The husband of one wife

To be considered for the ministry, a man had to be the husband of one wife. I have seen a lot of mean spirited debate about this[ not here] and I truly wish to discuss this with others who might have seen this in another way than I have seen it enforced.

Now when this was written men were allowed to have more than one wife. In fact I have never seen it forbidden. What I am throwing out is this: Did he mean the number and not remarried? It seems to me that if a man through no fault of his own loses his wife to whoredom or because she was an unbeliever that as the scripture says he is not bound any longer. Any comments?

Thanks for your comments Krispy, some very good insights. I know that God meant one husband and one wife, but I also see nowhere that it is forbidden. Neither do I see anywhere it is approved of. It just seems to me I mean that it is not ever spoken against even for kings except that a warning is given to not marry unbelivers as they will turn away your heart from God. As in Solomons case.
I agree that the character of a shepherd is the most important thing. But I really do think this was referring to more than one wife at a time.
Also in Lev 18:18 God forbids a man to take his wifes sister to wife at the same time, as it would vex his wife. It seems that acceptance of pologamy is implied here.
Anyway I seem to be getting off the subject, I just think that maybe we have this mixed up and I have seen a lot of meaness on this subject. It seemed to me that Paul might have been referring to the number and not divorce.
I think that it is hard to understand a lot of things in the bible as we do not live under the same customs and because the customs of the times were the norm and no one talked about them, we might get the wrong Idea. Like headcoverings, or long hair on a man, what about baptizing for the dead? so many things we see different from the early church...

It seems to me that if a man through no fault of his own loses his wife to whoredom or because she was an unbeliever that as the scripture says he is not bound any longer. Any comments?

Hello lightwalker,

I agree with Krispy---- I do not believe that passage refers to polygamy as it was not a common practice in those days. Divorce also, though possibly common in the Jewish community, was not common in Roman society. One of the early church fathers even stated in their writings that divorce is something not seen in their society in over 500 years (so even in the Gentile world it was not common). I had always thought that "husband of one wife" meant that no remarried man (who had a living wife) could serve in the church in an elder/deacon position. In such cases, it would be no different than polygamy. In both situations, there are multiple wives living, so neither are permitted to serve.

Also, I must say that since I believe scriptures to teach that ANY remarried person is living in adultery if they have a living spouse (whether that spouse committed adultery in the marriage OR is an unbeliever---Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39), it stands to reason to me that no such person living in a state of sin should serve in any church ministry.

Another passage leads me to believe that Paul may indeed have been speaking of those men who have been married ONLY one time----including widowers who have not taken a second wife after the passing of their covenant wife. This passage caused/causes me to question whether a widower who has remarried should be serving as elder/deacon: I Tim. 5:3-16.

I ask myself this: why does Paul limit the taking into the number widows who have had ONLY ONE HUSBAND? To me, understanding this takes further investigation. I think it has much to do with how God values first marriages (orginal covenant marriages). I think many of the Early Church writers understood this "bond", yet some writers went off on tangents that are, to me, clearly unbiblical. Scripture teaches that widows/widowers ARE free to marry again (though Paul thought it better to remain single), so reading the writings of such men as Tertullian, in which he states that remarriage for widows/widowers is akin to a form of adultery, was shocking. Yet, in some way, I understand how he may have come to that idea. One marriage---for life---IS the better way----IS the TRUE representation of Jesus and the Church. We also have to consider that when one marries again after losing a spouse, all the "mingling" of families can cause a stir/problems which one does not see with intact(original) Godly families. I'm sure my ponderings will elicit response, but I welcome the dialogue as some of these things are not set in stone in my mind-----just thoughtful ponderings.........Blessings.........

Hi lightwalker...

Leonard Ravenhill once joked that a man can no longer have two wives -- because "NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS."

:-P

Sorry, but I couldn't help to include this in the discussion!

I know that God meant one husband and one wife, but I also see nowhere that it is forbidden. Neither do I see anywhere it is approved of.

However, polygamy was not only permitted, under certain conditions, it was commanded!!!“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.”
(Deuteronomy 25:5-10 KJVS)This is known as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibbum]Levirate Marriage.[/url]

I guess I always assumed these brothers were not married. This is an interesting thought. I still stand by what I posted earlier tho.

1Tim. 3:2 (KJVS) A bishop then must be blameless, [b]the husband of one wife[/b], vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Titus 1:6 (KJVS) If any be blameless, [b]the husband of one wife[/b], having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

1Tim. 5:9 (KJVS) Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been [b]the wife of one man[/b], The construction of 'husband of one wife' is exactly the same construction as 'wife of one man'. (the word 'aner' being translated as both husband and man.) This is referring to a woman who is a widow so we are clearly not talking about 'one at a time husbands' and whereas polygamy was not unknown in the 1st century polyandry was unknown, as far as I can tell.

Some 'high church' people in the Anglican church would interprete the 'husband of one wife' as being an absolute stipulation and would not agree even to a widower remarrying.

Others categorically deny eldership to any who have had more than one wife, historically. This usually means they would not consider a divorcee eligable for the role of eldership.

Let us not forget 1 Timothy 5:14,

"I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." (KJV)

If it is wrong for a woman to have at least two husbands in her lifetime (one at a time of course), then why does Paul encourage the younger widows to marry?

Note: younger women in the context means the younger widows.

If it is wrong for a woman to have at least two husbands in her lifetime (one at a time of course), then why does Paul encourage the younger widows to marry?

Krispy, I agree with you that if you speak the truth you are called mean spirited. In this generation of politically correct thinking we are in danger of even speaking the truth without going to jail for it.I recieved an email from a friend who keeps an eye on these things and he said they are trying to pass a hate crimes law that will not let you say something is sin, if the sin is protected. So christians will not be able to preach against homosexulity. Anyway that is not what I meant. Do you ever feel like this:

[It is] time for [thee], LORD, to work: [for] they have made void thy law.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55599

I see what you are saying, "having been the wife of one man,"

Does that mean the widow has only had one husband in her entire life, does that mean she has never had more than one husband at a time?

Romans 7:2-3 provides some clues:
"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 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."

A woman (and man) is bound to her spouse for as long as the spouse is alive. Once the spouse has passed away, the woman is free to marry again. She may be allowed into the Widow's ministry.

Does that mean the widow has only had one husband in her entire life, does that mean she has never had more than one husband at a time?

It is very unlikely that this would mean 'only one husband at a time'.

It is very unlikely that this would mean 'only one husband at a time'.

I understand what you are saying. I personally have never heard the word 'polyandry' before today.

If you are right, then what are the implications?

Paul said in verse 14, (KJV)
"I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully."

After saying in verses 9 and 10:

"Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man. Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work."

Would it make sense for Paul to stipulate that the widow ministry exclude widows of more than one husband, then tell widows of one husband to marry a second...thereby excluding them from any future hope in the widow ministry?

I know it is a stretch...how possible is it for one woman to have multiple dead husbands...but it could happen and I feel it is a valuable example.

It does seem the early church fathers were pretty strong on the idea of a widow no matter what the circumstances not to re-marry unless the spouse dies.

Obviously adultery warrants a person to divorce, but "re-marry"?

And if that party divorces over abuse issues or other drast cicumstances can that party re-marry in the Lord?

I know that the post apostolic period moved toward greater asceticism and that restoring the 'penitent' became an issue which, in some ways, continues to our own day. I raised this oddity regarding 'wife of one husband' because I think it is important to realise that better and wiser men than ourselves have struggled with these issues and come to different conclusions.

It is comparitively easy to come to black and white conclusions in the calm of the study but when faced with the wreckage of lives that we meet in pastoral care we need to be sure that we are not adding burdens to lives which have already been crushed.

Philologos, Jaysaved, Krispy, and all else interested:

I'm going to give you a present - a specific circumstance to examine, since it is real, and might one day be a problem to solve, in the event I wish to remarry.

It doesn't relate to a "Bishop's" requirements, because I am a woman. I will not be called to such a position, and wouldn't take it if it were offered, since it is in direct dispute with scripture.

But take the following as a hypothetical, even though it is real:

I, a widow at 20, later married a man who had never been married. We were married in a Christian ceremony, and the vows were taken as such.

Our marriage was as good or better than most for 11 years.

Then I was in a car crash, and was no longer good wife material, so to speak. Why doesn't matter, except that my husband could not cope with the results of the accident.

He deserted me, was unfaithful with many, then remarried.

I was not unfaithful, during our marriage, or in the 12 years since the accident.

So we are looking at a classic adultery situation.

I am the one who was betrayed.

I remain unmarried at this time.

Under these circumstances, and only these circumstances as stated, am I free to remarry, and remain within the congregation without accusation and dispute?

Or should I remain unmarried for the sake of remaining unmarried, that I might be a 'widow' without reproach.

Whatever you do, don't hold back from speaking your hearts, just because this is a 'real' hypothetical. I want to know what people think, and what scriptures support their views.

Blessings,

Forrest

Delete - server error

Forrest
I really don't think that it is appropriate to try to respond to a pastoral need in a public context, so I am not going to be part of this particular exercise. If others feel differently they must act as they see fit.

It is really is of no importance 'what people think'. What is important is that you discern the will of God for your own life and carry it through. Find some Christian friends with whom you can pray. God will find a way of making his will known to you if you really want it. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin...

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Jesus said:

Quote:

Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:3-9
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, [5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? [8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] 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.

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 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.

John 8:2-11
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. [3] And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, [4] They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. [5] Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? [6] This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. [7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [8] And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. [9] And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. [10] When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? [11] She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

These are all the teachings of Jesus on the matter of divorce and remarriage. His word is final on the matter which we see in His words to the woman brought to Him.
“Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” That means no more, no matter what or how you got into the situation of committing adultery, go away from it and do not do it any more.

What do we tell a homosexual who comes to Jesus Christ, go ahead and continue in your sin since you were in it before you came to Christ? God forbid, No, we would never say such a thing.
We need to call sin, sin and stop making excuses for people to continue in it.
It sounds hard but we did not make the command, Jesus did and it has not changed since He made this statement, no matter what our situation may be:

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 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.

Sorry, but there are no excuses for not plainly declaring the Word of the Lord.

Yes, that which is not of faith is sin, but faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

In His Love
pastorfrin

Matthew 19:3-9
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, [5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? [8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, [b]except it be for fornication[/b], and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.It is this phrase, interpreted differently by different godly men which is still the area of controversy.

philologos wrote:
Forrest
I really don't think that it is appropriate to try to respond to a pastoral need in a public context, so I am not going to be part of this particular exercise. If others feel differently they must act as they see fit.

It is really is of no importance 'what people think'. What is important is that you discern the will of God for your own life and carry it through. Find some Christian friends with whom you can pray. God will find a way of making his will known to you if you really want it. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin...

Dear my brother,

I thank you for your concern for me, but I am not asking in a pastoral sense.

I am asking, under a specific set of variables, what you believe the scriptures say, and I don't want you to tiptoe around the matter simply because the variables in the equation happen to be true for me.

They are true for many people, male and female, and frankly, the sex is irrelevant.

Under the hypothetical, mine is a clear case of divorce after adultery. Since I live in a no fault state in regards to divorce, I couldn't stop my ex-husband from divorcing me, even had I wanted to.

I have very little feeling about the matter from a personal standpoint. I am just as willing to re-marry a good Christian man as I am to remain unmarried, which ever the Lord chooses for me.

Nor do I care for what other's will think of me. I only care about what God thinks of me.

But I am interested in the subject from a scriptural basis because it is pertinent, and a real problem for many in the world we live in.

As far as I see the scriptures, I am as free to re-marry scripturally, since the adultery was not mine. Under what Jesus said, the only two reason's He could see for a valid divorce, rather than the hardness of our hearts, was adultery, and being married to a non-Christian who would not permit Christianity in the household.

Additional detail. My ex-husband is a pagan, and although he took Christian vows, they obviously meant nothing to him. In addition, he would definately not have like my growing ever closer to Jesus, and putting him second.

At this point, I am even wondering if my second marriage, following an early widowhood, was even valid in the Christian sense. Yes, by the laws of California I was married, and divorced from my 2nd husband. The 1st husband no longer counted becasued he was dead.

I married a pagan, and as soon as the marriage became inconvenient to him, he dispensed with the marriage.

Now, I meant my vows, and planned to stand by them. I waited until he wished to re-marry, and then didn't fight the divorce, since I had no legal basis to do so. I was sorry to have the marriage end. I have become glad that the interim period of time allowed me time to grow closer to God. And enough time has passed that other than the good memories from the marriage, I shrug my shoulders at the rest, and pray for the pair of them that they might be touched by the Holy Spirit, and join the rest of us as children of God.

I know the scriptures that exempt me from being an adulturer if I remarry as taken from Jesus' mouth.

[color=993300]Matthew 5:31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.[/color]

Are there other scriptures that dispute, or qualify these?

Blessings,

Forrest

UniqueWebRev on 2007/5/18 22:46:06
Under these circumstances, and only these circumstances as stated, am I free to remarry, and remain within the congregation without accusation and dispute?

UniqueWebRev on 2007/5/19 12:47:35
Nor do I care for what other's will think of me. I only care about what God thinks of me.

I am not sure which of these we are working under. Nothing that is said here is going to alter the possibilities of 'remaining within the congregation without accusation and dispute'. That can only be worked out in your congregation. I think we have rerun the 'divorce and marriage' theme so many times here on SI that I doubt that I can add anything to what has already been said.

