Does divorce disqualify someone from being an evangelist, missionary, and or teacher?

I was wondering about biblical divorce in relation to different aspects of ministry such as evangelist, missionary, teacher etc…

"If the whole church goes off into deception that does not mean I have to follow."

On important issues like this it is good to read church history and seek the scriptures before God honestly. To ask men in our day what they "think" can lead to much error even though people are not trying to advise error.

To be a active missionary and elder in most mainstream churches 50 years ago would require you not being re-married after divorced. This again is a very tough issue and must be sought after between yourself and God to have a "clean and clear" conscience on the matter.

First of all, we must address the idea of ministry. What is it? To most, ministry is associated with what I will term, the professional ministry; the outward, organized and religious functions of a church or group. This is not necessarily the "ministry" at all. The ministry must be defined as the acts of the Holy Spirit; Christ in us bringing comfort, grace, life, and justice to others, inside and outside of the church.

There are, however, guidelines that speak of Godly character, especially in the Pastoral letters to Timothy and Paul, concerning public ministry and responsibilities in service to the church in the roles of the shepherds.[ ALWAYS PLURAL, by the way..] Divorce does not necessarily violate these standards of Godly integrity, though they may, as has been noted in this thread. This does depend on the circumstance of the divorce.

I think of the scripture, "If an unbelieving spouse depart, let him depart...a brother or sister is not in bondage under these circumstances..."

Now consider a Christian wife, who has been betrayed by her believing husband, who after forsaking her, drifts into the occult, and then into a slide into Satanic depravity. Is she bound to the marriage covenant, unable to marry the rest of her young life, because her husband chose the wicked? I think not. This, in my opinion, would fall into "the unbeliever." He slid and embraced unbelief. or visa versa...

In a time in my life, my marriage was a living pit of pain. My wife seemed to live to curse me. I have always been involved in evangelism, and sometimes traveled here and afar. I have been rebuked and confronted by some, saying in effect, with your marriage in such a shambles, how dare you minister. You are disqualified!

my response was : "well OK...but could I "just share my testimony? Would that be alright??

"I guess', was there reply.."Well, is it alright if I might just pray for the hurting and the sick??" "I suppose".

"Well, is it alright if I share my faith, and maybe try to lead someone to the Lord??"

"Can I comfort my brother or sister, as they struggle?"

Eventually red and angry faces appeared. The religious spirit arising to defy Christ in me.

Jesus was not qualified, in the eyes of the pharisees to minister. "on what authority do you do these things?"

No one can ever take Isaiah 61 away from any believer, male or female! No one, however they may want to. Ministry is an act of the Holy Spirit, Christ in us, the hope of glory. If it is from Him, the fruit of God will follow, no matter what or how man may oppose.

ps: I endured my struggle, and before my wife died suddenly one night, we were reconciled in a wonderful way in Christ. We were married, and I am so grateful that I had the grace not to bail out because of the pain. I enjoy a clear conscious now, that I might have lost if I did. I will not remarry, for other reasons...Tom

.
I for one just wanted to thank those who have not condemned divorced people in this thread (we have taken quite a beating on SI at times, but are still smiling and loving one another). I thank you for bringing Godly reasoning to the matter. Specifically the following:

Baohongen 2008/5/24 1:43 wrote:
I have known a number of people who were never technically divorced but lived with someone before they met and married their spouse. I know even more who slept around with various people before getting married. They technically are qualified to pastor many churches, whereas someone who actually married and was divorced is not.

I have known a number of people who were divorced before they ever became Christians. Is there grace to cover and restore them sufficiently to serve as missionaries and pastors?

We probably have all met pastors convicted of murder, robbery or other horrible crimes in their previous lives. Should they be allowed to serve where a divorced person is not?

Brothertom 2008/5/25 11:54 wrote:
No one can ever take Isaiah 61 away from any believer, male or female! No one, however they may want to. Ministry is an act of the Holy Spirit, Christ in us, the hope of glory. If it is from Him, the fruit of God will follow, no matter what or how man may oppose.

Thank you for the clarity.

God bless,

Author William J. Petersen wrote about John Wesley, father of the Methodist Church, as one who was divorced from Molly Vazeille, after a 25 year "explosive union."

John Wesley married late in his 40's(47 or 48)in the year 1751. She was a wealthy widow,and their marriage was nothing short of tumultuous. She left him numerous times,and in 1771 John wrote in his journals, "I have not left her; I have not sent her away; I will not recall her." (John Wesley, The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, Nehemiah Curnock, ed. (London: The Epworth Press, 1912; reprint),5:399-400.

J.C. Ryle, in his biographical chapter, writes this of Wesley's marriage to Molly: "'The union was a most unhappy one. Whatever good qualities Mrs Wesley may have had, they were buried and swallowed up in the fiercest and most absurd passion of jealousy. One of his biographers remarks: 'Had he searched the whole kingdom he could hardly have found a woman more unsuitable to him in all important respects'. After making her husband as uncomfortable as possible for 20 years by opening his letters, putting his papers into the hands of his enemies in the vain hope of blasting his character, and even sometimes laying violent hands on him' - I indeed read one account where it said she used to swing him around the room by his hair! - Mrs Wesley at length left her home, leaving word that she never intended to return."

After 25 years of marriage,the marriage ended in divorce in 1776. Ironically 10 years earlier in June of 1766, John Wesley wrote these words in a letter to his brother Charles Wesley, "In one of my last [letters] I was saying that I do not feel the wrath of God abiding on me; nor can I believe it does. And yet (this is the mystery), I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word.

Therefore I am only an honest heathen … And yet, to be so employed of God! And so hedged in that I can neither get forward nor backward! Surely there was never such an instance before, from the beginning of the world! If I ever have had that faith, it would not be so strange. But I never had any other evidence of the eternal or invisible world than I have now; and that is none at all, unless such as faintly shines from reason’s glimmering ray. I have no direct witness (I do not say, that I am a child of God, but) of anything invisible or eternal.

And yet I dare not preach otherwise than I do, either concerning faith, or love, or justification, or perfection. And yet I find rather an increase than a decrease of zeal for the whole work of God and every part of it. I am borne along, I know not how, that I can’t stand still. I want all the world to come to what I do not know." (quoted in Stephen Tomkins, John Wesley, A Biography [Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2003], p. 168.

According to scripture divorce disqualifies a person from being a pastor or an elder.

It's very clear about this.

Krispy

KrispyKrittr wrote:
According to scripture divorce disqualifies a person from being a pastor or an elder.

It's very clear about this.

Another verse that is absolutely clear in Scripture is "The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance." Period.

Again I post these wonderful words in case someone needs them who is divorced:

Baohongen 2008/5/24 1:43 wrote:
I have known a number of people who were never technically divorced but lived with someone before they met and married their spouse. I know even more who slept around with various people before getting married. They technically are qualified to pastor many churches, whereas someone who actually married and was divorced is not.

I have known a number of people who were divorced before they ever became Christians. Is there grace to cover and restore them sufficiently to serve as missionaries and pastors?

We probably have all met pastors convicted of murder, robbery or other horrible crimes in their previous lives. Should they be allowed to serve where a divorced person is not?

Brothertom 2008/5/25 11:54 wrote:
No one can ever take Isaiah 61 away from any believer, male or female! No one, however they may want to. Ministry is an act of the Holy Spirit, Christ in us, the hope of glory. If it is from Him, the fruit of God will follow, no matter what or how man may oppose.

1. Pastor and Elder are are not two distinct persons but are words which are descriptive of one and the same men who are functioning in the body of Christ as such. They are terms which denote more of what they do for the body than what many have assumed as their being a title to be called by. This must be understood to begin. Bishop and Overseer are synonymous terms as well. All of the above terms describe men who are gifted by God and therefore called of God to lead and guide the flock. Having been graced with wisdom from above and maturity in the faith, evident to all, who consequently are willing to give deference to them due to their caring example and exemplary lives.

