, and very active in AA.

Some years later at 41 he is nominated as deacon. Qualified or not?
AND WHY

----------------------

Some here have made the point that DIVORCE has lasting effects, so that’s the reason for the “no limitation statute” approach. While this is true, the second case study above was certainly not lacking in “lasting” effects.

In fact Larry’s actions cause “ETERNAL” effects, not just “lasting”!

So, based on the Word of God, and only on the Word, which, if either, is qualified as deacon and why?

I’m not interested in whether you approve of divorce or not nor whether you approve of DUI or not; JUST BACK UP YOUR CHOICE ON THE WORD OF GOD; AS WRITTEN, NO INCLUSIONS OR EXCLUSIONS.

 

Neither would qualify then.
I think that if an issue like this comes up and there is any question, we are always safer going with the more exclusive standard (I'm not saying better standard, just more exclusive).

Then at least there is no question that you haven't violated God's standard.

 

Neither, based on qualifications listed earlier.

Both can be excellent evangelists and workers for the Lord but neither qualify as a deacon or pastor.

 

Yep, I agree.
We don't have to know why God says something or even like it . . . but we still gotta do it.

 

Divorce qualifies as the unforgivable sin in Baptist circles.
Murder,theft ,adultry,brawling,cheating, all forgivable.
Are we interpeting scripture correctly?

 

Is there a verse that says a deacon or pastor must not be a murderer? or must not be a thief? or must not cheat? . . .

Divorce is forgivable, yes. I have an aunt who is divorced. I have an uncle who has been divorced more times than we even know . . . I love him. I forgive him for that.

But as I said, if I don't know for sure, I'm going with the more exclusive standard. Than there's no question in my mind.

 

I think it refers to polygamy. I can't believe Paul would exclude a widower who marries.

 

Plain Old Bill

I agree with you that: Yes, In Baptist circles the Scripture has been interpreted correctly.

 

Divorce is forgivable, sure. But what about every act of adultery you are committing with your new "spouse"? That's living in sin, and it's an ongoing sin.

The real question is whether you have the ability to divorce in God's eyes. If you are still married in God's eyes, then you commit adultery every time you are with your new "spouse."

 

POB, see my post above. Divorce is not an unforgivable sin. But people who are legally divorced are still married in God's eyes, and they are living in sin. They are no different than a married man who abandons his wife to shack up with his girlfriend, and continues to go to church while doing so.

 

Bill

However, your "hypothetical situation" is asked ONLY to challenge what God has written.

OK: "hypothetical situation"... We, that is you and I, stand before God. He (God) says, "Both of you go to the lake of fire". All I would be able to say is, "Lord, that is what I earned".

I did not deserve to be called [to salvation or ministry]. I did not "want" to be called. AND this is not a "hypothetical situation". God does call.

And through the Apostle Paul, God commanded TWO instances of ordaining men of one wife(*). I do not remember God commanding ANY man to take a second wife. Nor, do I remember God ever commanding a man to leave his wife.

We do not live in a "hypothetical" world. God challenges us to live in the REAL world.

(*) I know, I know, it is literally one woman ... And in our culture it is easily misunderstood. But, in real cultures that still practice marriage with little or no divorce - it only means one thing...

 

When a couple legally divorces, and they repent of that divorce (ie, wish they never did it and wouldn't do it if they could do it over again), then it's over. Done. History.

As long as they do not date or "marry" another, they do no wrong. They don't even have to legally remarry each other, so long as they remain celibate.

 

True. After all, what is marriage a picture of?
A picture of our relationship with Christ.
Always and forever.

 

Diane, you are unjustly assuming your conclusion. You think the emphasis is on the number of wives. It isn't. A man with only one wife can disqualify himself from ministry if you properly intepret the passage. Under your view, that the number is the issue, a man who goes and has an affair is not disqualified because he is still the husband of one wife. Yet in my view, and in the biblical view, he is disqualified because he is not a one woman man. A guy who has six or eight divorces is not a man of character.

On the other hand, a man who is on his third wife because the first two have died, is not "the husband of one wife" under your idea, but he can be a "one woman man."

Your false assumption about what the phrase means has led you to a false conclusion about how to apply it.

 

Yet, again, I find it interesting that the early church understood the passage to apply to a man who was morally intemperate, divorced, or widowed and remarried. Does the earliest understanding of the passage carry no weight? How much of our looser society has influenced our interpretation and application of this passage? Is anyone aware of a commentator before mid-20th century who didn't believe this applied to divorce?

 

I'm not asking for reinterpretation, I am simply using my case as an example (and I have not been called to preach--not yet at least), so, my point is, what do most Baptist churches believe about having a wife that was once divorced, but the man has not been.

I'm just curious---not trying to change scripture or push the issue. I just want to know how most of you feel and if there is scripture to back it up. That's all. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh? I just believe what Jesus said, "He that marries her that has been divorced committeth adultery" and that all in light of Deuteronomy 24

And it really doesn't matter how anyone "feels", but it does matter what the intent of Scripture says, well doesn't it?

If the man is willing therefore to marry the wife of another, regardless of why she was divorced, then he takes on that disqualification as well, but in the eyes of adulterous men, he "can" be then "qualified", but that takes away that Authority from the LORD Who does the qualifying of a man to said office, and that by Scriputree, unperverted interpreation of Scriputre.

I'm afarid what most fail to see is the standard which God places on Holy Matrimony and the making of those vows.

It was said once that "Holy Matrimony" doesn't "appear" in the Scripture, well, according to Hebrews 13:4 it does!!! Marriage IS honourable above ALL THINGS, and the bed undefiled, if that's not "HOLY" then what is? It certainly isn't this "dodging and perverting " of Scriputre to entail the man with rights that go contrary to Scripture.

 

Wrong. On the behalf of a widowed man, he is not disqualified, he is released from his vows as according to Romans 7.

 

What is wrong? This is how the passage was understood. See my previous post in this thread.