As was mentioned earlier, there has been much written here on this in different postings, but wanted to just state I applaud all of you for the candor and handling this with such charity thus far.

It seems highly unlikely that this has not been covered prior but I am wondering out loud if there is a particular emphasis here in the Lords words;

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall [b]put away[/b] his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [12] And if a woman shall [b]put away[/b] her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Excluding the exclusion momentarily ('except for' ...) would the emphasis on the one doing the '[i]putting away[/i]' be ... where the adultery would come into play? Being that this would amount to the nullifier of the covenant, the 'guilty party' for basically no good reason divorcing his or her spouse, for this same person to then go and remarry afterwords ...

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

To bring back in the 'exception' clause seems to put the onus back on the responsible party. The 'causer' if you will.

Brother Mike asked:

Excluding the exclusion momentarily ('except for' ...) would the emphasis on the one doing the 'putting away' be ... where the adultery would come into play? Being that this would amount to the nullifier of the covenant, the 'guilty party' for basically no good reason divorcing his or her spouse, for this same person to then go and remarry afterwords ...

The answer would be yes to this question.
Lets use the exclusion rule the ('execept for'...) would it be justified in light of this statement by Jesus?

Matthew 6:14-15
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: [15] But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

In His Love
pastorfrin

would it be justified in light of this statement by Jesus?

Indeed, this does not simplify matters, am not sure I would even use the word 'justify'. It was the Lord Himself who gave the exclusion.

There are far too many passages throughout scripture that would be equivelant to that which we have in our vows;

[i]For better or for worse[/i]

There is the hardness of the heart that Jesus spoke of and as I mused on this, again the more pressing matter of adultery itself, apart from this;

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The percentages of inward 'divorce' that have occured would move that 50% figure up expotentialy.

If anything would be only wondering at the prospect of the 'innocent' or wronged party being implicit in an adultery that he or she as no control over. It seems to square that these would be free and have no bidding obligation to what he stated.

Isn't the very specifics that should make it plain?

For anyone in any corporate congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ, divorcing someone for adultery was okay with Jesus.

I was divorced against my will by the adulturer.

Am I free to remarry according to scripture, and if not, please state more than Mark's opinion when we have Jesus's statement.

Or does everyone agree, if the case is clear, perfect, proven without a doubt, and confessed into the bargain?

I am not asking your permission. I am asking what the scriptures say.

And if you cannot agree, why can't you, when Jesus was so clear about it?

Blessings,

Forrest

if we look up the greek word for one wife, the greek word for one is (mia) meaning , one, only, first.
the word first, gets your attention.
this does apply for leadership, not for membership, grace is there for those who were involved in divorce and remarriage, Jesus will probably forgive you, mainly because most pastors out there will tell us it's ok.
Jesus said it was adultery, but go to him and he will forgive all transgressions, but dont use his grace as a license to sin more, or do it again.
This grace doesnt mean you can become leadership, but It does mean you can still fellowship, with him and with fellow members.
why not leadership? being above reproach, means not being a distraction, we need to be a example for our children to follow.
Let's not let the societys norm chip away at what God has intended, to appease the wants of so many out there who made mistakes. (sin)
unfortunately most who fell into this trap are innocent, due to bad teaching from leadership.
Let's pray for pastors to teach correctly and raise up a new generation with higher standards.
God bless.

Am I free to remarry according to scripture, and if not, please state more than Mark's opinion when we have Jesus's statement.

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery [u]against her[/u]. [12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, [u]she committeth[/u] adultery.

Leaving here yesterday still giving this more thought I had to go back and think on which "her" Jesus spoke of, the former or the newly remarried? ... Looking again at this now, in the first instance and the last the onus is still on the "whosoever", those who breached the contract.

I think it is rather simplistic and only made difficult by wrong emphasis and that you are at liberty to remarry or remain as you are without any guilt-worthiness.

This must be the emphasis of what Jesus was stating all along and I believe it squares again with many underlying themes throughout scripture.

Even the exception I believe is still tied to the 'hardness of the heart'. It may be difficult to apply this as I think there is still some disputing over whether this was literally or allegorical but, the whole story of Gomer and Hosea and however one wishes to look at it, it is still the same matter; That of taking back those who are unfaithful, be it Israel or an unfaithful spouse, even the sinners we were and those who remain, forgiveness is available to the repentant. The prodigal son.

The [i]may[/i] as exception is still not the ... [i]more excellent way[/i], if I could put it that way. At the same time I think it also was brought to the fore for the very reason that some will be unrepentant over their unfaithfulness and so the exception, determining that I would think is exactly where Ron's admonishen of that soul finding the Lords will for that specific circumstance is the only way of approach. Otherwise it becomes a blanket generalization.

There is a dear, dear sister of our number who went through this very thing and choose the 'more excellent way' at no small cost. She exemplified and personified just what forgiveness truly is.

Another verse for consideration as it might apply by spiritual principle;

1Co 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

Am I free to remarry according to scripture, and if not, please state more than Mark's opinion when we have Jesus's statement.

On the face of it the different accounts of Matthew and Mark record the actual words of Christ but on examination we find that Matthew has his famous 'exception clause' (matt 19:9) and Mark broadens the scope to include the possibity of a wife divorcing her husband (Mark 10:12) which was not part of Jewish law or culture. So is Matthew giving us the actual words or Mark?

For any new readers I am a staunch supporter of the [url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html]Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.[/url] I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired and superintended the actual words of the origal documents. However, we need some kind of explanation of the Matthew OR Mark phenomenon.

I believe that Christ's words were without error, I also believe that the 'witness' borne to those events by the gospel writers is also without error. This is partly why I dislike the 'words of Jesus in Red' idea. The doctrine of the inspiration of scripture holds that the Holy Spirit actually inspired Matthew and Mark to write what they wrote. So why are the words of 'reported speech' different?

I have never seen this addressed, as far as I know, but here is my explanation. The accounts of Matthew and Mark were prepared for different 'audiences'. Matthew is the 'gospel for the Jew' and Mark the 'gospel for the Roman'. To convey the underlying truth of what Christ was saying, the Holy Spirit inspired a record in the words of Matthew which not only repeated but 'applied' the words of Jesus to the minds of Matthew's readership. The same Spirit did the same things i inspiring the exact choice of words for Mark and his readership.

If a natural man were to attempt this it would inevitably contain that man's bias, but this is the wonder of the inspiration of the scripture that the witnesses recorded the events and used words from a suitable vocabulary to convey the exact meaning of Christ actual words to each different culture, and the whole process was guided and superintded by the Holy Spirit so that the words on the original page were 'the words of God'.

Consequently we must not set Matthew against Mark but we must synthesize the accounts in order to get the full force of what Christ was saying. Whatever words He actually used, the truth is perfectly conveyed to the different readerships.

Hello...

I find this topic very interesting, even though I can find no conclusive evidence on this issue. The [i]Assemblies of God[/i] have had a history of conflict concerning the meaning of this Scripture.

Recently, a wonderful young lady that I know announced that she was getting a divorce. This young lady is the daughter of a pastor and has been involved in various aspects of ministry for her entire life. She married a young man who portrayed himself as having a strong call upon his life. He attended [i]Christ for the Nations[/i] Bible College. He was a huge fan of Leonard Ravenhill, David Wilkerson and other preachers featured here at SermonIndex.

Unfortunately, this young man began cheating on his wife almost immediately after their marriage. Additionally, he subjected her to enormous amounts of mental and verbal abuse. He constantly told her that he wanted a divorce. Still, this young lady attempted to "save" their young marriage. Her husband repeatedly left her (for other women), but would return to his wife when finances dictated. Finally, the man left his wife for good a few weeks ago.

What is to come for this young woman? She has done EVERYTHING to save her marriage! Is she condemned to a life of physical solitude for the rest of her life? Her brother asked me about what the Bible says in this matter. I had to admit to him that the topic is subject to much controversy and diversity of interpretation. Will this woman "sin" if she eventually falls in love again and decides to marry?

Her story is a tragedy, but it is certainly not a singular tale. The Church is sadly full of such tales. My wife was strongly convinced that the possibility of remarriage is forbidden -- even in the case of death. I read her the few Scripture verses pertaining to the issue, and she still felt the same. However, she reread the verse in Matthew 19 about the provision for "marital unfaithfulness" and has now rethought her position.

BTW, it is sad that this has become such an issue in the Church today! My sister, who used to be so strong in the faith, left her husband (due to her [u]own[/u] adultery) in order to marry another man. Her ex-husband is a good friend and brother in the faith. I feel for him because of his predicament. Is he also confined to a life of solitude? It has been several years now, and he is still so incredibly lonely!

:-(

What is to come for this young woman? She has done EVERYTHING to save her marriage! Is she condemned to a life of physical solitude for the rest of her life? Her brother asked me about what the Bible says in this matter. I had to admit to him that the topic is subject to much controversy and diversity of interpretation. Will this woman "sin" if she eventually falls in love again and decides to marry?

The statement of John Piper has an interesting URL embedded in it which I thing deserves as wide an airing as his position statement. It is called [url=http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/135/1543_A_Statement_on_Divorce_and_Remarriage_in_the_Life_of_Bethlehem_Baptist_Church/]"A Statement on Divorce & Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist Church"[/url] I think the spirit expressed in this 'statement' is to be highly commended.

The word of God tells us that if an unbeliver leaves, let him or her leave. The only reason a beliver is bound to such is because they should try to save the one lost. Their is no fellowship between light and darkness and God does not expect the beleiver to stay in a place where they are hated if there is no influence they can bring to bear upon the unbeliver. The word says if the unbeliver is "pleased" to stay with the beliver, meaning that there is love in the realationship, that they can influence the life of the other. God is all together practical in these directions. Of course many disagree, but it is a matter of conscience.

And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

1Cr 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

1Cr 7:15 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.

1Cr 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save [thy] husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save [thy] wife?

Hi Forrest,

I would encourage you to read: Divorce/Remarriage, a position paper by John Piper and the ensuing comments/critique of his writings. I believe it is located on page two of the Doctrine page of topics......

Personally, and I know this is a very conservative view, I do not believe that anyone who has been divorced for any reason should hold a position in a church as an elder/pastor.

Paul didnt want someone in these leadership roles who had divided loyalties and extra baggage.

And many people want to be contentious about this... and I have to ask "Why?"

A person who wants to argue every which way till Sunday about how there should be exceptions to this rule seems to demonstrate (at least to me) an unwillingness to submit to what is clearly stated in scripture.

One of the things we are finding in our circles is that folk simply don't want the responsibility or sacrifice required to be a credentialed pastor or deacon (elder). Even divorced folk. Even altering the requirements for the position has not significantly filled positions.

A person need not be an elder to work for the Lord. God can use a person whose life has been touched by this regardless. In fact, God can do exceeding and abundant above all we could ever ask or think. Often folk like this feel so dejected and down that they humble themselves feeling unworthy even to do anything for God. I recall about 14 years ago being asked by the pastors wife to be an assistant to the Young Adult Sunday School teacher. She was asking on behalf of the pastor. She is perhaps the Godliest woman I have ever known or heard of, absolutely. I said to her, "I am not worthy." She says to me, "Robert, who IS worthy?"

KrispyKrittr wrote:

A person need not be an elder to work for the Lord. God can use a person whose life has been touched by this regardless. In fact, God can do exceeding and abundant above all we could ever ask or think.

Absolutely!! No doubt about it.

In fact, being an elder generally is not all it's cracked up to be.

Krispy

I quite agree. And to me, a Bishop may not be divorced, or the wife of more than one woman at a time, and must have a Christian Walk above reproach.

[color=993300]15. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16. Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22. Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25. That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.[/color]

That is what this discussion is about. The qualifications for a Bishoprick, or Apostleship were different than the other positions.

[color=993300]Philippians 1:1. Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

1 Timothy 3:1. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6. Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9. Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.[/color]

The only two terms used in the Bible, to my knowledge, are those of Bishop (Apostle) and Deacon/Deaconess.

[color=0000cc]Topics: Apostle, Apostleship

Text: The biblical use of "apostle" is almost entirely confined to the NT, where it occurs seventy-nine times: ten in the Gospels, twenty-eight in Acts, thirty-eight in the epistles, and three in the Apocalypse. Our English word is a transliteration of the Greek apostolos, which is derived from apostellein, to send. Whereas several words for send are used in the NT, expressing such ideas as dispatch, release, or dismiss, apostellein emphasizes the elements of commission, authority of and responsibility to the sender. So an apostle is properly one sent on a definite mission, in which he acts with full authority on behalf of the sender and is accountable to him.

The noun occurs only once in the LXX. When the wife of Jeroboam came to Ahijah seeking information about the health of her son, the prophet answered, "I am sent unto thee with heavy tidings" (I Kings 14:6). Here apostolos renders the Hebrew saluah, which became a somewhat technical term in Judaism. A saluah could be one who led the synagogue congregation in worship and thus represented it, or a representative of the Sanhedrin sent on official business. The priesthood was included under this term also, and a few outstanding personalities of OT story who acted strikingly on God's behalf. But in no case did the saluah operate beyond the confines of the Jewish community. So there is no anticipation in the Saluah of the missionary emphasis associated with the NT apostolos.

Christ as Apostle. In Heb. 3:1 Jesus is called "the apostle...of our confession," in conscious contrast to Moses, to whom Judaism ascribed the term saluah. Jesus spoke more directly from God than Moses was able to do. Repeatedly he made the claim of being sent by the Father. When he declared that he was sending his chosen disciples into the world even as the Father had sent him, our Lord was bestowing on apostleship its highest dignity (John 17:18).

