The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce

[LadyEagle]

Lady Eagle, just for another clarification. The "divorced" I am talking about, and which I understand I was discussing with the brother, is someone who has divorced his spouse, for any reason. He, therefore, is a divorced person, and is disqualified from the ministry, because he is no longer blameless, that is, he is subject to criticism not only by those inside the church but also by those outside the church.
Now, the requirement to be above reproach, was not set by this dirty, rotten, sinner, but by the Holy Spirit (who is holier than you or myself) who caused Paul to write those words.

Now, if a person who was divorced by his spouse (that is, the initiator was the spouse), for any reason, and remains unmarried, and intends to remain unmarried, and signifies his intent to remain unmarried, may be allowed a ministry, but not that of an elder, or a pastor. Again, this dirty rotten sinner did not set that requirement to be above reproach, it was set by Someone infinitely and definitely holier than either of us can ever hope to be.

If the divorce happened before the person seeking the office of elder or pastor was converted and joined the church, that is entirely up to the church to decide.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. But the way it reads one (thinking of BB surfers) assumes you are making a blanket statement that all who are divorced are adulterers and not free to remarry. Is that your belief?

Also, Charles Stanley (former President of SBC) is divorced and still pastoring. Is he disqualified in your opinion?

Here is an interesting blog about Charles Stanley's divorce complete with comments:

This evening, I think of Charles Stanley. He was faithful. Yet, in 2000, his wife of 44 years just walked away and filed for divorce. He still prays for her to come back.

Large numbers left the church because of this. Radio stations in various areas cancelled his "In Touch" radio program. Various Christian leaders commented that he should be prohibited from further service. But his growing church, First Baptist Atlanta, still accepted him as pastor. And he remained at In Touch radio ministry to the present.

I find that some things are really hard to explain. Many of us may struggle with trying to understand what the Bible says in pastor Stanley's case. But it appears that he had been forced to live out a decision outside of God's design made by his loved one. That decision has placed him where he does not want to be. I can imagine how broken pastor Stanley has been.

Is it possible to have a sorrowful marriage while having a personal character that is above reproach? Well, I think of the prophet Hosea in the Bible. And yes, what about God? You will recall that He had a divorce from the nation Israel (Jer. 3:8)!

<snipped>

I think of how pastor Stanley felt when even Christians started to judge and reject him. What do you do when the very place where you should receive help or grace is the very place where you get rejected even further? Someone said that the church is the only army that shoots its own soldiers! I think pastor Stanley should not get mad at God's children. They should know better, but they are also human.

I think God's promise to pastor Stanley and the rest of us in Hebrews 13:5 is in effect: "I will never leave you nor forsake you." God plus you is a majority!

[

http://angelosubida.blogspot.com/2007/09/this-evening-i-think-of-charles-stanley.html

Also, while I agree with what the Scripture says about "bishops", isn't it also true that the Bible sets high standards and ideals for all of us to strive to obtain, but that in the majority of cases, we are human and will not achieve perfection this side of Glory?

 

[exscentric]

"I think of how pastor Stanley felt when even Christians started to judge and reject him. What do you do when the very place where you should receive help or grace is the very place where you get rejected even further? Someone said that the church is the only army that shoots its own soldiers!"

Judge is a word used usually by Christians to demean those that reject something the user of the word believes. We are told to discern and that is what people do. It is not judging, and most of us know that THE judge is the Lord.

If we are not to discern then we are to accept any false thing right along with the true. That is foolishness.

I doubt those leaving the church were leaving Stanley, but rather leaving a church that would not remove him from his position of leadership so the comment is unwarranted.

There are many things acceptable in the church that probably should not be, but that does not make them right and true. :thumbs:

 

[pinoybaptist]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. But the way it reads one (thinking of BB surfers) assumes you are making a blanket statement that all who are divorced are adulterers and not free to remarry. Is that your belief?

The divorced person is in a state of life which is not approved by the Lord, notice as I have already pointed out, the wording used by Christ when explaining why Moses allowed the issuance of bills of divorcement. The Lord said "FROM the beginning it was not so....."
I understand that to mean that "from the day the Lord instituted marriage, in the case of Adam and Eve, to the time when Moses acting on his own initiative allowed divorces, and until the time when Jesus was addressing the issue, divorce was never a part of the equation in God's plan for matrimony.
Now, the Lord Jesus said (not pinoybaptist) that he who marries her who has been put away (whether separated or divorced depends on your interpretation of put away) commits adultery.
Therefore, the divorced person is guilty of the sin of adultery only when the person remarries.
The divorced person is not an adulterer until he/she remarries, according to the Lord Jesus Christ and not according to pinoybaptist.