2. A widow is to be "the wife of one man (1 Timothy 5:9)." Young widows are encouraged to get remarried (1 Timothy 5:14). The word one(Heis) in 1 Timothy 5:9 is the numeral one. In "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2;Titus 1:6) the word one is an adjective(Mia). As insignificant as this may sound at first,the actual ramifications are that prohibition of remarriage is clearly not the correct interpretation in the elder context. These qualifications mentioned and addressed here are clearly in regard to his character rather than his past marital status. These are qualifications of what he 'must be' in the present tense. The word "be" in both 1 Tmothy 3:2(Einai) and Titus 1:6 (Esti) are both verbs. In 1 Tmothy 3:2 the word "must" is dei. The same word dei is used in Acts 4:12 ...by which we must be saved.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states "The tense of dei is present. This means that the action of the verb is occurring at the time that the writer composes the letter. This reinforces what is known from the historical background. The qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 are qualities that must be observed in men who are serving as elders. Of course, it would also be logical to use these qualities as qualifications for elder candidates."

Here are some words(not mine)which I consider to be very insightful on this apparent dilemma:

"First Timothy 3:2 does not say "an elder must be married only once" nor does it say "an elder cannot remarry."

To place this type of stern restriction on a godly man seems quite unjust. One should avoid the Pharisaical error of binding men with unnecessary and oppressive burdens (cf. Matt. 23:1-4; Acts 15:10) and should seek to be gracious at every opportunity.

If Paul had stated "eschon mias gunaikos mones" ("having had only one wife"), it would be easier
to argue that Paul meant possessing only one wife in one's lifetime up to the point of his being examined. However, he did not make such a statement.

Some would treat divorce and remarriage as the unpardonable sin and practically force some genuine, godly Christians into a life of spiritual exile, treating these forgiven children of God as though the blood of Christ could not thoroughly cleanse them, as though they are not quite as pure as other Christians.

The translation "husband of one wife" is not the best understanding of the Greek phrase "mias gunaikos andra," but it should be translated "a man of one woman" or "a one woman man." This understanding emphasizes the character of the man rather than his marital status. Thus even
a single man or a man who has been married only once must demonstrate that he is not flirtatious, but that he is stable and mature in
character toward his wife or other females. A man who demonstrates a character of loyalty and trustworthiness in such personal relationships is qualified in this area. This shifts the emphasis away from an event that took place in a man's life before his conversion and properly
concentrates on the character and quality of his life at the present time.

The importance of understanding what Paul means by a "one-woman man" is critical. The lives and Christian service of hundreds of Christian men are affected by one's view. It may be safer simply to offer an impersonal and broad judgment forbidding any one who is divorced (or married to someone who has been divorced) to be an elder/pastor.

Paul's instruction includes only three words, "mias gunaikos andra," as one of
several requirements for being an elder (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1;6) or a deacon (1 Tim. 3:12, where the pl. "andres" is used).

the other qualification in 1 Timothy 3 deal with the man's character and since the grammatical structure is more naturally consistent with this emphasis, it seems best to understand the phrase as meaning that he is a one-woman type of man.

Since neither the grammar of the phrase nor any reference in the context implies that Paul was discussing a once-in-a-lifetime situation, then that idea must not be forced into the text.

Again, if Paul had said something like "eschon mias gunaikos mones," then one could speak more assuredly that Paul meant having had only one wife ever. Paul, however, simply said he must "be" ("einai," present tense) a man of one woman.

Kenneth S. Wuest states, "The two nouns [for 'woman' and 'man'] are without the definite article, which construction emphasizes
character or nature." He concludes, "Thus one can translate, 'a one-wife sort of a husband,' or 'a one-woman sort of man.'" (Kenneth S. Wuest, "The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament" (Grand rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), p. 53.

"In a culture where men frequently cohabited with more than one woman, Paul needed it very clear that an elder in the church was to
be a 'one-wife man' -- loyal to her and her alone."

If a church is bound to judge its members on the consequences of their lives before conversion, who then could meet the majority of the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3? Are churches as quick to forbid a man to be an elder or deacon because before his conversion he was not "above reproach" or because he was "pugnacious"?.

Certainly one cannot attempt to make the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 apply to a man's life before he was saved. If God has forgiven him and made him a part of His church, why do Christians hold his past against him? When one is saved, all his sins are forgiven (Col. 2:13); he becomes a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13); his body becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19); he receives a new nature created after God's own holiness (Eph. 4:24); he becomes a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17); and he becomes a part of God's "spiritual house" (1 Pet. 2:5) and "royal priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:9). Before a man is saved, he is dead toward God and his holy standards. He has no power
over sin, no knowledge of God's Word or will; thus to judge one's life before his new birth is totally unjust. Paul states that even adulterers (as in divorce and remarriage) were 'washed . . . sanctified . . . justified"(1 Cor.6:9-11).

Paul's concern in 1 Timothy 3:1-10 is that if a man desires to be an elder he must be qualified "at that time," not before his conversion. Is the church guilty of Peter's prejudice (Acts 10:9-16) so that God must also rebuke believers and say as he did to Peter, "What God has cleansed, no 'longer' consider unholy?" It does not seem possible that by Paul's phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2 he intends to
hold a man's preconversion sins against him.

Apparently those who prohibit a remarried man from service as an elder or deacon overlook the obvious point of the list in 1 Timothy 3. Paul's list deals primarily with the "character" or "attitudes" of men seeking these services in the church. The requirements are based on what the man "is," not what may have transpired in his past. Thus Paul wrote, "an overseer, then,
must be " ("dei oun . . . einai"). He expressed the same idea in Titus 1:6 ("ei tis estin"). Even as "temperate," "prudent," "respectable." and other qualifications deal with his character, so also a "one-woman (kind of) man" is a character trait demonstrated by a chaste and mature attitude toward his wife and other females. Lenski offers a similar explanation: "The emphasis is on "one" wife's husband, and the sense is that he have nothing to do with any other woman. He must be a man who cannot be taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity." Lenski points out that converts did not always immediately withdraw from their pagan customs and become instantly
perfect in sexual purity; thus Paul set up this standard of moral character.

Indeed, to say that a man's character means that he is content with his one wife is not lowering God's standard; it is putting the emphasis where it belongs -- on the quality of a man's moral attitudes after his conversion. To judge a man's spiritual qualities on the basis of a sin committed before he was saved, before he was capable of understanding God's will or Word, and
before he had the power of Christ's life within him is to create a false standard that detracts from God's wonderful grace and which also fails to deal with the real issue of 1 Timothy 3."

I add an amen to the above!

Intens4Him...

You said:

Another verse that is absolutely clear in Scripture is "The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance." Period.

This makes no sense in this context. This is a good example of wrestling a verse out of context to make it mean what you want it to mean.

Are we to believe that someone can commit gross sin as a minister and still carry on in the ministry? No, that would be absurd.

You talk about pastors who have committed murder, or theft... etc... but did they commit it before or after they were saved? If before, then it doesnt matter. And it's absurd for you to even suggest that I would think it does.

Divorce after salvation, however, is a different story. Homosexuality after salvation is a different story. Murder after salvation is a different story.

How you cant comprehend that is beyond me.

We have to ask why Paul put so many restrictions on those who would be elders/pastors. It is because it is a calling, and it is one of high purity. Those who would claim to represent God from the pulpit, or shepherd a flock need to be above reproach. Paul even says if they can not rule over their own home properly, how can they be expected to conduct God's house properly?

Divorce is never caused by only one spouse. If a wife cheats... her husband is partly to blame. Something went haywire. If a man cheats, something went haywire, and the wife is partly to blame.

A divorced man has split loyalties all the way around. Usually he is constantly having to deal with an ex-wife, child custody, accusations, etc. In other words... he has too much going on trying to keep his personal life, and the life of his family from unwinding that he does not have the time or energy to properly shepherd God's people.

If being in the ministry was just an occupation, then perhaps a divorced man could do it. But it isnt... and in order to maintain the integrity and purity of the office of elder/pastor [b]GOD[/b] (thru Paul) put very restrictive qualifications on those who would seek that office.

I dont care if a divorced man appears to be doing a good job of pastoring, the fact is... he isnt qualified scripturally. People want to argue with me that women can be pastors... but scripture is extremely clear that that is out of order. It's completely out of God's order, and Paul even gives an explanation of why it's out of order... and yet people who call themselves Christians want to ignore it... because they know a woman pastor who is sincere.