The Twelve as Apostles. These men are most often called disciples in the Gospels, for their primary function during Christ's ministry was to be with him and learn of him. But they are also called apostles because Jesus imparted to them his authority to preach and to cast out demons (Mark 3:14-15; 6:30). Just because this activity was limited while Jesus was with them, the term "apostle" is rarely used. After Pentecost this situation was changed.

The number twelve recalls the twelve tribes of Israel, but the basis of leadership is no longer tribal, but personal and spiritual. Evidently the college of apostles was regarded as fixed in number, for Jesus spoke of twelve thrones in the coming age (Matt. 19:28; cf. Rev. 21:14). Judas was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1), but after that no effort was made to select men to succeed those who were taken by death (Acts 12:2).

Apostles receive first mention in the lists of spiritual gifts (I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). Since these gifts are bestowed by the risen Christ through the Spirit, it is probable that at the beginning of the apostolic age these men who had been appointed by Jesus and trained by him were now regarded as possessing a second investiture to mark the new and permanent phase of their work for which the earlier phase had been a preparation. They became the foundation of the church in a sense secondary only to that of Christ himself (Eph. 2:20).

The duties of the apostles were preaching, teaching, and administration. Their preaching rested on their association with Christ and the instruction received from him, and it included their witness to his resurrection (Acts 1:22). Their converts passed immediately under their instruction (Acts 2:42), which presumably consisted largely of their recollection of the teaching of Jesus, augmented by revelations of the Spirit (Eph. 3:5). In the area of administration their functions were varied. Broadly speaking, they were responsible for the life and welfare of the Christian community. Undoubtedly they took the lead in worship as the death of Christ was memorialized in the Lord's Supper. They administered the common fund to which believers contributed for the help of needy brethren (Acts 4:37), until this task became burdensome and was shifted to men specially chosen for this responsibility (Acts 6:1-6). Discipline was in their hands (Acts 5:1-11). As the church grew and spread abroad, the apostles devoted more and more attention to the oversight of these scattered groups of believers (Acts 8:14; 9:32). At times the gift of the Holy Spirit was mediated through them (Acts 8:15-17). The supernatural powers which they had exercised when the Lord was among them, such as the exorcism of demons and the healing of the sick, continued to be tokens of their divine authority (Acts 5:12; II Cor. 12:12). They took the lead in the determination of vexing problems which faced the church, associating the elders with themselves as an expression of democratic procedure (Acts 15:6; cf. 6:3).

Paul as Apostle. The distinctive features of Paul's apostleship were direct appointment by Christ (Gal. 1:1) and the allocation of the Gentile world to him as his sphere of labor (Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:16; 2:8). His apostleship was recognized by the Jerusalem authorities in accordance with his own claim to rank with the original apostles. However, he never asserted membership in the Twelve (I Cor. 15:11), but rather stood on an independent basis. He was able to bear witness to the resurrection because his call came from the risen Christ (I Cor. 9:1; Acts 26:16-18). Paul looked on his apostleship as a demonstration of divine grace and as a call to sacrificial labor rather than an occasion for glorying in the office (I Cor. 15:10).

Other Apostles. The most natural explanation of Gal. 1:19 is that Paul is declaring James, the Lord's brother, to be an apostle, agreeable to the recognition James received in the Jerusalem church. In line with this, in I Cor. 15:5-8, where James is mentioned, all the other individuals are apostles. Barnabas (along with Paul) is called an apostle (Acts 14:4, 14), but probably in a restricted sense only, as one sent forth by the Antioch church, to which he was obligated to report when his mission was completed (14:27). He was not regarded as an apostle at Jerusalem (Acts 9:27), though later on he was given the right hand of fellowship as well as Paul (Gal. 2:9). Andronicus and Junias are said to be of note among the apostles (Rom. 16:7). Silvanus and Timothy seem to be included as apostles in Paul's statement in I Thess. 2:6. The references in I Cor. 9:5 and 15:7 do not necessarily go beyond the Twelve.

It is reasonably clear that in addition to the Twelve, Paul and James had the leading recognition as apostles. Others also might be so indicated under special circumstances. But warrant is lacking for making "apostle" the equivalent of "missionary." In the practice of the modern church, prominent pioneer missionaries are often called apostles, but this is only an accommodation of language. In the apostolic age one who held this rank was more than a preacher (II Tim. 1:11). All disciples were supposed to be preachers, but not all were apostles (I Cor. 12:29). Curiously, at one point in the church's life all were busy preaching except the apostles (Acts 8:4). Paul would not have needed to defend his apostleship with such vehemence if he were only defending his right to proclaim the gospel. Alongside the distinctive and more technical use of the word is the occasional employment of it in the sense of messenger (Phil. 2:25; II Cor. 8:23).

E. F. HARRISON
Easton's Theological Dictionary

Topics: Deacon, Deaconess.

Text: While the office of elder was adopted from the Jewish synagogue, the early church instituted something new with an order of deacons. The word group surrounding diakoneo, "to serve" (diakonia, service; diakonos, server), initially referred to a waiter at a meal (John 2:5, 9). This meaning expanded to include care for the home and finally any personal help or care. But still for Judaism religious service as a "deacon," or server, was uncommon. In Judaism service was exercised through alms, not serving. Hence in the Greek OT diakonos refers only to professional court servants. Waiting at table was considered below the dignity of the Jewish freeman (cf. Luke 7:44-45; so Hess). In this sense diakonos often appears in the NT referring to servants and their masters (Matt. 22:13). Similarly, Christians are to be known as servants (diakonoi) of Christ (John 12:26), who not only himself served as a diakonos (Rom. 13:4; 15:8; Gal. 2:17) but directed each of us to serve in a similar fashion (Mark 9:35; 10:43; cf. II Cor. 3:6; 11:15, 23; Col. 1:7). Again, this language of pious service employing the term diakoneo was uncommon in the first century. The church on the other hand viewed its work on the model of Christ, who engaged in humble service. Even fellowship around a table (the Lord's Table) would inspire the use of such language as a descriptive title for Christian service (cf. John 13:1-30).

The beginnings of a formal diaconate, or formal office of deacons, may be traced to Acts 6. A problem in distribution of aid led to the appointment of seven leaders who would free the apostles from "waiting on tables" (diakoneo, 6:2). The body elected the seven, who were ordained for service by the apostles (6:6). Luke's intimate knowledge of Paul's church organization and his extended interest in this passage no doubt suggest that he is here introducing what was for Paul an important office.

From Jerusalem the diaconate spread to the Gentile churches. Phil. 1:1 lists the deacons alongside the bishops in Paul's greeting and suggests two adjacent offices. But was this office universal? A mere functional description may appear in Rom. 12:6-8; I Cor. 12:28-31; and I Thess. 5:12. But in the list of offices in Eph. 4 deacons are absent (as are elders), and when Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every city of Crete (Titus 1:5) he fails to mention an order of deacons. Still, in I Tim. 3:8-13 there is a substantial paragraph devoted to the role of the deacon. This should be expected inasmuch as Paul here directly turns his thoughts to church organization. Deacons are to demonstrate an exemplary moral life style and a firm faith. They are to be practical servants (and not necessarily teachers, cf. 5:17). In fact, the description found in I Tim. 3:8-13 so closely parallels the description of bishops (3:1-7; cf. Phil. 1:1) that scholars have often wondered if the offices were once one. But this seems doubtful.

A brief glance at the patristic era shows that the office was soon formalized (I Clem. 42:4; Hermas, Visions 3, 5:1; Similitudes 9, 26:2; and Ignatius, Eph. 2:1; Mag. 6:1; 13:1; Trall. 2:3; 3:1; 7:2; Pol. 6:1). Lightfoot notes how Irenaeus labeled the seven in Acts 6 as "deacons." Eusebius even records how the Roman Church limited its diaconate to seven, preserving the memory of Stephen. By the third century Rome had fortysix elders but only seven deacons, and this tradition persisted through the fifth century. In the early fourth century the Greek Council of Neocaesarea ruled that any given city could boast only seven deacons (again viewing Acts 6 as the model).

It is certain that women served actively as deacons. This is clear not only in Rom. 16:1, where the deaconess Phoebe of Cenchreae is commended by Paul, but in I Tim. 3:11. Here the best exegesis would view the reference to women as meaning another order of deacons (gynaikas hosautos), namely women deacons (see J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, pp. 83-84). A parallel development is found in I Tim. 5:3-16, where a women's order of widows was recognized for its ready service. Nevertheless, the patristic church enjoyed the service of an independent order of women deacons, as witnessed to in the Syriac Didascalia. From the fourth century on, their common title was "deaconess" (Gk. diakonissa; Lat. diaconissa).

Archdeacon is an order of ministry of relatively recent development which began to be recognized in the medieval period. The archdeacon is a cleric with specific administrative tasks usually assigned by a bishop. It is a common order in the Anglical tradition.

G. M. BURGE
Easton's Theological Dictionary
[/color]

Although there has been terminolgy changes over the years, the offices are plain. And despite Paul's admonition to women not teaching in a Synagogoe, all disciple of Christ, male or female, are called to preach the gospel, which does require the teaching of it, and to the Great Commission, where one cannot help but teach as one shares the Gospel.

The qualifications in regard to behavior, however are plain.

Which is why my bringing up the position of the innocent member of a divorce, due to the only exceptions allowed by Jesus, is not a straying from the path of the original question, but a necessary part of the discussion.

Whether the spouse has been left due to adultery or because of a spouse leaving due to being a non-Christian, these are crucial questions for those entrusted with the teaching of the laity.

Apostles were evangelists and teachers; Deacons performed the more general duties of what we would term a Pastor, in taking care of the local flock, first financially, but inevitably as a teacher of the words given by the Apostles, as their disciples, before and after they died.
Bishopricks were established, but seem to be the Pastoral office after the passing of the Apostles, in an administrative sense as well as a preacher of the Word.

But I sincerely doubt that Deacons or Deaconesses, refrained from reading the letters and testimony we now call the New Testament, and discussing them.

And the Bible says nothing about the qualifications of others in the church, except for the widows, who were used as appointed deaconesses, and may have done much teaching to others under the guidance of their Rabbi or Bishop.

Well, my brothers, we teach from the writings of the Apostles, based on the foundation of the Old Testament, and we teach according to their words, as diciples of Christ.

Therefore, the question of the innocent party being in a place of leadership in the church corporate, must be taken into consideration, as must the problem of their status.

Using Matthew, Jesus said the innocent party of a divorce due to the adultery or desertion due to apostasy was without blame, and could re-marry, even as widowers and widows could remarry, and be appointed to positions of authority within the Church.

Mark, as has been said, speaks to the condition of a man who divorces his wife, and makes her an adulteress if she remarried, but says nothing about his own status. Yet Mark cannot be unaware of what Jesus taught, even though he was taught by his grandmother, mother, other disciples of Christ, and Paul.

Nothing is said to the innocent party's status whatsover, except by Jesus, and I doubt Mark would have disputed Him. Carrying the argument into a specific area of the state of the divorced person who was in adultery or in rebellion against Christianity were valid concerns, then, and now.

If a pagan man or a pagan woman became a Christian, and was disowned by a spouse for the beliefs, these actions do not seem to be a bar to remarriage, and eventual authority and responsibility in the church.

What seems to be the crucial fact is not their status, but their behavior. Did the innocent party walk the walk, before they were wronged, and after they re-married? If so, if their behavior was right, and their righteousness established in Christ, why could they not be used as a Bishop, Deacon, or Deaconess? Or any other office, or combinations of offices and responsibilitites, despite the title it is given?

Thus I brought up my specific condition, because I am in the rarity of divorced women these days.

I was divorced because my husband preferred another woman to me after I was injured, and deeply changed and disabled by an auto accident. And in addition, he was a pagan, and becoming more and more uncomfortable with my deepening walk with God.

But Christ Himself has called me to teach Christianity through the method of writing.

And I do not say that I was a perfect wife. I wasn't. Nor was my husband perfect either. Yet until the accident, our marriage was unusally happy. But as a Pagan, he didn't take the Christians vows seriously, as I did.

Now, I am aware that many would forbid me to write if they could, and if Christ called me to Pastor a church, I would do so only under very specific conditions, such as a lack of adult men to take the position. I have no desire for it, and unless God chooses to regenerate me mind and body, I couldn't take the position, nor maintain it.

I, although a female, am an ordained minister, and an evangelist, and take the duties of both seriously. But if there are no adult males, due to war or persection, I will, if called, Pastor a Church to the best of my ability, however little I relish such a responsibility.

Christ called me to "Write". So, I write, here, on SI, on my website, and am working with God on the idea of a book based on my testimony, since I lived a scandalous life in the far past, and yet the Lord has embraced me, protected me, teaches me, and frankly, does most of my writing for me. He makes it easy for me to obey His command to "Write!"

My sins are if they never were, in God's eyes. Whether I will use the history of them to teach how far Christ will go to save those He calls is up to Him, but He seems to be encouraging me. I will decide when the time is right, under His guidance.

However, to me, most 'Christians', in their hesitation to ignore what God has forgiven, and what a walk according to the Grace of God, and the fruit of His Spirit is proving before their eyes, are being unforgiving to the point that I wonder if they are not endangering their own salvation. If we do not forgive what is not sin to Jesus in our bretheren, after a reasonable period of walking the walk in grace, the innocent party, once remarried within the church corporate, should be allowed to do as God calls them to do. And if they don't, or are not allowed to, all concerned may find they are fighting God over the matter.