Also, Charles Stanley (former President of SBC) is divorced and still pastoring. Is he disqualified in your opinion?

According to Paul's estimation, and therefore God's estimation since the Holy Spirit is God, and the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write the letter now part of what we call the Bible, Chuck Stanley will not make the Scriptural qualification of an Elder, and being a pastor, Charles Stanley is an elder.

I am sorry that there are many feet I am stepping on when expressing this, Lady Eagle, and I am sorry if one of those feet may be yours (I don't really know) but this is what I understand of Scripture and therefore this is what I express.

Divorces used to be a matter that is no issue to many churches as to scripturality (is that a correct word ?), the fact is that like the proverbial elephant it slowly inched its way into the pews of churches and on up to the pulpit until the sanctity of marriage vows before the Lord was thrown out, and is now a matter of sharp contention among many who name the Name of Christ.

 

[LadyEagle]

I am sorry that there are many feet I am stepping on when expressing this, Lady Eagle, and I am sorry if one of those feet may be yours (I don't really know) but this is what I understand of Scripture and therefore this is what I express.

My feet are not being stepped on, I am thinking of superwoman and others who surf in here seeking help and hope and compassion. I am thinking of people I know who have gone through the pain of divorce. Those who have never suffered through divorce cannot know the pain, or as it was expressed to me by a Christian friend of mine "I feel like a deer that has just been gutted" when finding out the spouse had been carrying on an affair for quite some time and was moving out. Even though they had done everything humanly possible. Or the woman whose husband walked out and left her with 4 children to raise alone. Or the man whose wife was so bent out of shape on drugs, parties, and alcohol that she finally went on her merry way with one of her lovers and left him with 3 children to raise, one of those an infant. How can someone who has a faithful spouse even begin to relate with any compassion to suffering and heartache in this world? How do we know what it feels like to know the person you shared your deepest being with, your bed, your deepest everything takes it and throws it like pearls before swine into the bed of a lover? Do we know the pain?

Some here bind yourselves up in legalism so much, how can you offer a helping hand in the love and compassion of Christ to people who are hurting? Do we need to furnish Kleenex on the BB for the nosebleed section (those up so high on the perch)? (I am asking this rhetorically, not accusatorily.)

Some here have used Scripture to condemn people that are already suffering, rejected, feeling deep self-guilt and no self-worth, broken, even hopeless and helpless over what they had no control over, because the bottom line is, none of us can control another person's actions or behavior (whether it is a spouse or offspring or a co-worker or another church member), and Jesus understood this. That is one reason He said it was because of the hardness of men's hearts.

Also, in some states the unfaithful spouse can legally get a divorce whether the "innocent" spouse wants one or not and go merrily on their way - only the petitioner has to be in court and the divorce will usually be granted whether the respondent is there or not or has legal representation or not.

DHK, I believe it was, pointed out that Jesus' words were in a mostly Jewish audience (Pharisees), which is true, but He also knew (because He knows the future and we don't) that the Book of Matthew would one day be a part of our Scripture we use to live by almost 2000 years later. And He also knew, because He knows the future, that nearly 2000 years later, Christians would be dealing with unfaithful spouses and wondering what would be right and just in God's eyes as they try to pick up the pieces and go on....and that divorces would be granted whether the Christian or the faithful spouse wanted them or not......thus the "except it be for fornication" clause.

To use a broad brush and interpret Scripture as to mean something different than what it says or to ignore what Jesus says and infer that Paul's words trumps the Word, is not only serving an injustice to part of the Body of Christ (which we are all part of His Body and when one member is hurt, the rest of the body should be hurting) but it is also not being faithful to the Scripture in the strictest sense of the text, that being the word "pornea."

I guess I just can't wrap my head around the idea that someone would come here to the BB with a broken heart when they have done everything they could do to save their marriage, pray, get counseling, read the Bible, remain faithful (even though we only have 1 side of the story), and be told they are an adulteress and have no hope for the future or ever finding happiness or someone to hold them at night or help to raise their children. :BangHead:

Okay, I'm off of my soapbox and will go make supper. And I haven't even brought up the subject (yet) about all the Christians who are married and sharing the same roof (but not the same bed and living separate lives) because they believe divorce is the unpardonable sin. So they keep up appearances.....(maybe it's another thread to start before I turn in my BB membership) :tear:

 

[Amy.G]

Could somebody please tell me what passage everyone is referring to where Paul supposedly is "overriding" Jesus?

Thanks.

 

[LadyEagle]

Could somebody please tell me what passage everyone is referring to where Paul supposedly is "overriding" Jesus?

Thanks.