Yea, and Hitler was sincere too. Sincerity is not the litmus test for what is godly. Scripture is.

There are a lot of people even on this forum that may get sucked into believing a false teacher because he has charisma and sounds good and seems to be running a dynamic church.

So just because someone appears to be used of God doesnt make it so... especially when his life doesnt line up with scripture.

God will still save souls and minister to people... but it's [b]IN SPITE OF[/b], not because of the man.

And that's the truth of the matter. Scripture is clear, scripture says it... and thats just the way it is.

In the future, dont please dont bend scripture to meet what you want it to mean.

Krispy

BTW... I also want to state that I am in no way suggesting that divorce cant be forgiven and the person cant be used of God.

We have several divorced folks in our fellowship, and they are mightly used of God in various areas of ministry... but not as elder/pastor. Divorced people are more than capable and gifted to serve within the church.

Krispy

Krispy wrote:
We have several divorced folks in our fellowship, and they are mightly used of God in various areas of ministry... but not as elder/pastor. Divorced people are more than capable and gifted to serve within the church.

Zionshield also has another great perspective:

I Tim. 3:2 ..."husband of one wife" is literally in the Greek "one woman man". If one believes that a man can't be in the "ministry" after divorce this text can't support that. If you were to take that from this scripture wouldn't you also have to conclude a widowed man could not remarry and remain a pastor?

If God called (let's use John as an example), say before John got married or even while he was married, he was called to be a elder/pastor and then down the road a divorce happens for whatever reason (I'm not debating reasons). If nothing takes God by surprise and even though God hates divorce; he who called John is faithful and eternal. Correct? So if God knows our beginning and he knows our end; if this is true.... and he truly is Alpha and Omega, then when he called us, he also knew our sinful middle. And yet he called John to be a elder/pastor knowing all this before he called John? Either God is God of it all or He isn't.

I don't know if you know this or not, not being divorced but divorced people are broken people, especially those who have had a call on their lives because one reason is that they have to constantly deal with "man's" interpretation of Scripture and men telling them what they can and cannot do in the spiritual realm. When in fact God knew before our birth what we would do and yet he called anyway.

BTW... I also want to state that I am in no way suggesting that divorce cant be forgiven and the person cant be used of God.

Please know that my whole point in even responding to this thread was not to restart yet one more thread on divorce but to respond to what a couple of people had originally wrote but you couldn't let someone be encouraging to divorced people, could you? LOL (wink) I've been down this road before on SI and even in life. All I'm going to say about divorced people being "mightily used of God in various areas of ministry... but not as elder/pastor," is, so say you (and all those who agree with that particular interpretation of Scripture).

Krispy, from your writings – I know that you are a good man and a Godly man and I also know you believe very strongly about this, just as strongly as I do about NOT agreeing with this particular interpretation because I have seen Christ work and move with people who have failed Him miserably in divorce as well as other areas and are broken. I can’t explain it but God is using them mightly and yes, even in the areas of eldering and pastoring despite us or in spite of us and our interpretation of Scripture!! Praise God for that!

God bless you in your walk with Him!!

This is just one perspective but a man who has committed adultery and yet remains married to the same woman, can he still be considered to be an elder or a pastor? How many times would he have to commit adultery to be taken out of the running for elder or pastor? There’s a flaw in this logic, this makes absolutely no sense because Christ said, “every time you look upon a woman to lust after her, you’ve committed adultery.” If that truly be the case as is being interpreted, we would have NO pastors or elders.

You're grasping for straws.

As for this "one woman man" thing, thats bogus. The only people I've ever heard use this argument are those who want to justify putting a man who has been divorced in the pulpit.

Interestingly, this is a fairly new concept in the way it is presented. You'll not find this argument in the writings of the great theologians of the past.

This type of wordly sinful humanistic reasoning reminds of Henry VIII and how he had the Catholic religious leaders of England in the 1500's try everything within their power to justify him wanting a divorce.

If God called (let's use John as an example), say before John got married or even while he was married, he was called to be a elder/pastor and then down the road a divorce happens for whatever reason (I'm not debating reasons). If nothing takes God by surprise and even though God hates divorce; he who called John is faithful and eternal. Correct? So if God knows our beginning and he knows our end; if this is true.... and he truly is Alpha and Omega, then when he called us, he also knew our sinful middle. And yet he called John to be a elder/pastor knowing all this before he called John? Either God is God of it all or He isn't.

The John you're speaking of... is his last name Calvin by any chance? What you're saying is it is impossible to be out of God's will, when scripture is repleat with example after example of people who walked out of the will of God. Sampson... prime example. After he disobeyed God he never again held the same position. God used him, but not in the same way.

King David... even tho he was forgiven, he lost all control over his kids, and his family was a wreck. He was a man after God's own heart... but after he committed adultry and murder things were NEVER the same. For a season he had to watch his back because his own son was trying to kill him and take over his kingdom.

I don't know if you know this or not, not being divorced but divorced people are broken people, especially those who have had a call on their lives because one reason is that they have to constantly deal with "man's" interpretation of Scripture and men telling them what they can and cannot do in the spiritual realm. When in fact God knew before our birth what we would do and yet he called anyway.

I council divorced people in our fellowship all the time... I'm certain I probably know about as much as I can know without actually going thru it myself... which I wont.

On the issue of "man's interpretation"... you are insinuating by the use of the word "interpretation" that to the naked eye it's difficult to know what scripture has to say about the scriptural qualifications of being a pastor/elder.

But it isnt. It's VERY clear. It's perhaps one of the clearest passages of scripture. It aint me who is making it sound as tho it's saying something it isnt. It's folks who are changing "husband of one wife" to "one woman man".

"One woman man" cracks me up. You could get married and divorced 30 times, and as long as you are only with one woman at a time... go ahead and preach!

C'mon... call a spade a spade... thats just stupid.

I know you are saying that they can be forgiven and used of God. And yet throughout the hallowed halls of SI and many other Biblical forums on the Internet, there are mere human beings laying down the conditions of HOW divorced people CAN BE used by God and can’t be. I find it interesting that forgiveness can go only this far.... but not all the way for certain sins and people.

It has nothing to do with forgiveness. It has everything to do with the qualifications that GOD has put on any man who wishes to be an elder/pastor. Other than that, there are very few limitations on how a divorced person can serve.

Stop equating full restoration with forgiveness.
They are not the same thing.

Krispy, from your writings – I know that you are a good man and a Godly man and I also know you believe very strongly about this, just as strongly as I do about NOT agreeing with this particular interpretation because I have seen Christ work and move with people who have failed Him miserably in divorce as well as other areas and are broken. I can’t explain it but God is using them mightly and yes, even in the areas of eldering and pastoring despite us or in spite of us and our interpretation of Scripture!! Praise God for that!

Again, these passages of scripture need no interpretation. The only ones who think they need to be interpreted and explained are those who wish to disobey scriptures clear teaching on this.

God bless you in your walk with Him!!

You too, sister. (It's interesting that women are usually the ones who most adamently disagree with me on this)

Krispy

The issues Paul were addressing concerning Shepherds, or Elders in the local church in the Pastoral Epistles were simply issues of proven Godly character. Paul himself was not married; Peter was. They were both Elders and Apostles, who came 1st in authority in the big Church. If Peter was divorced by his wife, through no fault of his own, or virtually no involvement, and responded to his wife with mercy and love, to no avail, would that affect his character, relationship with the Lord or service to the Lord one bit?...No, of course not.

It would be no different than if his wife had died. The issue though may be with re-marriage, and that always depends on the circumstance.

Consider Job's wife. "Curse God and die!". and this , as we see, was in the midst of absolute desolation and pain. "Curse God and die!" If ever a grounds for divorce was justified, here it does lay,,,Did the Lord think any less of Job?, or his position? because of his wife's infidelity? No, not one bit. Consider Michal's mocking and disrespect of King David, who effectively put her away, until her death. Did this affect the Lord's favor toward his chosen son?...No, a resounding no.