As to remarriage of the non-guilty party in a case of adultery, I consider it dangerous to the point of unkindness, and very near to cruelty, to counsel the young victim of such a crime not to remarry if he/she can find a good Christian spouse.

It is one thing for God to lay it on the heart of a victim of adultery or rebellion against a Christian marrage not to remarry.

It is quite another for any of us to do so.

God has been impressing on my heart how much we need to strive for holiness, in heart, mind, and actions, in thought and word and deed.

So, if a good Christian, of either sex, after a suitable mourning period, and having reached full and complete forgiveness of the offender and of the wrong done them, which is, by my experience, a very difficult thing to do, I am convinced that we, as a congregation among all the churches, should do the same, after proof of the new couple holding strongly in a Christian Marriage, with their the walk being walked in the fruits of the Spirit.

And I would not be reckless enough to try to prevent God from appointing them to any office in the Church Corporate, after whatever appropriate 'probationary' period as determined by each individual congregation has passed.

I think such an allowance for the victim of a such a devastating would be an act of Christian 'caritas'.

To me, anything less is a lack of loving of a brother or sister wronged by no fault of their own, and directly against the will of Christ.

Blessings,

Forrest

Forrest's: To me, anything less is a lack of loving of a brother or sister wronged by no fault of their own, and directly against the will of Christ.

Hi Forrest,

As a word of encouragement let me offer a little advice. There are those among us who are radically unconditional earthly matrimony. They believe that a man and woman who have married are bound until death no matter what the circumstances. They disregard all of the exception clauses. In short, to them, there is no such thing as a divorce (putting away).

The thread we are presently discussing is among several arguments that refute their view. I.e., if these kind of folk were not in the church then we would not have these passages. The fact is, they were and are in the church. If a man has been the husband of more than one wife that leaves one of three possibilities:

1) Divorce
2) polygamy
3) Widower

The only argument that fits their view here is widower. But to suggest that the passages that have been discussed deal with widowers is to suggest that there is retribution for having 'died' to one spouse and marry another. What reproach is brought to the Church because a man or woman's spouse died and they remarried? This in effect, is a serious offense to the cross as we have died to both sin and the law and are espoused unto Christ (Romans 7). Nothing could be better than our having died to the one and 'marry' the other. To cast doubt on this wonderful picture is to cast doubt on the whole of the Gospel.

If polygamy be the case, which some say it may or may not, I would say doubtful because the Jews at least were in the habit of putting away their wife for any reason. This was the great conflict in Jesus' day. Any cause [i]or[/i] for fornication only. If polygamy be in view then all marriages of the man would be 'in force' in any case and it would be impossible (under their doctrine) to be anything other than a polygamist. And that, because God would honor every covenant. This, to me, is a most unlikely interpretation.

If divorced folk be in view then we have to ask ourselves several questions. Does God seek out a perfect man to save and lead His people? One that has never had a stain upon his reputation? One that has never been guilty of sexual sin? In 1st Corinthians we know that there were some among them that 'were' in times past fornicators. Fornication was yet a problem beyond even what was found among the Gentiles as the man committed adultery against his own father. Sexual sin was one of the greatest enemies of the Church in the first century. How then, apart from Christ, would there be many found even qualified to be an elder? I suggest that folk qualified in their sinful state for the office of an elder would be slim to none. None the less, divorce is most likely to be in view in this passage. If we say "one woman kind of man" I would argue that every man and woman in the assembly should have a single eye- not just the elders. In fact, a fornicator was not to be admitted to the communion or fellowship. We are told to have shamefacedness with sobriety and to flee fornication. Jesus said to look on a woman to covet her is to commit adultery already in the heart. Albeit, this would not be cause for divorce as He used fornication to distinguish between the 'look' and the 'act' of adultery Had He not made this distinction He would have filled the earth with divorce as a man or women could have divorced over suspicion of their spouse having eyes full of adultery. This, no doubt, is why the blanket term 'fornication' is used by our Lord. It includes adultery.

We might ask, why? Why should not a leader be allowed to lead who has been divorced (albeit without cause). I believe it is due to the nature of our relationship with God as a [i]covenant[/i]. You will know that when blood covenants were made, death broke the covenant [u]or[/u] breaking the covenant incurred the penalty of death. The parties of the covenant essentially say, "may I b as this dead animal if I break this covenant."

Marriage, in my understanding, is a blood covenant in its original design. This is why the tokens of the woman's virginity exist. Under the Old Covenant a man or woman was stoned to death for adultery, which was the coming together of a woman with any man other than her husband. The term for 'lie-carnally' carries the meaning of 'planting' as in planting seeds. The design of the commandment was to prevent a man (family) from having spurious offspring. The blood covenant when broken carried the death penalty.

If a person will lightly break their covenant with their spouse they will likely break it with Christ. Forgive me for saying, but I believe this is true. We are in covenant with Christ and we need to be in reputation for keeping covenant.

Therefore, the question of the innocent party being in a place of leadership in the church corporate, must be taken into consideration, as must the problem of their status.

Hi Forrest,

I really encourage you to read Pastor Piper's writings on Divorce/remarriage, then deal with the issues at hand presented by him and those who posted afterwards. One cannot REALLY have an indepth discussion on "husband of one wife" when their views of divorce/remarriage have not been solidified.

I will ask you to explain more what you see in regards to the innocent party. Do you feel that if one was the "guilty" party, they would be prohibited from serving?

Using Matthew, Jesus said the innocent party of a divorce due to the adultery or desertion due to apostasy was without blame, and could re-marry, even as widowers and widows could remarry, and be appointed to positions of authority within the Church

There are many Christians who do NOT believe that Jesus gave permission for someone to be joined with another---whether they be the "guilty" party or the innocent party. The Truth is that when the Lord joins two as ONE in marriage, HE already knows all the sin that will be committed in the marriage. He does not then "change His mind", dissolve the marriage just because we later find out the sins or decide we cannot endure the personality of the person we married.

What seems to be the crucial fact is not their status, but their behavior. Did the innocent party walk the walk, before they were wronged, and after they re-married? If so, if their behavior was right, and their righteousness established in Christ, why could they not be used as a Bishop, Deacon, or Deaconess? Or any other office, or combinations of offices and responsibilitites, despite the title it is given?

To be true, Paul address status AND behavior. Him saying "husband of one wife" is status, then he goes on to speak on lifestyle issues (behaviors) and reputation among the UNBELIEVER.

As to remarriage of the non-guilty party in a case of adultery, I consider it dangerous to the point of unkindness, and very near to cruelty, to counsel the young victim of such a crime not to remarry if he/she can find a good Christian spouse.

Do you know what sins Paul may be speaking of in I Cor. 7:10 that may be the cause of a woman departing? What is such a woman commanded by the Lord? She is to remain unmarried or be reconciled. I dont' think it's a good thing for us to say what the Lord commands is "cruel".......the argument you make seems to indicate it cruel then that SOME can remarry, because it's cruel for them not to be able to, but if we hold to I Cor. 7:10, it would not be cruel for other woman not to be given the right of remarriage.

It is one thing for God to lay it on the heart of a victim of adultery or rebellion against a Christian marrage not to remarry.

There are many Christian men and women who are IN such a situation, yet they believe the SCRIPTURES to teach that they are to remain faithful to the covenant they entered into. Whether their spouse is in sin or not is not the issue. The issue is of their faithfulness to God in honoring their vows of marriage---the marriage in which God took two and joined as One.

Believe me, I FEEL for your situation. We have a family member who did the same as your husband. His wife was injured severely in a car accident--head on---and suffered brain injury. He got her pregnant after this, stayed with her a few years more, and when he could not longer deal with it, divorced her and married a woman he met at work. My husband and I both view his current relationship as adultery and that he is in sin in the Lord's sight for leaving the covenant he entered into with his wife. We also believe, if she remarries, he will be held guilty for her adultery (Mt. 5:32).

Like I said sister, I really encourage you to seek out the many inconsistancies of those who teach remarriage is possible while one still has a living spouse. To me, to believe that SOME are called to stand for the restoration of their marriage, yet some are permitted to remarry, is what the scriptures teach as "private interpretation"..........the ONLY reason one would biblically be required to stand by the Lord is because it is something He expects of ALL His followers----because it is a reflection of HIM in the life of a believer. Blessings, sister.

RobertW wrote:

Forrest's: To me, anything less is a lack of loving of a brother or sister wronged by no fault of their own, and directly against the will of Christ.

Hi Forrest,

As a word of encouragement let me offer a little advice. There are those among us who are radically unconditional earthly matrimony. They believe that a man and woman who have married are bound until death no matter what the circumstances. They disregard all of the exception clauses. In short, to them, there is no such thing as a divorce (putting away)...If a person will lightly break their covenant with their spouse they will likely break it with Christ. Forgive me for saying, but I believe this is true. We are in covenant with Christ and we need to be in reputation for keeping covenant.

Robert, you, and those of similar views, must take a long, hard look at what you are doing to yourelves, and to others. You are putting reputation of covenent above Christ's own command.

And how gently you inform me that I cannot possibly understand the higher plane of existance you strive for, higher than Jesus requires of you, yet tell me it is all to honor Him?

You consider putting away even an admittedly adulterous spouse a light matter, as if there was no breaking of the covenent already! The marriage covenent has already been broken by the guilty party, and there is no sin in being a victim of betrayal.

By your actions, views, and traditions, you put yourself above Jesus, and the concept of grace. You put your tradition of marriage above all others who are under Christ's grace.

Jesus himself gave the exceptions to the law oriented view that you take toward marriage.

The Jesus exception for a man:

[color=993300][b]Matthew 5:31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.[/b][/color]

[b]The Jesus exception for a woman:[/b]

[color=993300][b]Matthew 5:31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away her husband, let her give him a writing of divorcement:
32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away her husband, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth him to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry him that is divorced committeth adultery.[/b][/color]

[b]You are making up your own law, placing your ideal of a covenant marriage as a tradition against what Jesus knew to be impossible for humans to attain. He gave this exception in particular, since the act of adultery breaks the marriage covenant as nothing else can. Adultery is the ultimate betrayal of a covenanted marriage, and it is the universal symbol of the ultimate betrayal against God, idolatry.

Believe me, it is not that I do not take marriage seriously. I do. But having kept my vows, and been forced into a divorce I didn't want so that my husband could marry one of many women he committed adultery with after leaving me, I am bound only to forgive him, not spend my life mourning his memory, and walking in overweening pride as a symbol of my own righteousness.

When you require more than your Saviour does of anyone, you are adding law to grace. When you teach a different standard of righteousness than Christ Himself, penalizing those who are innocent under both law and grace, are you walking out your Christianity in thought or deed? What are you doing that is diferent than the Pharisees by forcing others into your traditions?

[color=993300]Matthew 7:1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Matthew 15:3. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Romans 9:31. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
[/color]

It is no wonder to me that you cannot find a Pastor, divorced or not, adulterous or not, to lead such a congregation. No one can lead those who refuse to submit to authority, or whose traditions are in direct violation with Christ's grace, much less His own words.

And since we are called not to judge anyone, I wonder that you expect more perfection from people than God does Himself. Jesus at least calls us to love one another, not punish one another with the foolishness of merciless rules and regulations.

Tell me, have you not, by this over-reliance on the decisions of man's reasoning, already shown the Holy Spirit the door?

Truly, I do wonder at such 'covenant keepers' who will not consider mercy to the righteous, lest they break their own traditions.

In His service,

Forrest[/b]

Robert, you, and those of similar views, must take a long, hard look at what you are doing to yourelves, and to others. You are putting reputation of covenent above Christ's own command.
And how gently you inform me that I cannot possibly understand the higher plane of existance you strive for, higher than Jesus requires of you, yet tell me it is all to honor Him?

You consider putting away even an admittedly adulterous spouse a light matter, as if there was no breaking of the covenent already! The marriage covenent has already been broken by the guilty party, and there is no sin in being a victim of betrayal.

Forrest,

Robert is in a second marriage, so he wasn't saying to you what you think he was. I, and some others who post here, are who he was speaking of as the "radical" ones. I must tell you that more and more I am finding out that other Christian Cultures around the world hold the same exact view that I have come to. In a culture that has growingly accepted divorce and remarriage as "normal", one has to wonder if the PRACTICES have effected HOW they are now viewing/interpreting scripture. It seems to me that when sin grows and people become desensitized to it, our beliefs become compromised to suit the trends of society.

I recently met an Iraqi Christian who was SHOCKED when I told her the American Church divorces and remarries. She said they do not divorce in Iraq (the Christians, I mean----it is common with the Muslims, though).

Again, I encourage you to REALLY delve in the scriptures, focusing not only on the offended, but the offender in view of God's Love. Also, know that when God joins two as One, what sins are committed against the marriage covenant are already known to the Lord BEFORE the marriage ever takes place. Does He make a mistake joining the two into One, then repent of His error and allow the marriage to be dissolved?

Forrest,

lastblast is correct here, Robert was being descriptive not dogmatic. Reading back through the latest contributions and as some carry over left to dwell on from before this ...

We also believe, if she remarries, he will be held guilty for her adultery (Mt. 5:32).

It is this lone out take that I am suspecting to be a great deal of the problem. At the present time I am inclined to believe similarly to lastblast here. It seems peculiar in a sense that one could be held responsible, [i]guilty[/i] for the 'sin' of another, to just look at it again;

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, [u]causeth her to commit[/u] adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

For all the present commentaries I have available none of them touch on this. It is a very difficult passage and it seems highly unlikely that a smooth transition for an answer is ever going to satisfy everyone moreover due to the entrenchment of positioning and of taking 'sides' on the matter.