See this post - the passage is probably a page before this.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1251147&postcount=256

According to Paul's estimation, and therefore God's estimation since the Holy Spirit is God, and the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write the letter now part of what we call the Bible, Chuck Stanley will not make the Scriptural qualification of an Elder, and being a pastor, Charles Stanley is an elder.

And, yes, Pinoy, I do agree with the above statement of yours.

 

[DHK]

Well, DHK, this is where you fail to harmonize the Scriptures and simply insert your own philosophy and thus end up contradicting the Scriptures.

I am not the one contradicting the Scriptures. It is clear.
Paul makes no exceptions. How do you account for that?

Romans 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.

The word "fornication" is mentioned several times in the NT - here are some of them and your definition (per DHK "Fornication means illicit sex before marriage") does not fit in all of these other Scriptures. I say we stick with the Greek text which uses the word "pornea" (which includes all manner of sexual immorality), which will fit in all of these Scriptures:

I have always read those Scriptures with that same meaning in my mind and have never had any problem with it. Why should you? Fornication is fornication; a common English word that means sex before marriage. If it meant anything else but that I am sure our well-educated KJV translators would have translated it otherwise. They used common English words. Any English dictionary will tell you what it means. The primary meaning of the Greek lexicons is illiciit sex before marriage, as Amy posted. The primary meaning, (that which is listed first) takes presendent over lesser meanings.

So, Paul overrides Jesus? Well, that just blew the debate out of the water, even though Paul admitted that we see "through a glass darkly."

What kind of logic is that? You take a phrase where Paul is speaking of spiritual gifts from 1Cor.13 and apply it to divorce (Paul speaks of divorce in Romans 7). Yoiur mixed up and confused.
Was Paul looking through a glass darkly when he said: Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved? OR,
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

Were these confusing statements for his understanding? Is that your meaning? Paul doesn't know what he is writing about? Is this what you are inferring. Paul writes very clearly, and is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Again, this is what he says:

Romans 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.

I can honestly say I have never heard anyone say Paul overrides what Jesus said. I've heard it all on here now.

I only said it that way to draw your attention to Matthew which you take out of context. The meaning of my statement is this: Matthew 5:32 is not applicable to us unless you carry on a tradition such as the Jews (one of betrothal or engagement). Otherwise the teaching of divorce that is applicable to us today is found in Romans 7 where there is no exception clause. The Bible does not contradict itself. However you are making it contradict itself by pitting one verse against another. There is no excpetion clause in Romnas. How do you account for that?

 

[LadyEagle]

DHK, I am at a loss. We will have to agree to disagree. The only way to get to the bottom of it is to go to the Aramaic which is probably the language Jesus spoke.

You and I will never agree on the meaning of fornication. Or the word "except" so.......:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:

I will count myself blessed to be friends with those whom you call adulterers (even though they were faithful to their marriage vows) and their illegitimate children (who are B******* because they are born of a so-called "adulterous union").

There but for the Grace of God go any of us....

 

[Brother Bob]

I only said it that way to draw your attention to Matthew which you take out of context. The meaning of my statement is this: Matthew 5:32 is not applicable to us unless you carry on a tradition such as the Jews (one of betrothal or engagement). Otherwise the teaching of divorce that is applicable to us today is found in Romans 7 where there is no exception clause. The Bible does not contradict itself. However you are making it contradict itself by pitting one verse against another. There is no excpetion clause in Romnas. How do you account for that?__________________
DHK

The beatitudes are just before 5:32 and I am sure you accept that they are for us, but as the teaching goes on, you want to throw out a verse, saying it was for the Jews, which was part of the same teaching to His deciples. How did you ever come up with throwing out that verse? Is it because it does not fit your belief on adultery. I say, you either take it all or none. I do not see throwing out the book of Matt: I think the "Church of Christ" throw out all four Gospels, but not me.

BBob,

 

[Amy.G]

The meaning of my statement is this: Matthew 5:32 is not applicable to us unless you carry on a tradition such as the Jews (one of betrothal or engagement).

So I take it you are saying that Jesus taught that if a betrothed woman has sex with someone other that her fiance, it is called fornication and he is permitted to divorce her. But if she has sex with someone outside of the marriage, the husband is not permitted to divorce her because it is not fornication, it is called something else after the marriage???

 

[LadyEagle]

I am not the one contradicting the Scriptures. It is clear.
Paul makes no exceptions. How do you account for that?

Romans 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.

How convenient for you to stop there and leave off the next 3 verses! :laugh:

[4] Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
[5] For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
[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.

Otherwise the teaching of divorce that is applicable to us today is found in Romans 7 where there is no exception clause. The Bible does not contradict itself. However you are making it contradict itself by pitting one verse against another. There is no excpetion clause in Romnas. How do you account for that?