There is no place I see in scripture that a man must step down from elder ship because of divorce. Sin or rebellion to God, yes....divorce, in itself, may find an entirely innocent man who the Lord has placed in ministry, and desires to keep him there. Remarriage does enter into a different set of order, though. Godly character and stability are the requirements for oversight inside of the church of God, and these cannot and should not be allowed to be stained by the actions and sins of another, even if it be a spouse.

I've counciled many couples... and have never found where one party was completely innocent in a divorce. There was always a break down in the marriage that involved both parties. Both parties could have prevented it from happening. Unfortunately one party usually takes things a step further by having an affair.

There is no such thing as an innocent party in a divorce... ever.

Paul says that if a man can not keep his own family together and in order, then how can he expected to keep things together in God's house? It's obvious what the answer is... he cant be.

Krispy

Krispy,
Still, no scriptures, no matter how many marriages you have counselled. Paul spoke of children under a godly order.

The idea that there is never an innocent party in divorce is naive, and shows not only your inexperience, but lack of understanding of church doctrine. Where is it stated in the Bible?

There are, and have been many innocent parties in divorce issues. A divorced Pastor may retain his eldership, under the condition that he was acting honorably and in a holy way. See the past on Wesley, and there have been other historical pastors who have encountered this; but the Bible is our ultimate standard, and your position is unfortunately built on sentiment or tradition.

BrotherTom, you know I love you. Therefore I know you will not be offended when I tell you that your response shows a lack of training and understanding, not mine. I have never counselled a couple where adultry has taken place and the other spouse hadnt contributed to the marital problems that led to said adultry.

It's quite simple... it's two flawed people married to each other.

I would never ever say to someone "you caused your spouse to cheat" because the cheater is responsible for their behavior. But BOTH spouses have contributed to the problems that led up to the adultry.

And yes, Paul said what he said about houses being in order right on the heels of speaking about children... but don't you think he was talking about the elder's household in general? Not just the kids, but the entire household?

If an elder has a gossip for a wife, don't you think that is a problem?

This is common sense stuff. Enough of playing with scripture to make our points. Scripture is very easy to understand on this matter.

Krispy

As I said, your experience and sentiments trump scripture. There have been many, many marriages end in divorce that had nothing to do with one of the parties, husband or wife, and one of the divorcee's [b]is [/b] innocent.

Of course, "trouble in the flesh" is a promise when taking the marriage vow, and to say that a faultless marriage exists on Earth would probably be an untruth. That is because of the self - life. I know many couples where one of the parties just had an itch for sin, and pursued it,,,too many,,,and the result was a divorce, after this betrayal; They[ the offended party ] conducted themselves with integrity and holiness throughout, waiting for the Lord to reconcile. Is a man no longer allowed to Pastor in a situation like this?

Please do not infer that I am "playing with scripture to prove a point". This is sacred, in that it involves the condemnation of Christian men and women who may not deserve it, and all we have in these life situations are the holy scriptures. In many, or most situations, of course it takes two to tango, but Jesus himself made a distinction involving the gravity of the sin; "except for fornication."

A party may justify that the reason they committed adultery was that their unloving spouse responded to them in a myriad of provocations, but the committing of it was nothing other than murderous sin in their own heat of lust of the flesh.

To say that there is equal culpability in the eyes of the Lord, is also naivety. Did Nathan the prophet mention anyone else as he rebuked David for murdering Uriah , and raping Bathsheba? I am sure that much conflict is evident in a marriage before adultery occurs, and possibly much is instilled by the ultimate offender, as the decision to sin is born long before the opportunity to do so arises.

Further more, adultery is not the only reason people leave marriages. Do you think that maybe that there are some, who just don't want Christianity anymore?,, and want a "life" of their own? Read the thread, "I walked the plank!"..Many, many brothers on the mission field, preaching and Pastoring have been abandoned by their wives, when the missionary life lost it's sparkle. Is the man disqualified??
Many great men of God marched on,,alone, and in glory.
It does often come down to individual circumstances, but we cannot lump the disqualified into the same pile as those rejected and sinned against without cause or offending sin. This in itself would bring reproach on the name of Christ.

Thanks for listening, Tom

This is sacred, in that it involves the condemnation of Christian men and women who may not deserve it, and all we have in these life situations are the holy scriptures. In many, or most situations, of course it takes two to tango, but Jesus himself made a distinction involving the gravity of the sin; "except for fornication."

What you fail to see, bro, is that this is not a condemnation of anyone to say that a person is not qualified to pastor. It simply means they are not qualified. Nothing more.

For instance, if you are convicted of a felony you not only may serve jail time... but once you are out (set free) you are free to get a job, raise a family, etc... but you can no longer own a firearm. You can no longer vote. etc etc. You are no longer a condemned man, but you also no longer have certain rights and privledges. (spelled that wrong, I know... too tired to run spell check right now.)

We can debate all day long about the innocence of one party over another in a divorce. All I can relate to you is what I have seen over and over again. If you reject that, then so be it.

But when it comes to scripture it is clear... the husband of [b]one[/b] wife. It also talks about having his home in order. From my way of thinking, the man who shepherds the flock should be setting the example of godly character, and the example of a godly family.

I have never said a divorced person can not teach. I think they can. But not pastor, and there is a big difference. I've been in churches where the pastor is not a good teacher, but the best teacher in the church would not make a good pastor.

Can you imagine a pastor who has been twice divorced and remarried doing a wedding ceremony... and talking about the sanctity of marriage? What a crock that would be.

Or a pastor who's kids are completely out of control preaching about parenting? I've sat thru that before and it's a joke.

I'm gonna have to back out of this conversation at this point (and all God's children said "Yea!!") because I will not back down from this one inch. 2 Timothy and Titus are very clear about the qualifications for pastor/elder. Yet today people want to dumb it down, just like every other part of scripture that makes us uncomfortable.

But telling someone they are not qualified to be a pastor/elder is [b]not[/b] condemnation. It simply means that scripture says they are not qualified.

I'm not qualified to do brain surgery. That's not condemnation.

On top of all that, I get concerned when I see someone who insists that they need to be a pastor or an elder. There is something not right about that.

By the way, Tom, you say I am basing my opinions on my own experiences... but are you not doing the same thing?

I love fencing with you, Tom... you have a lot of patience and insight. Dont always agree with you, but you seem to have a good understanding of me and where I'm coming from... and I [b]always[/b] walk away from a debate with you feeling like we're brothers. I'm proud to call you "brother".

Krispy

I am divorced and I don't aspire to be a pastor, but the Christ in me and the Holy Spirit have used me in a pastoral capacity in many situations in bringing believers into Christ, in salvation and in teaching who this Christ in them truly is.

Thats not pastoring... thats discipleship. Thats not the same thing. Scripture is talking about shepherding churches. You are comparing apples to oranges.

You are right to do what you do in those cases, and I dont think anyone would argue with that.

I think there is a gross misunderstanding of what the different offices within the Body of Christ are.

Krispy

I want to add this yet again, I'm not saying that I am 100% right and that EVERY divorced person is called to be a pastor or elder. That’s not what I’ve said.

KrispyKrittr wrote:

This is just one perspective but a man who has committed adultery and yet remains married to the same woman, can he still be considered to be an elder or a pastor? How many times would he have to commit adultery to be taken out of the running for elder or pastor? There’s a flaw in this logic, this makes absolutely no sense because Christ said, “every time you look upon a woman to lust after her, you’ve committed adultery.” If that truly be the case as is being interpreted, we would have NO pastors or elders.

You're grasping for straws.

If God called (let's use John as an example), say before John got married or even while he was married, he was called to be a elder/pastor and then down the road a divorce happens for whatever reason (I'm not debating reasons). If nothing takes God by surprise and even though God hates divorce; he who called John is faithful and eternal. Correct? So if God knows our beginning and he knows our end; if this is true.... and he truly is Alpha and Omega, then when he called us, he also knew our sinful middle. And yet he called John to be a elder/pastor knowing all this before he called John? Either God is God of it all or He isn't.

The John you're speaking of... is his last name Calvin by any chance? What you're saying is it is impossible to be out of God's will, when scripture is repleat with example after example of people who walked out of the will of God. Sampson... prime example. After he disobeyed God he never again held the same position. God used him, but not in the same way.