I must tell you that more and more I am finding out that other Christian Cultures around the world hold the same exact view that I have come to. In a culture that has growingly accepted divorce and remarriage as "normal", one has to wonder if the PRACTICES have effected HOW they are now viewing/interpreting scripture. It seems to me that when sin grows and people become desensitized to it, our beliefs become compromised to suit the trends of society.

I also believe this very well is often the case as well but still want to back up to the verse in question. This is only thinking out loud so bare with me and do clarify if I am supposing in error ...

What I am wondering is if the responsibility having fallen on the [i]causer[/i] does [u]not[/u] impute the particular 'sin' to the subject. In other words, that it is a statement of fact, as a natural course of things because of what the Lord set out as the original;

"From the beginning it was not so"

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Because the original is meant not to be broken, altered, changed ...

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

1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Would this not be in the same realm of thought that our so called 'personal sins' have no ramifications upon others, even to [i]cause[/i] them to sin?

2Co 11:29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is caused to stumble, and I do not burn?

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

[i]Cause[/i] and [i]stumbling[/i], [i]responsibility[/i].

What I may be noticing is the comparisons to Romans where Paul is going to great lengths to express how things [i]ought[/i] to be [i]all[/i] the time and with great emphasis in exclamation of "God forbid!" upon presuming upon grace. That, yes, there [i]is[/i] forgiveness, but in other words we should not even be putting ourselves into this provision, this 'exception' if you will.

Is this not the whole emphasis the Lord is trying to state as well? [i]From the beginning it was not so[/i] and it continues to be [i]not so[/i]. Is not the very trouble the instinct to jump to the exclusion\\'exception' over the more pressing matter of ... How can I state this better? ... In other words it would be, "You are not in this position (the majority of the hearers) [u]now[/u], you are not contemplating divorce (or if you are, listen up), the Pharisees and others are wrong in their heart assessment. [i]This[/i] is how things were meant to be, [i]this[/i] is how you are to conduct yourself, stay married and do not seek a 'way out' ...[i]'let not [b]man[/b][/i]' separate, break, [i]put away[/i]. If you do so unjustly you will cause your spouse, who is [i]one flesh[/i] of your own, to sin and [u]you[/u] will be held responsible for it if that spouse goes and remarries because [u]you[/u] broke the covenant you made and divided that which God has joined together."

Yes, the exception clause has been well attested to already here and there is no getting around the fact that it was given by the Lord Himself. The focus is on the wrong emphesis. We all hopefully wish to get to the core and heart of this matter and not be of those interjecting 'private interpretation' or personal experience into the inclusions\\exclusions and making the scriptures say what we would wish them to say or like them to say.

Another notice here, especially the placement of this particular verse (Mat 5:32) is into or rather [i]back into[/i] the context of all that was prior and all that follows. What is this but right in the midst of many admonishens against what I believe is the greatest and overlooked reason for divorce generally speaking and that is just [i]selfishness[/i]. It is the [i]reason[/i] and the fabric that holds together the [i]hardness of the heart[/i] is it not?

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, [i]but to fulfil[/i].

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Is this not the whole point? Not the exceptions, [i]here is the commandments[/i], this is what we ought to be doing ...

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[i]Ye have heard that it was said ~
But I say unto you[/i]

Very fundamental things, but have we forgotten?

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The seeds of adultery are in the eyes and the heart and the flesh well before being carried out, before the [i]putting away[/i].

[i]And if thy right eye offend thee,
And if thy right hand offend thee[/i]

We know these yes? ...

[i]But I say unto you, Swear not at all[/i]

Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Admonishens against presumption and here for retaliation by self justification.

Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Self - [i]sacrifice[/i] and above and beyond that, doing good to those who would persecute us or take advantage.

Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

And the left hand not knowing what the right is doing seems applicable.

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Perhaps this is just to overexagerate the point, bringing in all these verses in the same context that the matter of divorce is included.

Remembering also;

[i]I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 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. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 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. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.[/i] 1Co 7:8-17

[b]but God hath called us to peace[/b] amongst other stand outs. Quite a bit more to dwell upon further down in this epistle;

[i]Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

And this I speak for your own profit; [b]not[/b] that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.[/i] 1Co 7:27-35

There is a great deal to consider in [i]all[/i] that has been written on this matter. I know this is bound to be getting long and am thinking alongside all of us taking many things into account. Many of us have been through these things and the experiences shared here. I certainly hope that the younger and those contemplating marriage will take heed to the seriousness and sobriety of it all.

This present age indeed has done much to discount and debase this Holy institution from it's orgins and original. The intrusion of the now common prenuptial 'agreement' one of the more sinister and subtle [i]exclusions[/i] thought to be rational when in effect it is an evil pragmatism that dwindles a life long commitment to just an 'at will' employment contract, that which can be quickly annulled or broken for any reason at any time and seems to make tidy possessions and finances equally divided the most important aspect of what a marriage supposedly [i]is[/i]. The media of our day has cheapened and mocked, made comical and nonsensical most of what marriage is, treating it with the greatest of disrespect, nullifying even the very sacred vows, [i]For better or for worse[/i]. No sacrifice nor suffering nor patience nor [i]till death do us part[/i]. This has ruined the family and made men to be weak in nobility, both sexes to feel free to have affairs with little impunity even borrowing upon the Christians [i]exclusion[/i] as if it were there own. That is a fuzzy way of putting it but I am thinking of the tit for tat mentality of the selfish mind that will not suffer wrong patiently and work towards reconciliation whatever the cost. And now we have the next and latest intrusion into the holy mandate of the 'homosexual community' to further debase that which was established by God and that curiously they would wish to have for their own societal 'rights' even while denying the One whose establishment it is.

All of this certainly applies to the original posting and question. If it had to be distilled down to any one point I believe it is a matter of character that is being addressed. One whose mind is not entertaining thoughts of departure at any given time from his spouse. A man of honor who would suffer whatever costs it took to continue in one flesh and teach others likewise. The definition of an exception ought to be self explanatory and not the particular emphasis, that I believe is always what is spoken to in scripture, whether it be divorce or in giving 'license' to sin, [i]God forbid![/i]

I can speak to some of this by way of experience though I was not officially 'married' at the time nor particularly 'well saved' either. In my mind all the things evident in a 'marriage' were present in duty and responsibility, helping raise a young child (not my own), dealing with all the bitter and ugly things of [i]the other spouse[/i] even my own conscience smiting me for getting involved in the first place. Death threats, police involvement, drugs and attitudes and sleepless nights and alcohol, the visitations and the heightened anger and anxiety that always came between and with the transfers, it needed not to manifest itself every time, but the atmosphere was always thick with it's approaching possibilities. Went along this path for seven years and when it finally broke apart it was devastating. There was a part that strangely wished at times that my then present girlfriend would go ahead and cheat so I could excuse myself from the relationship (where did this idea come from?) while at the same time I wanted nothing more than to hold the whole thing together somehow. But I was also very ignorant and immature and a great cause for it's own unraveling to look back on it, insecure and jealous, suspicious, was told I was 'annoying' and that stung particularly, my retort that she was 'cold' and she was ... To leave behind my pseudo step-son after so many years was a carving out of the heart that I cannot express.

To jump to the present and God ordained marriage ... difficult and rather not go to specifics here too much. The timeliness are much the same of duration at this point. For the younger again I beseech you to challenge your emotions deeply and with great sincerity of what you may give yourself to as Christan's in Gods Holy institution. It is for life, [i]this[/i] is the ideal, this is the original. Would have you completely ignore the "exclusion" as if it was unavailable, as if it would cost you a million dollars to purchase the right to even read what it says, this is the point of the whole matter. The difference now in present circumstances for me is that the Lord has given some understanding and much patience to wait, to pray, to endure many things, even the very things that you as unmarried may be struggling with. Let me put it another way, if you find it difficult to stay chaste unmarried there is every possibility that it may be required of you for a season while being married. Will you be willing to suffer that? Or some devestating blow as what happened to our own sister here, will you have the fortitude to go on, continue on? Another dear brother here is suffering with great nobility things with his own spouse who he loves as I too love my own, straight out of the vows below. These are not easy questions to quickly come to a conclusion about and it is the very neglect of them that has made marriage something to be de-glorfying to the Lord.

[i]In sickness and in health
For richer or for poorer
till death do us part[/i]

All these things are part and parcel of what is laid out by our Lord and by the apostles, to suffer and die to selfishness, to have the nobility of true love that does not give up, come what may.

Last thought off the soap box. The 50\\50 split in divorce rate amongt professing Christians by way of the masses is appalling. It is [i]our[/i] institution by way of Gods mandate and it is we who ought to be showing the world how it is to be done in self denying ways and by example. And I am convinced it is because the fundamentals of our faith are not built into the fabric of our lives before we give ourselves to this noble and high calling, [i]if[/i] we are called to it that brings everything full circle ... well before the exception.

Going back to the heart of the matter:

philologos wrote:

What is to come for this young woman? She has done EVERYTHING to save her marriage! Is she condemned to a life of physical solitude for the rest of her life? Her brother asked me about what the Bible says in this matter. I had to admit to him that the topic is subject to much controversy and diversity of interpretation. Will this woman "sin" if she eventually falls in love again and decides to marry?

This is a pattern I have seen repeated, with variations, several times and I have asked all the same questions. I was once asked to talk to a young woman of 22. She became a Christian within weeks of her wedding and because she determined to alter her life style and abandonned 'clubbing' her husband immediately began divorce proceedings saying that she was 'no longer the woman he had married'. What do you say to a such a young woman? You have to be very sure that your interpretation is right before condemning such to a lifetime of singleness.

The statement of John Piper has an interesting URL embedded in it which I thing deserves as wide an airing as his position statement. It is called [url=http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/135/1543_A_Statement_on_Divorce_and_Remarriage_in_the_Life_of_Bethlehem_Baptist_Church/]"A Statement on Divorce & Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist Church"[/url] I think the spirit expressed in this 'statement' is to be highly commended.

Then Krispy replied, and I agreed! But we were talking about the qualifications for leadership in the church.

UniqueWebRev wrote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:

A person need not be an elder to work for the Lord. God can use a person whose life has been touched by this regardless. In fact, God can do exceeding and abundant above all we could ever ask or think.

Absolutely!! No doubt about it.

In fact, being an elder generally is not all it's cracked up to be.

Krispy

I quite agree. And to me, a Bishop may not be divorced, or the wife of more than one woman at a time, and must have a Christian Walk above reproach.

Then Robert replied to my post, but chose only to address the one point, not the entire argument.

RobertW wrote:

Forrest's: To me, anything less is a lack of loving of a brother or sister wronged by no fault of their own, and directly against the will of Christ.

Hi Forrest,

As a word of encouragement let me offer a little advice. There are those among us who are radically unconditional earthly matrimony. They believe that a man and woman who have married are bound until death no matter what the circumstances. They disregard all of the exception clauses. In short, to them, there is no such thing as a divorce (putting away)...If a person will lightly break their covenant with their spouse they will likely break it with Christ. Forgive me for saying, but I believe this is true. We are in covenant with Christ and we need to be in reputation for keeping covenant.

To which I replied, in full:

Robert, you, and those of similar views, must take a long, hard look at what you are doing to yourselves, and to others. You are putting reputation of covenent above Christ's own command.

And how gently you inform me that I cannot possibly understand the higher plane of existance you strive for, higher than Jesus requires of you, yet tell me it is all to honor Him?

You consider putting away even an admittedly adulterous spouse 'a light matter', as if there was no breaking of the covenent already! The marriage covenent has already been broken by the guilty party, and there is no sin in being a victim of betrayal.

By your actions, views, and traditions, you put yourself above Jesus, and the concept of grace. You put your tradition of marriage above all others who are under Christ's grace.

Jesus himself gave the exceptions to the law oriented view that you take toward marriage.

The Jesus exception for a man:

[color=993300][b]Matthew 5:31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.[/b][/color]

[b]The Jesus exception for a woman:[/b]

[color=993300][b]Matthew 5:31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away her husband, let her give him a writing of divorcement:
32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away her husband, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth him to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry him that is divorced committeth adultery.[/b][/color]

[b]You are making up your own law, placing your ideal of a covenant marriage as a tradition against what Jesus knew to be impossible for humans to attain. He gave this exception in particular, since the act of adultery breaks the marriage covenant as nothing else can. Adultery is the ultimate betrayal of a covenanted marriage, and it is the universal symbol of the ultimate betrayal against God, idolatry.

Believe me, it is not that I do not take marriage seriously. I do. But having kept my vows, and been forced into a divorce I didn't want so that my husband could marry one of many women he committed adultery with after leaving me, I am bound only to forgive him, not spend my life mourning his memory, and walking in overweening pride as a symbol of my own righteousness.

When you require more than your Saviour does of anyone, you are adding law to grace. When you teach a different standard of righteousness than Christ Himself, penalizing those who are innocent under both law and grace, are you walking out your Christianity in thought or deed? What are you doing that is diferent than the Pharisees by forcing others into your traditions?

[color=993300]Matthew 7:1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Matthew 15:3. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Romans 9:31. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
[/color]

It is no wonder to me that you cannot find a Pastor, divorced or not, adulterous or not, to lead such a congregation. No one can lead those who refuse to submit to authority, or whose traditions are in direct violation with Christ's grace, much less His own words.