At least I don't pick & choose. :laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.


The Bible does not contradict itself, so why does Paul say something different from Jesus? Did Paul forget what the law says?

Deu 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,


Paul is making a comparison between the death of a spouse and the death of the law, making us free in Christ. He does not contradict Jesus, but is making a totally different point.

 

[LadyEagle]

Yes, that is correct, Amy. That's why we need to look at the whole context and not cherry pick. DHK know this, however....doncha, DHK??? :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

So I take it you are saying that Jesus taught that if a betrothed woman has sex with someone other that her fiance, it is called fornication and he is permitted to divorce her. But if she has sex with someone outside of the marriage, the husband is not permitted to divorce her because it is not fornication, it is called something else after the marriage???

Matthew 1:18-19 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
--Joseph was quietly going to divorce Mary because "she was found to be with child." She was pregnant. In his mind she had committed fornication--sex before marriage. They were betrothed, not married. (Note that the marriage contract during the betrothal period was so strong that even at that time they were referred to as husband and wife.) Nevertheless, "for the cause of fornication" Joseph was going to divorce Mary.

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
--His fears about Mary's "fornication" were alleviated by the intervention by an angel, who explaned to Joseph that "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." It was not fornication in her case; it was a miraculous conception that would consummate in the Virgin Birth of Christ.

In any other couple the "husband" would have just cause for carrying out the divorce--"for the cause of fornication."

Before marriage it is fornication.
After marriage it is adultery.

 

[Joe]

I will count myself blessed to be friends with those whom you call adulterers (even though they were faithful to their marriage vows) and their illegitimate children (who are B******* because they are born of a so-called "adulterous union"

What??!! You mean I am a B*stard??

 

[DHK]

Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.


The Bible does not contradict itself, so why does Paul say something different from Jesus? Did Paul forget what the law says?

Deu 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,


Paul is making a comparison between the death of a spouse and the death of the law, making us free in Christ. He does not contradict Jesus, but is making a totally different point.

Paul is using the law as an illustration; but that doesn't mean it is not the inspired truth of the NT in this passage. However when you bring OT law, specific law from the OT then you are not rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Use what the Holy Spirit has inspired for us in the NT. We are not under the OT law.
Jesus said that he gave Israel divorce for the hardness of their hearts, but from the begiinning it was not so. Your scripture is not applicable.

What Paul taught was very simple. A person is bound to their spouse as long as they live. When the spouse dies then they are free to marry, and not until then. If they divorce and remarry before death of the spouse they shall be called an adulteress. It is that simple.

 

[LadyEagle]

Before marriage it is fornication.
After marriage it is adultery.

Is that your final word? Because if it is, here is passage in the Gospel of Matthew translated from the Aramaic (the language Jesus probably spoke). The Greek word "pornea" - from which the KJV word "fornication" was translated, says this in the Aramaic:

Aramaic English
Standard Version
3 And Pharisees also came to him, and were tempting him saying: “Is it in accordance with the law for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 But he answered and said to them: “Have you not read, that he who created them at the beginning, male and female? 5 And he said: ‘Because of this, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife, and both of them will be one flesh.’ 6 Therefore they will not be two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united man should not separate.” 7 They said to him: “Why then did Mosha command to give a permit of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them: “Because of the hardness of your heart, Mosha permitted you to divorce* your wives; but from the beginning it was this way. 9 But I say to you, that whoever leaves his wife outside of adultery, and takes another, commits adultery. And if he takes a divorced woman, he commits adultery.”

http://www.standardversion.org/p-aesv-book-matthew.php

 

[DHK]

How convenient for you to stop there and leave off the next 3 verses! :laugh:

[4] Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
[5] For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
[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.



At least I don't pick & choose. :laugh:

Quoting the entire context or even the entire chapter doesn't change the meaning at all. Paul uses it as an illustration. The illustration is still true and inspired of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Amy.G]

Before marriage it is fornication.
After marriage it is adultery.

Evidentally, according to you, it is a bigger sin to commit fornication than adultery since one is permitted to divorce their betrothed but not their spouse.
Both are "sexually immoral" or "porneia". Both are sins.

King James Dictionary
1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.
2. Adultery. Matt. 5.
3. Incest. 1Cor. 5.
4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2Chron. 21. Rev. 19.


Strongs
πορνεία Transliteration
porneia

1) illicit sexual intercourse

a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

2) metaph. the worship of idols

a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

 

[DHK]

Is that your final word?

Yes it is.
Adultery has always been illicit sex outside of one's marriage; being unfaithful to one's spouse.

The common "English" definition of fornicatin has always been illicit sex before marriage.