And where in the world did King David come from? He has nothing to do with this thread because he wasn't divorced. His household was a wreck because he wouldn't discipline his sons. This brings us to another question...how could he? Weren't they grown men, head of their OWN households? If so, then they were all responsible to God not to David. But it really doesn't matter, it had nothing to do with divorce. Which brings me to my whole point. No he wasn't a pastor and God called him to be King of Israel knowing his house would be a wreck in the end. That's the same God we serve today. He calls us in spite of us being human.

On the issue of "man's interpretation"... you are insinuating by the use of the word "interpretation" that to the naked eye it's difficult to know what scripture has to say about the scriptural qualifications of being a pastor/elder.

But it isnt. It's VERY clear. It's perhaps one of the clearest passages of scripture.

It isn't THAT clear because there are other people on this thread that clearly disagree with you and others. And they love God just as much as you do. You're not the only one here who knows and loves Scripture.

"One woman man" cracks me up. You could get married and divorced 30 times, and as long as you are only with one woman at a time... go ahead and preach!

C'mon... call a spade a spade... thats just stupid.

There you go, total exaggeration... 30 times. That is not what this thread is about. It's about someone making a mistake and God's forgiveness when they repent. Even in spite of being forgiven, people still try qualify and quantify that forgiveness; but you try to disqualify this whole conversation by adding "30 times."

I know you are saying that they can be forgiven and used of God. And yet throughout the hallowed halls of SI and many other Biblical forums on the Internet, there are mere human beings laying down the conditions of HOW divorced people CAN BE used by God and can’t be. I find it interesting that forgiveness can go only this far.... but not all the way for certain sins and people.

It has nothing to do with forgiveness. It has everything to do with the qualifications that GOD has put on any man who wishes to be an elder/pastor. Other than that, there are very few limitations on how a divorced person can serve.

Stop equating full restoration with forgiveness.
They are not the same thing.

What? What? LOLOL How do you work this out from scripture? Seriously, matters of marriage and divorce apart? Are you saying the person is not fully restored to God? How is full restoration and forgiveness NOT the same thing.

wisevirgin wrote:
1. Pastor and Elder are are not two distinct persons but are words which are descriptive of one and the same men who are functioning in the body of Christ as such. They are terms which denote more of what they do for the body than what many have assumed as their being a title to be called by. This must be understood to begin. Bishop and Overseer are synonymous terms as well. All of the above terms describe men who are gifted by God and therefore called of God to lead and guide the flock. Having been graced with wisdom from above and maturity in the faith, evident to all, who consequently are willing to give deference to them due to their caring example and exemplary lives.

2. A widow is to be "the wife of one man (1 Timothy 5:9)." Young widows are encouraged to get remarried (1 Timothy 5:14). The word one(Heis) in 1 Timothy 5:9 is the numeral one. In "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2;Titus 1:6) the word one is an adjective(Mia). As insignificant as this may sound at first,the actual ramifications are that prohibition of remarriage is clearly not the correct interpretation in the elder context. These qualifications mentioned and addressed here are clearly in regard to his character rather than his past marital status. These are qualifications of what he 'must be' in the present tense. The word "be" in both 1 Tmothy 3:2(Einai) and Titus 1:6 (Esti) are both verbs. In 1 Tmothy 3:2 the word "must" is dei. The same word dei is used in Acts 4:12 ...by which we must be saved.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states "The tense of dei is present. This means that the action of the verb is occurring at the time that the writer composes the letter. This reinforces what is known from the historical background. The qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 are qualities that must be observed in men who are serving as elders. Of course, it would also be logical to use these qualities as qualifications for elder candidates."

Here are some words(not mine)which I consider to be very insightful on this apparent dilemma:

"First Timothy 3:2 does not say "an elder must be married only once" nor does it say "an elder cannot remarry."

To place this type of stern restriction on a godly man seems quite unjust. One should avoid the Pharisaical error of binding men with unnecessary and oppressive burdens (cf. Matt. 23:1-4; Acts 15:10) and should seek to be gracious at every opportunity.

If Paul had stated "eschon mias gunaikos mones" ("having had only one wife"), it would be easier
to argue that Paul meant possessing only one wife in one's lifetime up to the point of his being examined. However, he did not make such a statement.

Some would treat divorce and remarriage as the unpardonable sin and practically force some genuine, godly Christians into a life of spiritual exile, treating these forgiven children of God as though the blood of Christ could not thoroughly cleanse them, as though they are not quite as pure as other Christians.

The translation "husband of one wife" is not the best understanding of the Greek phrase "mias gunaikos andra," but it should be translated "a man of one woman" or "a one woman man." This understanding emphasizes the character of the man rather than his marital status. Thus even
a single man or a man who has been married only once must demonstrate that he is not flirtatious, but that he is stable and mature in
character toward his wife or other females. A man who demonstrates a character of loyalty and trustworthiness in such personal relationships is qualified in this area. This shifts the emphasis away from an event that took place in a man's life before his conversion and properly
concentrates on the character and quality of his life at the present time.

The importance of understanding what Paul means by a "one-woman man" is critical. The lives and Christian service of hundreds of Christian men are affected by one's view. It may be safer simply to offer an impersonal and broad judgment forbidding any one who is divorced (or married to someone who has been divorced) to be an elder/pastor.

Paul's instruction includes only three words, "mias gunaikos andra," as one of
several requirements for being an elder (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1;6) or a deacon (1 Tim. 3:12, where the pl. "andres" is used).

the other qualification in 1 Timothy 3 deal with the man's character and since the grammatical structure is more naturally consistent with this emphasis, it seems best to understand the phrase as meaning that he is a one-woman type of man.

Since neither the grammar of the phrase nor any reference in the context implies that Paul was discussing a once-in-a-lifetime situation, then that idea must not be forced into the text.

Again, if Paul had said something like "eschon mias gunaikos mones," then one could speak more assuredly that Paul meant having had only one wife ever. Paul, however, simply said he must "be" ("einai," present tense) a man of one woman.

Kenneth S. Wuest states, "The two nouns [for 'woman' and 'man'] are without the definite article, which construction emphasizes
character or nature." He concludes, "Thus one can translate, 'a one-wife sort of a husband,' or 'a one-woman sort of man.'" (Kenneth S. Wuest, "The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament" (Grand rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), p. 53.

"In a culture where men frequently cohabited with more than one woman, Paul needed it very clear that an elder in the church was to
be a 'one-wife man' -- loyal to her and her alone."

If a church is bound to judge its members on the consequences of their lives before conversion, who then could meet the majority of the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3? Are churches as quick to forbid a man to be an elder or deacon because before his conversion he was not "above reproach" or because he was "pugnacious"?.

Certainly one cannot attempt to make the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 apply to a man's life before he was saved. If God has forgiven him and made him a part of His church, why do Christians hold his past against him? When one is saved, all his sins are forgiven (Col. 2:13); he becomes a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13); his body becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19); he receives a new nature created after God's own holiness (Eph. 4:24); he becomes a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17); and he becomes a part of God's "spiritual house" (1 Pet. 2:5) and "royal priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:9). Before a man is saved, he is dead toward God and his holy standards. He has no power
over sin, no knowledge of God's Word or will; thus to judge one's life before his new birth is totally unjust. Paul states that even adulterers (as in divorce and remarriage) were 'washed . . . sanctified . . . justified"(1 Cor.6:9-11).

Paul's concern in 1 Timothy 3:1-10 is that if a man desires to be an elder he must be qualified "at that time," not before his conversion. Is the church guilty of Peter's prejudice (Acts 10:9-16) so that God must also rebuke believers and say as he did to Peter, "What God has cleansed, no 'longer' consider unholy?" It does not seem possible that by Paul's phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2 he intends to
hold a man's preconversion sins against him.