And since we are called not to judge anyone, I wonder that you expect more perfection from people than God does Himself. Jesus at least calls us to love one another, not punish one another with the foolishness of merciless rules and regulations.

Tell me, have you not, by this over-reliance on the decisions of man's reasoning, already shown the Holy Spirit the door?

Truly, I do wonder at such 'covenant keepers' who will not consider mercy to the righteous, lest they break their own traditions.

In His service,

Forrest[/b]

Oddly, the original question we were discussing was not my particular position as a woman divorced against her will by the adulturer, but of another young person who had a similar case.

We were speaking not in general, and not to divorce as a 'rule', but as the exception that Christ allowed for. The fact that the case would have to be so plain and obvious, due to the difficulty of discerning fault in behavior within a marriage, much less within a man or woman's heart, was the point. And we were discussing it in terms of whether such a condition disallowed a man, or in some cases, a woman, in the event of no Christian man being available, from serving in the Church in a position of authority.

Considering that in Christ's time a woman's father or brother had to seek a divorce for her, and the man had to do the divorcing even if he was at fault, if she were not permitted to remarry, her father or brother would be permitted to stone the adulturer, so that she would be a widow. I know that my father, were he allowed to, would have made sure I was a widow. He isn't allowed to, according to our law, and so my ex-husband is still alive.

At the time of Christ, however, that was a consideration that a man had to face if he were to desert his wife. It still is a consideration in the Middle East, where an honor killing is the norm, not the exception. The reason Christians take their vows seriously there is the real possibility of being killed! And when our society in the West took away any penalty at all for breaking a covenent, my argument is that you must allow mercy to have her way, lest you be judgemental.

You need to allow for cultural context in interpreting the famous exceptions to divorce. Consequently, to condemn another person to singleness for life for what is not their fault is extreme in my view. If that is the victim of adultery's choice, that is one thing. To force on another person what is out of the context of the culture and time that the exception rule was made was in is a pointless exercise, because it cannot be enforced.

It is impossible to turn back time and culture perfectly. One has to interpret the divorce exclusions in the terms of mercy it was made in, not in terms of perfection, which none of us can reach.

This entire thread has been brought back away from the discussion of divorce several times to clarify that the exclusions of divorce, except as a RARITY, not a NORM, was what Jesus was speaking of, and then only to add that to the consideration of a leader's qualifications.

And yes, Jesus, in not specifying what the victim was able to do or not do, may put all the following marital sin of the victim on the victimizer's head. But you know, He didn't say so, and so I hesitate to go there.

I don't want to go into judgement of anyone for anything, even in reply to what they have said in this thread. Consequently my last post, to which you seem to take exception to, was a statement against judgementalism, not to mention against putting a covenant broken by the adulturer above the mercy in Christ's famous exception to divorce.

What I was trying to get to, orginally, is that an obvious victim, divorced due to accident or illness, is still eligible for even the highest office in the church, whether he re-marries or not.

Robert took me out of context, and replied only to that single statement, which was not pertinent to the entire thread. I replied to his statements that did not address the topic of the thread, and did so with vigor, because I was appalled, and still am, that there is no mercy in that viewpoint, not even the mercy of Christ.

Christ never said one word that was not meant exactly as He said it, and His words are directly in line with what the Father states, or He wouldn't say it.

Since Jesus said that 1)adultery, or 2)un-yoking from a non-believer who wouldn't allow Christianity to be practiced, are the only reason to divorce, it is sufficient for me. Why is it not for you?

With a migraine,

Forrest

I would like to throw this out here for you all to consider...... Maybe it will help someone...I know it will not be popular....

A Marriage Covenant, Marriage Vows, a Marriage Agreement and a Covenant Marriage are all conditional. There is no such thing as an "unconditional" marriage covenant. The very terms: marriage agreement, marriage vows and marriage covenant all mean they are conditional. That is what a vow, covenant or an agreement is: a union based upon conditions.

By: Stephen Gola

Instant Printable PDF Download

What is a Covenant?

The word "covenant" is defined as "a compact" which is an agreement between two or more parties. In our case, we mean a marriage covenant. Within the very meaning of the name "covenant" lies the essential fact that there are conditions to a covenant. A "covenant" is made up of conditions (terms of agreement) which each party has agreed to uphold, otherwise, there is no covenant. Covenants are legal documents or verbal agreements whereby oaths of faithfulness are expressed between two or more parties. A covenant carries legal authority in which all parties are constrained (obligated) by the conditions of the covenant. It is always conditional upon each of the parties involved to fulfill their part of the covenant. There is no such thing as an "unconditional" covenant. "Unconditional" means no conditions or that anything goes. This in itself would negate the very use of the word covenant. However, there is such a thing as a conditional covenant becoming a "permanent" covenant after all of the conditions of the covenant have been fulfilled.

Establishing a covenant is different than fulfilling a covenant. Establishing a covenant is the successful agreement of the parties involved regarding the terms and conditions of the covenant. Fulfilling the covenant is the actual carrying-out of that agreement.

Because a covenant depends upon each party fulfilling their agreed-upon part, it carries the legal authority that conditions must be met by all parties or the covenant is broken.When a covenant is broken without seeking remedy for reconciliation and restitution or both, the covenant obligations cease and the agreement is terminated. In the case of the marriage covenant when there is a divorce, there is actually an additional covenant which comes into play resulting from the children who are born within the marriage covenant. This additional covenant (the covenant between the children and the parents), continues despite the ended marriage covenant.

God Makes Conditional Covenants

Unconditional marriage covenants did not start with God, but with man by His church teaching (tradition) that a marriage covenant is indissolvable. Even when God first created man in the Garden of Eden, He made a conditional covenant with them. To enable the man and woman to prove their love to Him, God put a tree in the midst of the Garden called: The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God's only command to them was for them not to eat of this specific tree. Everything else in the world was theirs; otherwise, they would start dying both spiritually and physically. This was their proof of loyalty and love to God because of the awesome responsibility and authority He had given them over the entire universe. You cannot have true love unless you have the option not to love.

Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." The keeping of the commandments (the conditions) of the covenant is the way we show God that we love Him. Without the keeping of the commandments of the covenant, there is NO display of commitment (love) to God. We have broken covenant! His justice requires us to e ither make restitution and/or reconciliation or else we break our relationship totally with God.

God only operates upon truth. Therefore, if it appears that God is not doing His part in our life it is because WE are not fulfilling our part of the covenant. Covenants are conditional.

One of the conditional covenants that God made is one that almost everyone in the world is familiar with, the covenant with the condition of circumcision. In Genesis 17:10, 14 the Lord said to Abraham, "This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised."Then in verse 14 the Lord gave Abraham the penalty for not fulfilling the condition of the covenant: "And the uncircumcised male child, WHO IS NOT CIRCUMCISED in the flesh of his foreskin, that person SHALL BE CUT OFF from his people; HE HAS BROKEN MY COVENANT."

Another example of God's covenants is the one He made with Israel: "Now therefore, IF you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, THEN you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine" (Exodus 19:5). When a covenant has to do with man, a covenant is always conditional if it is to be a covenant. God does not make unconditional or unbreakable covenants with fallible sinful man. However, He does turn a conditional covenant into a permanent covenant when all of the conditions of the covenant have been met. This can be seen in the case of the covenant God made with Abraham. The covenant was actually made with Abraham's Seed to come, Jesus. After Jesus fulfilled all the righteous requirements of the covenant (which included living a sinless life, taking the penalty for man's sins upon Himself in hell, and being rightfully raised from the dead forever incorruptible), God turned it into a permanent covenant. (See Galatians 3:16 and Hebrews 1:8-9).

Because God knows our sinfulness, He does not make unconditional or unbreakable covenants with man. Therefore, who are we as sinful man, to even consider that the covenants we make with each other (in this case, marriage), are indissolvable or unbreakable because of unsurpassing violations by the other party? Covenants are conditional; that is why they are called "covenants" because they contain provisions to protect the party of the agreement who do not violate the covenant.

Marriage Covenants

Unconditional, Defined

The very word "unconditional" means without conditions. In other words, it does not matter how many violations of the marriage covenant that a partner makes, the covenant is still intact. The word "unconditional" is a contradiction of the word "covenant." If a marriage covenant did not have conditions it would be like saying that one partner can abuse the other, or a spouse can have sex or play around with anyone outside of the marriage and always feel welcomed back into a safe, secure and happy relationship. This is too ridicules to even consider! Nevertheless, this is exactly what has been taught by the church in saying that a marriage is indissolvable! Because it has been taught as truth that "God hates divorce," it is implied that marriage covenants are unconditional and unbreakable and that NO violations of the terms of agreement will affect the covenant because there are NO conditions! To imply that a marriage covenant has no conditions is a corruption of the marriage institution itself! Whenever the conditions of the covenant have been violated, broken or not met, there is a breech of contractand the covenant agreement was not fulfilled as agreed upon. Therefore, restitution, reconciliation and/or dissolving of the marriage covenant is sought. Covenants always stand upon the foundation of justice, truth and love rooted in morality.

Marriage covenants Sacred? YES! Permanent? No!

Only in two places in Scripture is marriagedefined aspermanent and indissolvable. They are in Deuteronomy 22:13-30 where God has actually REMOVED the right to divorce; not allowing the violating spouseto dissolve the marriage covenant. This means that when needed, the right to divorce (the dissolving of the marriage covenant) has always been there. In these cases that right was abused, so God revoked it for the sake of the woman.
The first instance was when the husband claimed that his new wife was not a virgin, when in fact, she was proved to be so. Because the husband brought a bad name upon her, "...He cannot divorce her all his days" (Deuteronomy 22:19). The other case was when a man had sex with a virgin single woman. He must pay support money (the dowry of a bride) to her family, and by having sex with her he has taken her as his wife and "...[Was not] permitted to divorce her all his days" (Deuteronomy 22:29). But "if her father utterly refuses to give her to him [the marriage would be cancelled and father and daughter would keep the dowry]" (Exodus 22:16).

These are the only two cases where the covenant of marriage was NOT allowed to be dissolved. God removed the man's rights to dissolve the marriage in this case because he violated the woman without marrying her which was a greater violation. God forbad it to protect the woman so she would always be supported during her life. However, the wife still had the right to divorce her husband even though her husband could not divorce his wife. The right to divorce has always existed in the case of a marriage covenant being violated; however, in these cases, that right was lost. Thus, God recognizes that covenants are conditional.

Vows: Conditions of the Marriage Covenant

The vows of a marriage are the conditions of the covenant set forth before the marriage takes place. The marriage ceremony is the "place of agreement" where each partner takes a solemn oath to uphold the terms and conditions of the marriage covenant to which both parties have agreed. The "living together in a marriage union" is the environment in which the agreed-upon conditions of the covenant is carried out by both parties. Marriage IS a lifetime commitment; however, it is not a lifetime commitment without conditions. The ability to keep one’s promise to “love” (keeping the marriage vows) is rooted in godly character. (See articles on The Extreme Significance of The Fruit of The Spirit and God's ("Unconditional") Love: It's Moral Its Conditional.

Because the marriage covenant has been taught to be unconditional and unbreakable, it is powerfully inferred that there is no violation that can qualify for the covenant to be dissolved except in several far-reaching cases. Vows have come to mean nothing.

Let me give an example of an unconditional one-sided covenant agreement. It is your wedding day and you exchange vows with your beloved. The man says, "I take my wife, to have as I wish and to abuse if she does not listen, to meet all my needs, to hurt her as often as I desire because she is now my wife and cannot escape. I own her. I can have sex with anyone I desire and do as I please in complete disregard to her feelings." The wife says, "I take my dear husband to have and to hold, to cherish and to love, in sickness and disease, for better and for worse, always seeking ways to strengthen and grow our relationship till death do us part." NOBODY would ever consider such a vow; however, this is exactly what is taking place when the conditions of the marriage covenant are taught as being unconditional.

Covenant is Relationship

Covenant is relationship! "Relationship" in its very definition carries the fact that there is mutual caring andmoral obligations between each party, and the fulfilling of needs within each other.Simply because there is a relationship, they are in covenant.
Covenants are protected by the covenant partners. This results in a covenant that has conditions and can be violated. The covenant partners are to protect their covenant from those outside the covenant, namely, those who have not been invited to be a part of their relationship. In the case of marriage, it would be any person outside the marriage because that person does not have exclusive rights to sharing the depths of each others emotions, bodily contact and sexual enjoyment.

How the Devil Used the Errors of the Marriage Covenant Being "Unconditional"

The devil was able to spin a web of lies and deceit which drove couples away from the original marriage covenant because of the errors taught by God's church. Of course the church did not decide to teach error; rather, the truth has been lost through time.

Let me explain. I believe that because the truths of marriage, divorce, remarriage, submission and covenant have been lost through time, it gave the devil a powerful opportunity to actually use the errors that are being taught as truth within the church to enslave many of God's people in bad marriages. His church, the very people of God, who have been given the awesome responsibility to uphold these truths have become the very taskmasters enslaving God's people by ignorantly upholding the devil's agenda.

Somewhere down through history well-intended translators of the Bible have adopted these errors as truth. I believe some were done purposely to fit their desires, but most were probably through ignorance. Because the famous Scripture of Malachi 2:16 has been translated and taught as "God hates divorce" instead of its real meaning of "God hates a separation (to marry another person without getting divorced first)," the devil was able to convince us that marriage covenants are unconditional. If he could get the church to believe that marriage covenants are unconditional, he could use the church itself as a prison camp to enslave God's people thereby disabling them from fulfilling the calling of God on their lives because of fear, guilt and shame. Sadly, He has accomplished his mission, to a great extent.