Apparently those who prohibit a remarried man from service as an elder or deacon overlook the obvious point of the list in 1 Timothy 3. Paul's list deals primarily with the "character" or "attitudes" of men seeking these services in the church. The requirements are based on what the man "is," not what may have transpired in his past. Thus Paul wrote, "an overseer, then,
must be " ("dei oun . . . einai"). He expressed the same idea in Titus 1:6 ("ei tis estin"). Even as "temperate," "prudent," "respectable." and other qualifications deal with his character, so also a "one-woman (kind of) man" is a character trait demonstrated by a chaste and mature attitude toward his wife and other females. Lenski offers a similar explanation: "The emphasis is on "one" wife's husband, and the sense is that he have nothing to do with any other woman. He must be a man who cannot be taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity." Lenski points out that converts did not always immediately withdraw from their pagan customs and become instantly
perfect in sexual purity; thus Paul set up this standard of moral character.

Indeed, to say that a man's character means that he is content with his one wife is not lowering God's standard; it is putting the emphasis where it belongs -- on the quality of a man's moral attitudes after his conversion. To judge a man's spiritual qualities on the basis of a sin committed before he was saved, before he was capable of understanding God's will or Word, and
before he had the power of Christ's life within him is to create a false standard that detracts from God's wonderful grace and which also fails to deal with the real issue of 1 Timothy 3."

I add an amen to the above!

These qualifications mentioned and addressed here are clearly in regard to his character rather than his past marital status. These are qualifications of what he 'must be' in the present tense.

"First Timothy 3:2 does not say "an elder must be married only once" nor does it say "an elder cannot remarry."

To place this type of stern restriction on a godly man seems quite unjust. One should avoid the Pharisaical error of binding men with unnecessary and oppressive burdens (cf. Matt. 23:1-4; Acts 15:10) and should seek to be gracious at every opportunity.

If Paul had stated "eschon mias gunaikos mones" ("having had only one wife"), it would be easier to argue that Paul meant possessing only one wife in one's lifetime up to the point of his being examined. However, he did not make such a statement.

Some would treat divorce and remarriage as the unpardonable sin and practically force some genuine, godly Christians into a life of spiritual exile, treating these forgiven children of God as though the blood of Christ could not thoroughly cleanse them, as though they are not quite as pure as other Christians.

A resounding AMEN! I COULD quote ALL this again, but I won't! This is the best offering I've ever seen on SI, defending that the change of character required for eldership, follows becoming a Christian, and ridiculing the suggestion that a person's life before they were a Christian, could disqualify them from eldership. Amen! But, once they are a Christian, whatever they were before, they are now expected to show commitment to one woman in marriage, and to behave themselves in a becoming way towards singles, and, if they are still single, to demonstrate all the attributes required in a husband.

God bless,

Lisa... I'm not avoiding the question, I just dont have any idea what the question is.

Obviously we wont agree on this. I believe in the integrity and purity of the position of elder/pastor. I think you do to, but obviously not to the extent that I do.

End of discussion (for me).

Krispy

You mentioned in a reply to Krispy; Where in the world did King David get into the thread? [implying that he wasn't divorced, and irrevelvant] It was from me, and here's why. Kind David was "the shepherd of Israel.", and , after this rape of Bathsheba and murder of her husband and good friend Uriah, was allowed to maintain his exalted position.[though Saul was not.] I used this example that not everyone is disqualified by the course of their sin.

[2.] The culpability rested squarely on his shoulders alone. "You are the MAN!!", where as a brother implied that marriage splits were always two ways, his and hers , maintaing that there is always equal blame...and David was married at that time. This did not disqualify him in leadership. [I understand the differences of covenants and dispensations here.]

I was simply pointing out that sin may not neccesarily disqualify an Elder.[even divorce.]

Thank you for the explanation, Bro. Tom. I can see your point and understand it. AND King David was already saved... if that makes sense.

but did they commit it before or after they were saved? If before, then it doesnt matter.

I have no Scriptures to back me up on this. I was just making a comment about the things we do before we are saved not mattering.

God bless,

I think that with the amazing amount of divorces in the church today, and the equal amount of "justifiable" re-marriages, we can expect a higher standard of holy behavior to arise among those who judge the Pastorate. I don't see this as a negative, even though some will find injustice. I personally know of former friends, in ministry, who have committed this same sin. I do believe they are living in Adultery now.

Divorce is a destroyer, leaving a wake of rejection and hurt for generations sometimes. Statistics point to the possibility that the Evangelical Church is filled with more divorces than the non-christian community. As the pendulum swings back to revival, we must expect, and desire this higher standard. I certainly do. This gives me more compassion and tolerance to my Brothers who will demand it, at any price. I personally, will not pay any price, as individual situations may differ, with innocence emerging on one side, rare though it be. However, I won't condemn my brothers that I may see, as leaning into the arms of dogmatism, rejecting carte blanch every offender.

I would counsel my brothers that "Mercy overcomes Judgement..", and "you that are spiritual. restore such a one, in a spirit of meekness, looking to yourself lest you also be tempted." Very, very few offenders are restored in today's churches after falling into Adultery.It is the state of the carnal church. The leadership, generally, just doesn't have the spiritual metal to be able to do it.

Another issue is that the foundation of marriage as a covenant with God, " 'til death do you part.", is no longer viable, because the culture has invaded the church, and people believe that "'til happiness and pleasure do us part" makes more sense in the "me" world. Marriage is a covenant with God between a man and a woman. It takes the Fear of God, and the Love for God to keep it, and it is a guarantee that this will be tested.

A church will never be holy without holy and committed marriages that are founded under this spirit.

In reply to much that has been communicated on this thread by one and all I'd like to add some words of wisdom (I believe they are so as they agree with many Scriptural exhortations) from a couple of men who I believe are able men insofar as being workmen approved of God rightly dividing the Word of Truth, as well as being of Godly character worthy of being given our deference. May the readers judge for themselves.

"If one is to live by God's words, then it is necessary to make certain that what we are living by truly is a word or words that have proceeded from God. This requires the testing of the translation one is using. And it requires as much study of the original languages from which a translation is made as can be done in the time God's providence has allotted. It is well to remember that all men are to be judged by the words which God has spoken through the prophets and apostles. It is not enough to simply have a general sense of Scriptire. It is a principle alien to true Christianity to rest on men's interpretation of the words of God. No man ever has authority in himself, it is the Spirit that witnesses to the truth. Nevertheless, one is a servant of God only if he or she can give a complete demonstration of what he says from the Scriptures. And to be sure that there is no change of the emphasis that God Himself has given, this calls for a healthy search of the meaning of the original word written, in its complete context. (Jay P. Green,Sr.)

John Wyclif's
Guidelines for Understanding Scripture

It Will Greatly Help You, For Understanding Scripture:
If you pay attention not only to WHAT is spoken or written,But also OF WHOM it was spoken or written,And TO WHOM,
With what CHOICE OF WORDS,
At what TIME (in history),
WHERE (what country or town),
For what PURPOSE,
In what CIRCUMSTANCES;
Considering also WHAT IS SAID BEFORE (previous verses)
And WHAT IS SAID AFTER (the following verses).

JOHN WYCLIF

\t
The above is a modernized translation.

The original (in an old form of English called "Middle English") is given below. It was copied from "The Treasure Chest," Charles L. Wallis; New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965, p. 37. That book does not give the original source of the quote.

HOW TO READ THE BIBLE
It shall greatly helpe ye to understande Scripture,
If thou mark
Not only what is spoken or wrytten,
But of whom,
And to whom,
With what words,
At what time
Where,
To what intent,
With what circumstances,
Considering what goeth before
And what followeth.

JOHN WYCLIFFE

As we handle the Word of Truth, wisdom ought to teach us as slaves, firstly, "...a slave of the Lord ought not to quarrel, but to be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing,in meekness teaching those who have opposed, if perhaps God may give them repentance for a full knowledge of the truth,and they having regained senses out of the snare of the devil, being captured by him to do the will of that One (2Tim. 2:24-26).

Secondly, that, "...if a man is overtaken in some deviation, you, the spiritual ones, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness,considering yourself, that you not also be tempted...For if anyone thinks to be something, he deceives himself, being nothing (Gal. 6;1,3).

Thirdly, if we follow Titus 1 to verse 9, which is also a qualification of an elder/overseer/bishop/pastor, we read these words, " clinging to the faithful Word according to the teaching, that he may be able both to encourage by sound doctrine and to convict the ones contradicting.

Which brings us back to the quotes of the two men above.

It is absolutely vital that the qualified do so, else they be not qualified in the mind and sight of God as His Word tells us in Titus 1:9.

I say vital because more than physical life is being tampered with. This is the spiritual vitals of life eternal.

Any who flippantly give counsel of their own uncontrolled spirit are meddling with Holy things and are to be avoided and warned, and not heeded at all as they themselves fail the test not willing to labor in the Word and in prayer.

Too many have taken no heed to James in chapter 3:1,2 " My brothers do not be many teachers, knowing that we will receive greater judgment.
For we all stumble in many ways. If any one does not stumble in word, this one is a mature man, able also to bridle the whole body."

"For who has stood in the counsel of Jehovah, and has seen and heard His Word? Who has listened to His Word and heard?" (Jer 23:18)\t

... he who has My Word, let him speak My Word faithfully. What has the chaff to do with the wheat, says Jehovah? Is not My Word thus like fire, says Jehovah, and like a hammer which breaks a rock in pieces? Then, Jehovah says, Behold, I am against the prophets who steal My Words, each one from his neighbor. Jehovah says, Behold, I am against the prophets who use their tongues and say, He says (Jer.23:28-31).

May His Words pierce our hearts, as we seek Him with all our hearts...

On this matter as well as all other matters which concern Him and us, "For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's." (Php. 2:21)

I used this example that not everyone is disqualified by the course of their sin.

Tom... this is in reference to King David. One problem with this... David was not the spiritual leader of Israel. He was the King, the political leader. He did not serve in the temple, was not a priest. This is very much apples and oranges.

If politicians were disqualified because of their sexual immorality there wouldnt be any left!

Krispy

Brother, why do you speak this way to a sister in Christ? It is difficult for me also, but we must be careful to "be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition" (2 Tim. 2:24-25) If you love us and we are wrong how should you help us understand the Word? I say this openly because of these posts. I am not trying to make you mad or put you on the spot.

It would be wonderful if folks would have as much concern for the Word of God, and how it can be misused and taken out of context and twisted as they do about how I phrase my words at times.

I admit there are times that I am sharper than I need to be. I wont make excuses for that. But I will say that this is one area that is very near and dear to my heart... and it [b]is[/b] beyond me how someone can not understand the clear statements of scripture, and want to promote this "one woman man" stuff. This [b]is[/b] a bogus concept not found in ANY of the writings of the great theologians of the past. You'll only find it in modern "theology" so-called.

[b]Zionshield[/b]... I see you're fairly new here. Most folks realize after being here a while that even tho I come on strong... I'm really just a fuzzy cuddly teddy bear... with teeth. 8-)

I give ya a month and then you'll love me.

Krispy

I think we are the same person AFTER we are saved that we are before we are saved... but that's just me. I think if you are a manipulative or a selfish person before you are saved, you will still be a manipulative or a selfish person after you are saved. And that will be one of your crosses to bear in order to become more like Christ. If that makes sense...

I have no Scriptures to back me up on this. I was just making a comment about the things we do before we are saved not mattering.

Lisa... I hate to tell you this, sister, but I disagree with this.

[b]2 Corinthians 5:17[/b] [i]Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a [b]new[/b] creature: old things are passed away; behold, [b]all[/b] things are become new.[/i]

[b]Galations 6:15[/b] [i]For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a [b]new[/b] creature.[/i]

We are new creations in Christ Jesus. Do we still carry many of the same personality traits? Yes, on a certain level we do. If you're a hyper active person before salvation, then you will be a hyper active person after salvation.

But as for me... I am nothing like I was before I was saved. You wouldnt even recognize me. Even my countenance is different. I was delivered from so much sin... and some of it happened over night. Most of the things that snared me before salvation are not even on the radar now.

Do I still sin? Yes, obviously. But the moral decadence that I lived in God saw fit to deliver me from.

My attitudes changed as well. And still are. And even tho I obviously havent perfected how I deal with people (and I do apologize for being a bit sharper with you than i needed to be on this thread.. forgive me?), I am not where I was.

If a person comes to me and says "I'm the same person, really, that I was before I was saved"... I have to question their salvation.

Personality traits are often times nothing more than sin. I know people other than myself who got saved and it was like a night and day transformation of their personality.

So I will say this... if someone doesnt experience a change in personality, attitudes and sinfulness... they probably are not saved.

Krispy

Before posting the following I'd like to plainly state that I myself am the follower of no mere man. Whether that man be John Calvin(Calvinist),Martin Luther(Lutheran),John Wesley(Wesleyan),Charles Spurgeon(Baptist),or Menno Simon(Mennonite).

I post the following because the majority who follow these men, to the point of calling themselves after their names, do not know what these men taught on pertinent doctrinal issues.

Case in point: Most Mennonites do not know what Menno Simon taught on MDR(Marriage,Divorce,Remarriage). Others who hold to their(Mennonite)position on MDR,such as the Anabaptists and those belonging to Charity Fellowships are also unaware of what Menno Simon taught on this subject.

I saw a post on this thread with a link which directed the clicker to Charity Ministries. The name Dean Taylor was mentioned,and reference was made to his articles in the Remnant magazine(a charity ministries publication).

Therefore,with this in mind,and the direction this thread has somewhat taken,I'd like to offer these brief quotes,which are by the way, not taken out of their context. You may check the sources for yourself:

"In the book 'The Complete Writings of Menno Simons',there are several references to Menno's position on divorce and remarriage, each of them testifying clearly his understanding of the scriptures noted:

"These two, one husband and one wife, are one flesh and can not be separated from each other to marry again otherwise than for adultery, as the Lord says. Matt. 5:19; Mark 10; Luke 16. This is our real position, doctrine, and practice concerning marriage,as we here confess with the holy Scriptures. By the grace of God it will ever remain the position of all
pious souls, let them lie and slander as they like. We know and confess truly that it is the express ordinance, command, intent, and unchangeable plain word of Christ." (trans. J.C.Wenger, The Complete Works of Menno Simon (Scottdale, Pa., Herald Press,1984), p.561

"We know too that the bond of undefiled, honorable matrimony is so firm and fast in the kingdom and government of Christ, that no man may leave his wife,nor a wife her husband, and marry another (understand rightly what Christ says), except it be for adultery." (trans. J.C.Wenger, The Complete Works of Menno Simon
(Scottdale, Pa., Herald Press, 1984), p.970
(parenthesis in original)

"We acknowledge, teach, and assent to no other
marriage than that which Christ and His apostles
publicly and plainly taught in the New Testament,
namely, of one man and one woman (Matt. 19:4), and that they may not be divorced except in case of adultery (Matt. 5:32); for the two are one flesh, but if the unbelieving one depart, a sister or brother is not under bondage in that case. 1 Cor. 7:15" (trans.J.C.Wenger, The Complete Works of Menno Simon (Scottdale, Pa., Herald Press, 1984),p.200

"The true Apostolic Excommunication has no respect to persons. Undoubtedly, it is well known to us all,dear brethren, that it is so strongly and earnestly commanded in the Scriptures, nay, it is one of the chief commands, that we are to honor father and
mother, and that all had to die according to the law of Moses, who cursed and disobeyed them. And also,that the bond of undefiled, honorable matrimony is so unchangeably bound in the kingdom and government of Christ, that neither a man nor woman can forsake one the other, and take another, understand rightly what Christ says, except it be for fornication, Matt..
19:9. And Paul also holds the same doctrine, that they shall be bound to each other, and that they are to live in union; that the man has not power over his own body, nor the woman over hers, 1 Cor. 7:4.

Both these rules, the first in relation to parents,and the second in relation to wedlock, stand fast and unbroken, and can never be altered or infringed by any man, so long as we can, in God and with God, in a good conscience, observe and keep them, as the aforementioned rules require, with out transgressing the holy word; but if this cannot be done thus, the
spiritual must not, in that case, yield to the carnal,but the carnal must yield to the spiritual; this is incontrovertibly true." (THE COMPLETE WORKS OF MENNO SIMON,TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL DUTCH OR HOLLAND Published in 1871 by John F. Funk and Brother,Elkhart, Indiana Published in 1983 by Pathway Publishers Aylmer, Ontario and Lagrange, Indiana)Book 1 p.247,248.