The devil was also able to tie together the wrong translation and teachings of "God hates divorce" to the church teaching that there are no valid claims in which one can divorce (because marriage is taught to be an unconditional covenant). This has propagated the message that the marriage vows (the conditions of the marriage covenant), are useless and invalid, thus binding the victim of the violation into an indissolvable relationship. (See For Better or For Worse.)
As sin and lukewarmness have been escalating within society and particularly the church, more and more people have been making wrong decisions regarding which mate they choose, many times resulting in going off into very bad marriages and sin. Because of the great marital problems this has created, it has caused marriage to be viewed as a failing institution.

Thus, the devil has in many ways been successful in presenting God's institution of marriage to be a failure. Not only is it a failure but the devil makes it into a prison where a person is united in an unconditional, indissolvable covenant relationship with another person who can abuse them at will and they have no way out while the church leadership is ignorantly poised as the devil’s prison wardens. Because marriage is being now presented more like a prison than as a loving relationship, many have disregarded the original marriage structure, not because they wanted to, but because they were forced to safeguard their hearts in case of relationship violations. In other words, they have enacted their own covenant-relationship safeguards because the church has taken theirs away through ignorance and deception. The church can recapture the institution of marriage and again elevate it to its proper place and thereby pulling many from the fire; however, the restoration of these lost truths by God's leadership must come first. The church must acknowledge its failure in the teaching the errors regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. In behalf of God's leadership, I ask you for forgiveness. Please pray for us! Stephen Gola.

See also What Does "For Better or for Worse" Mean in a Marriage?
All Rights Reserved, © Copyright 2006 by Stephen Gola
(All Scriptures taken from the King James Version Bible or the New King James version.)
******ALL TEACHINGS MAY BE USED WITHOUT PERMISSION TO TEACH AND TRAIN GOD'S PEOPLE. PLEASE KEEP THE COPYRIGHT INTACT.******

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

Forrest, sister ...

Would much rather just let Robert do his own clarifying, but seeing that he has not been back for a spell I think you still are misunderstanding his words here:

As a word of encouragement let me offer a little advice. There are those among us who are radically unconditional earthly matrimony. They believe that a man and woman who have married are bound until death no matter what the circumstances. They disregard all of the exception clauses. In short, to them, there is no such thing as a divorce (putting away)...If a person will lightly break their covenant with their spouse they will likely break it with Christ. Forgive me for saying, but I believe this is true. We are in covenant with Christ and we need to be in reputation for keeping covenant.

In actuality he is in agreement with you and was positing "they", "there are those among us who..." The point being not the subject but the [i]initiator[/i] "[i]If a person will lightly break their covenant with their spouse they will likely break it with Christ.[/i]" The initiator taking or making things light ... Hardly would he be making the issue of adultery a "light" matter.

You consider putting away even an admittedly adulterous spouse 'a light matter', as if there was no breaking of the covenent already! The marriage covenent has already been broken by the guilty party, and there is no sin in being a victim of betrayal.

That is not what is being stated at all ... it is the very opposite. Sister, to be honest you are taking him out of context, unintentional as it may be. Have every confidence in knowing Robert from his long tenure here that in no way would he make such an inference. Perhaps it was a sideways comment to that which you would have preferred addressed specifically, but this is quite normal in these discussions that they turn in variations following different lines.

Robert is in a second marriage, so he wasn't saying to you what you think he was. I, and some others who post here, are who he was speaking of as the "radical" ones. I must tell you that more and more I am finding out that other Christian Cultures around the world hold the same exact view that I have come to. In a culture that has growingly accepted divorce and remarriage as "normal", one has to wonder if the PRACTICES have effected HOW they are now viewing/interpreting scripture.

You are right Cindy, When Jesus speaks or remarital adultery, adultery means you have a spouse that does not belong to you. How can one repent of adultery and keep one that does not belong to them? If you repent of extra marital adultery you can't keep the one you are committing adultery with. Why is it different for remarital adultery?

Cheryl
Why I repented of an adulterous Remarriage
http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html
Frequently Asked Questions on Divorce & Remarriage
http://www.cadz.net/faq.html

Sermonindex: Teachings like this are the reason why there is failure in the Western Church. There can possibly be grounds for divorce and re-marriage, but to teach and speak of it in this way will allow sin to rot the church from within which is happening.

I think this is very true. This is what creates the crisis we now are seeing.

Having given this subject much consideration over the years I am increasingly concluding that what we really need is to return to the biblical basis of marriage and the plan as God intended it. One man and one woman for life with [u]no[/u] premarital fornication whatsoever.

I heard once that the true definition of whoredom is to take the love that belongs to the one and give it to another. I heard a brother ask some teens once; "So who's wife is it that you are kissing anyway?" It was a good question- because likely none of them were married- but surely they were someones [i]future[/i] wife or husband.

The reality is- premarital relations take something that belongs to one and gives it to another. This is also true of adultery. Let me explain:

Prov 6:29-35

29: So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.

30 Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;

31 But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.

32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.

34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.

35 He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.
KJV

For those who have never suffered a spouse having had adultery committed against them this passage in Proverbs paints you a perfect picture. The young men to which it was taught knew no such experience- but they could understand perfectly the analogy.

There are many things that you don't have to teach children. One of them is the concept of 'propitiation'. Kids know that if they do something bad and can bring mom a flower- it will make it better (usually). This is a 'propitiation' or a price paid to remove the offense. There is another they don't need to be taught and it is the concept of [i]defilement[/i]. Perhaps we have all seen a child that wants the last cookie or donut. There is one left and they want it. As several hands take to the bowl a little hand reaches in and takes the last one and [u]immediately[/u] puts it to his mouth to lick it or may even 'spit' on it. Why? Because the child knows that if he/she spits on it or puts it to their mouth then no one else will want it. Why? They defiled it.

So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever [u]toucheth her[/u] shall not be innocent. Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to [u]satisfy his soul when he is hungry[/u]; But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.

The English word for 'toucheth' is the Hebrew word [i]hanogeea[/i] and is a euphemism for lying carnally with a woman. Follow the reasoning. If a man is caught stealing food (food filching) he can never give that food back. Even if he only took one bite- once it has made contact with his saliva the item is defiled. The Hebrew for defile means to contaminate. The food is 'contaminated'. No one would want to eat that defiled item under normal conditions. If someone takes your bottle of coke and then puts it to their mouth and 'backwashes' it- would you want it back? Not likely at all.

Now if the 'thief' be found they can still restore what was stolen. In fact, under the law they were to return 7X what was taken. This would be 7 bottles of coke or 7 cookies. They won't get back the cookie that was defiled or their [i]original[/i] coke- but they will get restitution. What was taken (the original cookie and coke) was ruined [i]to the original owner[/i].

We follow on with the writers argument:

[u]But[/u] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.

34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.

35 [u]He will not regard any ransom[/u]; neither will he rest content, though thou givest [u]many gifts[/u].

The Hebrew for 'many' carries the meaning of multiplication as when a man sows a seed and reaps a harvest (i.e. 'increaseth'). In the case of taking a man's wife- you have done far more than defiling some food or a bottle of coke. You have 'touched' a man's wife. And like the food, she cannot be returned in the condition she was in before you defiled her. You have tipped the coke- you have put the cookie to your mouth. What is the recourse for this person? Shall he give the man 7 wives to replace the one he has defiled or ruined for its intended use? If he 'multiplied' wives unto the man it would not compensate for the loss of his wife. Why? Because [i]she[/i] will never be the same as far as he is concerned.

If a man steal my cookie and eat it he can never give it back in a way that I would eat whats left under normal conditions. Now, what shall we say then? Can I forgive the thief? Yes. Does that forgiveness obligate me to eat the other half of the cookie? Am I somehow in hardness because I would not finish the coke that he backwashed? Not at all. Can I eat the cookie? Yes. I may brush off the part where he ate off it and eat the rest. I may pour out some of my pop and keep drinking. This is what grace [u]can[/u] do. But under no circumstances is any person obligated to do what only grace can do. We are obligated to forgive. What happens from there depends a lot on what happens.

No doubt the Holy Spirit gave us Proverbs 6 as a radical picture of what it is to take another man's wife. I have taught it thoroughly to my sons. It is the perfect picture that uses an natural concept that we have known since we were old enough to lick off the last sucker in the candy dish before our brother or sister could eat it. Everyone knows how that feels. Everyone knows how 'turned off' one gets to the sucker once your brother puts it in his own mouth. Carry this picture in your mind and ponder it deeply as you counsel folk in this matter. At least give them the honesty of truly reflecting on this perfect picture of Proverbs 6 of what the faithful party is going through. Selah.

Forrest's: Considering that in Christ's time a woman's father or brother had to seek a divorce for her, and the man had to do the divorcing even if he was at fault, if she were not permitted to remarry, her father or brother would be permitted to stone the adulturer, so that she would be a widow. I know that my father, were he allowed to, would have made sure I was a widow. He isn't allowed to, according to our law, and so my ex-husband is still alive.

Hi Forrest,

Sorry to not have been more clear. I do not type well enough to say all I would and sometimes leave gaps hoping to have been clear enough. My apology.

I personally don't know what the pastoral epistles truly intended to mean with the qualifications. But lest I cause offense, I have chosen to steer clear from official positions though I have been asked to step up many times. Maybe it's a cop-out? There is a great need for ordained ministers today and I really don't want the headaches to be honest. I have chosen this line for some 15+ years now. God still uses me in various capacities, but I never really known what certain folk believe so I try to stay out of the limelight. There are some very conservative groups in Missouri and I would be looked down on- even though they don't really know what happened. God forbid that my life would ever be a source of controversy in the church. I'm better off with teaching Sunday school, working with youth, visiting shut-ins and other like things. No need for banners, chief seats or name tags. ;-)

You are right Cindy, When Jesus speaks or remarital adultery, adultery means you have a spouse that does not belong to you. How can one repent of adultery and keep one that does not belong to them? If you repent of extra marital adultery you can't keep the one you are committing adultery with. Why is it different for remarital adultery?

The language I hear here reminds me of the situation of John Baptist and Herod. Herod had taken his brothers wife to be his own as a clear act of high fornication and adultery. This situation was similar to the young man in I Cor. 5:

1 Cor 5:1

It is reported commonly that there is [u]fornication[/u] among you, and such [u]fornication[/u] as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have [u]his father's wife[/u].

This is a violation of two laws:

1) It is a clear case of adultery
2) It is incest

Lev 18:8

The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

The case in Mark 6 deals with Herod:

Mark 6:17-18

For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.

18 For John had said unto Herod, [i]It is not lawful for thee to have [u]thy brother's[/u] wife.[/i]

Regardless of why this came about it was not lawful for a man to take his brother's wife while he was alive. If his brother were dead and she had no children he was commanded to raise up seed to his brother if he be a full brother (Maimonides).

Lev 18:16
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.

Both cases are virtually the same. The emphasis in Paul's writing that distinguished the act from the behavior of the Gentiles was that it was "his father's wife" or his close kinsman. He took his [u]father's[/u] wife and the man at Corinth took his [u]brother's[/u] wife. Clearly this is abnormal for even pagan's to perform. But Herod Antipas was notorious for putting away wives (Josephus See. Ant. 17, 1, 3; War, 1, 28, 4). It had been incest to Herod to have his brother's wife unless his brother was dead.

The language I hear here reminds me of the situation of John Baptist and Herod. Herod had taken his brothers wife to be his own as a clear act of high fornication and adultery. This situation was similar to the young man in I Cor. 5:

Very True, and you cannot keep anyone's wife that does not belong to you. If Jesus labeled it adultery then you cannot keep a spouse that does not belong to you. Adultery like any other sin must be repented of.

See my FAQ for more info
http://www.cadz.net/faq.html

Cheryl
Why I repented of an Adulterous Remarriage.
http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html

Adultery like any other sin must be repented of.

This is interesting. When adultery is committed against a spouse they surely must repent. The foundational aspect of the covenant has been violated. The faithful Christian spouse is obligated to forgive. But is the faithful spouse obligated to 'finish the cookie or the coke'? (Proverbs 6)

Prov 30:20

Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she [u]eateth[/u], and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.

And this is what makes adultery different than most any other sin -save murder. You cannot easily undo murder and you can't easily undo defilement. She 'eateth' and wipeth her mouth. This picture parallels what we read in Chapter 6. This is why the penalty for both murder and adultery was [i]death[/i].

Anything short of death is an act of mercy and is, I would argue, evidence of a changed heart. The heart of the man in Proverbs 6 is one of relentless unforgiveness and quest for revenge. Why? Because adultery is not a sin in which one wipes their mouth and says they have done nothing wrong. It is to [i]apostate[/i] within the marriage covenant. It is to defile yourself or contaminate yourself for the other spouses use. If, by God's grace, the faithful spouse can get past it then it is a good thing. But not everyone will. I refer back to the cookie and coke analogy. You can forgive the person- but the persons cannot undefile themselves. God's grace has to heal it and it is miracle upon miracles when He does and often is never known publicly. Only eternity will reveal the testimony of how God resurrected marriages after one spouse brought death through defilement.

Forrest's: Considering that in Christ's time a woman's father or brother had to seek a divorce for her, and the man had to do the
divorcing even if he was at fault, if she were not permitted to remarry, her father or brother would be permitted to stone the adulturer, so that she would be a widow. I know that my father, were he allowed to, would have made sure I was a widow. He isn't allowed to, according to our law, and so my ex-husband is still alive.

Hi Forrest,

Sorry to not have been more clear. I do not type well enough to say all I would and sometimes leave gaps hoping to have been clear enough. My apology.

I personally don't know what the pastoral epistles truly intended to mean with the qualifications. But lest I cause offense, I have chosen to steer clear from official positions though I have been asked to step up many times. Maybe it's a cop-out? There is a great need for
ordained ministers today and I really don't want the headaches to be honest. I have chosen this line for some 15+ years now. God still uses
me in various capacities, but I never really known what certain folk believe so I try to stay out of the limelight. There are some very
conservative groups in Missouri and I would be looked down on - even though they don't really know what happened. God forbid that my life would ever be a source of controversy in the church. I'm better off with teaching Sunday school, working with youth, visiting shut-ins and other like things. No need for banners, chief seats or name tags. ;-)

Apology accepted gladly, but not needed. You are allowed to state your views as firmly as you need to, and I am allowed to disagree, right? Nor does anyone except God have the ability to call you to a position in ministry, and it sounds like you do a lot already. As for not wanting the responsibility, I do understand that. I am glad to be a woman, and not required to shoulder that burden except in extraordinary circumstances. And although I have chosen to lay out openly the details of my life, and would face any amount of questions over my marriage, including how badly I acted in my confusion from the head injury and from my pride, not every one is required to undergo such an inquisition.

But if your area needs Pastors, they need to start loking for less than the perfect man, for there is no such thing. Whether you need to lead formally is between you and God.

But for your own sake, you should take a position. I did, and I chose to err on the side of grace.

Robert, you didn't offend me. Your ideas and statements provoked me, because they appeared to set man's law and tradition above God's mercy and grace. I still think that they do. In fact, I was so thunderstruck by what you said, whether you meant it to be read that way or not, that I wrote back deliberately to make people think about what was written.

I am glad to have witnessed such a response. The love that your friends have for you is apparent by their instant defense of you. I like you pretty darn well myself for such a short acquaintanceship, besides loving you in Christ as my brother.

Someone, during a spirited battle Jaysaved and I were having over Calvinism, when we agreed to disagree, told me that such behavior was cowardly. And frankly, I am sick to death of people pleasing, lest I hurt someone's feelings. I don't write to wound anyone either, but when I feel something deeply, I am now saying so.

Setting aside the fact that the thread we were involved with was in regards to limitations on leadership qualifications, the idea that one would not take Jesus literally when He said something really threw me.

And the idea of putting the victim of a broken covenant in the place of being the covenent breaker if he/she remarried did have me steaming.

As I said, if that is the individual's choice, it is one thing. It is another to teach against the exclusion that Jesus himself made. Simply put, in the economy of God, we do not have the right to make such judgments. We all sin, and each sin is the same to God. You can say
God hates divorce. Well, He also hates lying. And pride. And rebellion.

Levirite law was given by God. Jesus revoked a good deal of it, as marriage is as much a heart and soul issue as a body issue, and the New Covenent in Christ goes more to the heart and mind, with the body following. And frankly, if God divorced first Ephraim, then Judah, and brought us Christians into covenent with Him, we should take a look at that as well. I commit adultery in my marriage to God every time I go my way instead of His, and so does everyone else.
But because of Jesus, He forgives us.

No one should be so dogmatic in their beliefs as a Christian to not allow for mercy and grace for others. If you choose not to have mercy on yourself, that is your business. If you wish, as an adult, to have such strict standards for yourself, and teach them to your children, that is allowed you. I hope that you have a large church for them to select a mate of like teaching to choose from, as the Amish and Mennonites do, or a Christian from another denomination will taint your congregation when they marry in to your rules and regs. It's why Quaker's still read someone out of the Congregation (Excommunicate them) when someone marries 'out'.

It was why Mosaic law allowed for adulturers to be stoned to death. It wasn't just to punish the sin, but to crush the offense against the victim, and the society, and God as well. Adultery is that hurtful for God to allow, much less mandate, such a response. But in the New Covenent we are called to forgive, as He forgives us. We are not required, however, to accept the covenent breaker back. Yes, God would want us to try to make the marriage work, but there are times when you cannot.

In a society where a covenant marriage is not even recognized, and one has no legal rights even to force a spouse home to his/her duty, you run a grave risk of exactly my reaction to legalism as opposed to grace. Erring on the side of grace versus judgement is the wiser course of action in my view, particularly when the discussion is about a limited set of variables, the breaking of the marriage covenent by adultery admitted and blatant, and caused not by friction or ill-judgement in a marriage choice, but by outside events of illness or accident. But that was in regard to a Bishop's position, not the regular guy or gal.

When it come's to someone's personal life in this very complex age, I don't object to divorced Pastors or teachers, so long as the entire church knows the critical details, and it is okay with them. I doubt that a blatant, repetitive adulturer would be approved by anyone as a leader without a long period of proved repentence, service, and living in the fruits of the spirit, but even then anyone called by God is qualified, whether their divorce was due to a youthful marriage, made before conversion, or in mistake, due to bad teaching by their parents, or in caving in to the presures of the world for a while. These are case by case issues, for each church to make regarding their leader.

Jesus said, in Matthew 12:7 [color=993300] But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.[/color]

Yes, I know the above was about the sabbath laws in this specific instance. But for Jesus to then outlaw all Levirite divorce law, but leave in an exclusion for porneia, it can't have been to punish the innocent, or hold them to an already broken contract of marriage.

[color=993300]Strong's Number: 4202
Transliterated: porneia
Phonetic: por-ni'-ah

Text: from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest);
figuratively, idolatry: --
fornication.[/color]

Now, as to your cookie analogy, I wouldn't take my cookie back on a silver platter, unless God told me to do so directly. And even under those circumstances, I probably wouldn't be able to stand him touching me for quite some time, even if God guaranteed me a clean bill of health.

But knowing his current lifestyle, I have to remember to pray for him and his current wife, and the others that were involved with him as well, because they are all in such danger. And to be frank, since I don't know exactly when the adultery started, I still have to worry about AID's showing up in me...it's only been 11 years, after all. It's hard to live in a small town, and in addition know exactly who, when and where, and in what sequence, from the horse's mouth.

Yet, if I can forgive him, his current wife, and all his former lovers, over and over again, everytime the subject comes up, and I have to deal with all the pain again, how could I not give the benefit of the doubt to another similar victim, physically damaged by one of life's accidents or by disease, then deserted and betrayed by a marriage partner?

If Jesus forgives us, why cannot we forgive one another?

My whole point in this matter is to leave judgement to God, and have mercy on one another.
As to covenent marriage, every covenent is a contract, including the one we have with Christ. That Covenent is not unconditional either. Provision was made in Levirite and Christian marriage up into the early 1900's a.d. for seperation, support, and even divorce in those covenants, such as for the inability of bearing an heir. Jewish men leaving for war traditionally gave their wive's divorces so they could remarry if their body was never recovered, or their death witnessed.

In the Israel of today, one woman had a great deal of trouble getting a divorce from her husband, since all the Rabbi's could do was threaten the adulterous husband with jail if he did not give her the divorce, and the husband was already in jail, and spiteful to boot. The fact that he had tried to kill her from unwarranted jealousy, abused her and her children, and would not leave her alone in a seperated state were the causes for the Rabbi's to order a divorce. Are we to be less merciful?

And erring on the side of mercy, I also allow for spousal and child abuse, insanity, and downright cussedness, because we are people, humans, not passionless robots.

Yet, I took my vows seriously. I never even wanted a divorce. He wasn't willing to wait the ten years minimum for my recovery. For him, life had to go on, while I have been recovering these twelve years, and am still not anywhere near to being marriage material, unless someone really likes taking care of people.

Yet if God were kind enough to send me an observantly practicing Christian man, with a good sense of humor, that was attractive to me, I would re-marry, even knowing how difficult it would be for us both. I would assume that God had something He wanted us to stretch for, to walk through the pain and joy and heartache to get to, for any marriage is difficult, and requires dedication to make it work.

I would have loved to have been brought up in a sane church, with deeply held views that were practiced to the best of everyone's ability, and without hypocrisy. God didn't have that planned for me, even as an option, or I would have had different parents, different genes, and been a different person.

But I take the Bible literally. If it says forgive, I do, to the best of my ability. And if it says Christ said divorcing (dissolving the marriage covenent) an adulterer was okay, I take Him at His word.

He is, after all, God.

Blessings,

Forrest

Forrest's: And the idea of putting the victim of a broken covenant in the place of being the covenent breaker if he/she remarried did have me steaming.

Hmmm. Maybe this is where I was misunderstood. Certainly I believe that the covenant breaker in the case of adultery is the adulterer. The faithful party is not guilty in any wise. My points were addressed to those who break covenant within marriage and marry another without just cause.

No one should be so dogmatic in their beliefs as a Christian to not allow for mercy and grace for others. If you choose not to have mercy on yourself, that is your business. If you wish, as an adult, to have such strict standards for yourself, and teach them to your children, that is allowed you. I hope that you have a large church for them to select a mate of like teaching to choose from, as the Amish and Mennonites do, or a Christian from another denomination will taint your congregation when they marry in to your rules and regs. It's why Quaker's still read someone out of the Congregation (Excommunicate them) when someone marries 'out'.

Actually, I understand the subject about the same way as you do. Somehow those few posts must have cause some serious confusion. :-?

Now, as to your cookie analogy, I wouldn't take my cookie back on a silver platter, unless God told me to do so directly. And even under those circumstances, I probably wouldn't be able to stand him touching me for quite some time, even if God guaranteed me a clean bill of health.

And I don't believe you have to. I only would ask folk to try to work it out- if that is not possible- it's not possible. But a terrible grief it is.

Yet, if I can forgive him, his current wife, and all his former lovers, over and over again, everytime the subject comes up, and I have to deal with all the pain again, how could I not give the benefit of the doubt to another similar victim, physically damaged by one of life's accidents or by disease, then deserted and betrayed by a marriage partner?

This is why for a marriage to work after adultery both partners had better be seeking God with all their might. Ten minutes of lukewarmness and the enemy will come in like a flood. Only God can bring a person through this type of betrayal. Solomon in Proverbs 6 hits the nail on the head.

BTW Greg has posted some really good material on this subject. I believe it deserves an honest read from both sides.

RobertW wrote:

Forrest's: And the idea of putting the victim of a broken covenant in the place of being the covenent breaker if he/she remarried did have me steaming.

Hmmm. Maybe this is where I was misunderstood. Certainly I believe that the covenant breaker in the case of adultery is the adulterer. The faithful party is not guilty in any wise. My points were addressed to those who break covenant within marriage and marry another without just cause.

No one should be so dogmatic in their beliefs as a Christian to not allow for mercy and grace for others. If you choose not to have mercy on yourself, that is your business. If you wish, as an adult, to have such strict standards for yourself, and teach them to your children, that is allowed you. I hope that you have a large church for them to select a mate of like teaching to choose from, as the Amish and Mennonites do, or a Christian from another denomination will taint your congregation when they marry in to your rules and regs. It's why Quaker's still read someone out of the Congregation (Excommunicate them) when someone marries 'out'.

Actually, I understand the subject about the same way as you do. Somehow those few posts must have cause some serious confusion. :-?

I'm just glad to know we're on the same page, er post, now.8-)

Now, as to your cookie analogy, I wouldn't take my cookie back on a silver platter, unless God told me to do so directly. And even under those circumstances, I probably wouldn't be able to stand him touching me for quite some time, even if God guaranteed me a clean bill of health.

And I don't believe you have to. I only would ask folk to try to work it out- if that is not possible- it's not possible. But a terrible grief it is.

Yes, it is so awful it is worth almost anything to bear and forebear with one another.

Jesus, as God, knew the pain of spiritual adultery. To Him there can be no greater pain, and sense of horrifying disgust with what we do so easily...stray away from Him. Yet His love is so great, He can cleanse us with it, if we repent, and turn to Him.

I would my love were as great, but it isn't, at least for my ex-husband. That cookie is very crumbled after all this time. In fact, the poor cookie is so changed I hardly can recognize him, even in thought. And yet neither of us will ever forget the other, for the pain of the circumstances, and our reactions to them, and for the many good years before that time.

And I am grateful to Jesus to not have to feel sinful if He sends me someone to marry. I feel very much like a widow anyway.

I am glad that God can choose not to remember our sins against each other and against Him. And I will be glad when we are Glorified, and all that pain is removed from us because of the intensity of God's love, and our new, cleansed, state of being.

Ah, if only those we once loved had turned back in time. Love can do a lot, even in a human being. If only.... Very tragic words, for us as divorcees, and for man, if he is apart from God, or leaves Him.

But in my case, and I pray yours also, God turned it all to good...it just took a while, and frankly, He's not even finished yet!

And see, even we, as brother and sister, can misunderstand one another, talk it over, and find out that we agree after all is said and done.

I want the real deal from Christians...particularly in marriage. Walk it out, day by day. Work on the problems. Forgive and overlook a lot, except your safety, sanity, and walk with God.

But be faithful, oh please, be faithful.

Isn't that what God is always asking of us?

Blessings,

Forrest

P.S. My bolding on previous posts was not purposeful yelling or emphasis - I just figured out the quote quote /quote /quote thing!