Here is the testimony of the monumental work, 'Martyrs Mirror', by Thieleman J. van Braght, written in 1660. In article 25 of a 'Confession of Faith, according to the Holy Word of God', written about the year 1600 is
this quote in reference to what Christ was doing by His words;

"...re-establishing marriage between one man and one woman, and inseparably and firmly binding the bond of matrimony , that they might not, on any account,separate and marry another, except in case of adultery or death." (T. J. van Braght, Martyrs Mirror (Scottdale, Pa., Herald Press, 1951), p. 401.

I do not think that any here on S.I. would claim to be followers of a mere men. But the men I mentioned above,as well as many others that could be mentioned,do hold some sway over some, and their words would carry more weight than others might. Again,just look how many Mennonites and Mennonite churches(so called)there are. They are not ashamed to be called such. So I do them no injury by calling them so.

Whatever sect one belongs to, it would do all well to investigate first of all why they even belong to such sect, and secondly what their main man believed on every doctrine in Scripture.

Before we make any claims to this or that name,we ought to go directly to the source and quote that man rather than a man that says that he says so and so. Then, see if it agrees with Scripture.

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named (Eph.3:14,15).

Ginnyrose,

You wrote, " I am not sure why you posted this..."

My intro to the post, and comments after the post, explained why. Here they are again:

"Before posting the following I'd like to plainly state that I myself am the follower of no mere man. Whether that man be John Calvin(Calvinist),Martin Luther(Lutheran),John Wesley(Wesleyan),Charles Spurgeon(Baptist),or Menno Simon(Mennonite).

I post the following because (the answer to the why which you ask) the majority who follow these men, to the point of calling themselves after their names, do not know what these men taught on pertinent doctrinal issues.

Case in point: Most Mennonites do not know what Menno Simon taught on MDR(Marriage,Divorce,Remarriage). Others who hold to their(Mennonite)position on MDR,such as the Anabaptists and those belonging to Charity Fellowships are also unaware of what Menno Simon taught on this subject.

I saw a post on this thread with a link which directed the clicker to Charity Ministries. The name Dean Taylor was mentioned,and reference was made to his articles in the Remnant magazine(a charity ministries publication).

Therefore,with this in mind,and the direction this thread has somewhat taken(again,the answer to the why you asked),I'd like to offer these brief quotes,which are by the way, not taken out of their context. You may check the sources for yourself:

I do not think that any here on S.I. would claim to be followers of a mere men. But the men I mentioned above,as well as many others that could be mentioned,do hold some sway over some, and their words would carry more weight than others might(again,the answer to the why you asked). Again,just look how many Mennonites and Mennonite churches(so called)there are. They are not ashamed to be called such. So I do them no injury by calling them so.

Whatever sect one belongs to, it would do all well to investigate first of all why they even belong to such sect, and secondly what their main man believed on every doctrine in Scripture.

Before we make any claims to this or that name,we ought to go directly to the source and quote that man rather than a man that says that he says so and so. Then, see if it agrees with Scripture."

"The best of men are men at best"

Thanks for asking for clarification Ginnyrose.

It's interesting that one of the requirements for an elder/pastor is that he be "not given to wine", according to 1 Timothy 3:2 & Titus 1:6.

Now, what does this mean? Does it say that he can not drink alcohol at all? No, it doesnt say that. It is referring to drunkeness. Letting wine rule his life.

Yet today most Christians would be outraged if they went out to dinner and saw their pastor drinking a glass of wine. We've taken this particular requirement for elder/pastors and have actually raised the standard ABOVE what scripture really says.

(by the way, I'm not promoting drinking, I'm just making a point)

So we raise the standard on this requirement, but we want to lower the requirement of "husband of one wife". And in a lot of cases, if not most cases, we want to completely ignore the requirement "having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly". Titus 1:6

1 Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity...

It is hypocritical and dishonest to accuse me of limiting God, and preventing people who supposedly have "God's annointing" on them from fullfilling their "calling"... when many of you will raise the standard on one point of qualifications, and lower another... and completely ignore one of them all together.

I say let scripture be scripture... dont raise or lower any of them, but let the Spirit of God speak to us thru His Word.

Krispy

Ruach34 wrote:
I have recently had a CATACLYSMIC event about this very issue in my marriage. I read teaching on this subject and in conclusion was advised to separate from my wife who has been divorced, until she can reconcile or her first husband dies.

I am asking, for the sake of growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ, is a proper understanding of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:32:

"but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (NASB)

to separate from a divorced woman?

Friend,

May the Spirit of Christ give you understanding,wisdom to apply that understanding,and faith to courageously press on toward that mark of revealed truth from His Spirit and His Word.

If I may, I'd offer you(and anyone else here on S.I.) this brief article by a man born in the year 1616. His name is John Owen.

Please read prayerfully. I am confident you will.

I'd gladly welcome your response.

You may do so by PM if you like or by posting on this thread.

On Remarriage After Divorce
by John Owen

It is confessed by all who accept Scripture as their authority that adultery is a just and sufficient cause for divorce between married persons. However, a difference of opinion exists as to the extent of the effects of this divorce. Is the divorce a full separation from the bond and mutual obligations of marriage, or is it only a separation from the mutual obligations of marriage? Some teach that divorce consists in an absolute dissolution and termination of the bonds of marriage and thereby allows the innocent party the freedom to marry again.
Others teach that this divorce is only a separation “from table and marriage bed” and therefore the divorce does not actually dissolve or terminate the marriage relation. Instead, it merely relinquishes one from the duty of providing physically and sexually for their spouse. I am convinced of the first opinion. I will show that the second view is unthinkable and unscriptural because of its many weaknesses and also give three reasons why the first view is true.

The second view is not true for the following reasons:

First, this divorce “from table and marriage bed” is not a true divorce according to the light of Scripture and the law of nature. This position is a late invention in the history of mankind. Even those in the Roman church that assert it is true grant that in the Old Testament and in other ancient cultures divorce was always a termination of the marriage bond. Yet the moral duties and God-honoring relations of the Old Testament are not abrogated by the New Testament, rather their motives and purposes are more clearly defined. Roman Catholics come to this position because of their unbiblical view that marriage is a Christian sacrament and therefore since it carries the status of sacrament it is indissolvable. But if this is true, then marriage should only take place among believers and have no authority over non-believers and this is clearly not true. Marriage is a creation ordinance and thus is to be practiced by all mankind, not merely believers.

Secondly, a divorce which remains perpetually “from table and marriage bed” is hurtful and destructive to mankind. If this were true it would establish a new state of being, unknown to Scripture. In this new state a man would lawfully be obligated to have a wife and simultaneously obligated to not have a wife. Every man that is capable of marriage is and must be in one (and only one) of these two situations—whether he would like to be or not. God does not call any man into the state where he is bound by conscience to not receive back the adulterous partner and at the same time to not take another as his wife due to this divorce.

This unnatural and unlawful and unknown condition may—and probably will—cast a man under a necessity of sinning. This is what I mean when I say that this view is hurtful and destructive to mankind and to righteousness. For suppose that a man doesn’t have the gift of celibacy. If this is the case then it is the express will of God that he should marry for his relief. Yet, if he does marry, he has sinned; and if he doesn’t marry, he will sin. Thirdly, this view is unlawful. For if the bond of marriage remains then the relation still continues. This relational bond is the foundation of all mutual duties and obligations in marriage. Therefore, while the bond remains, no one can lawfully refrain from carrying out the proper duties of marriage, nor prohibit their performance. In marriage, each partner has certain duties and obligations to each other that they are required to perform so that each partner is not their own, but one another’s. Thus each partner may claim the duties of marriage from the other partner lawfully. They may separate for a time by mutual consent and this may hinder the actual execution of certain marital duties for a time. But to make such an obligation to one another completely void while at the same time the marriage relation continues is against the law of nature and the law of God.

Fourthly, the very light of nature and common grace among the nations never pointed to this kind of divorce. Marriage is a creation ordinance given by God and is thus practiced by all mankind. No mere man would ever have ordained such a relation. Yet in all of history there is never any mention made of a divorce that is merely “from table and marriage bed.” The case has always been that those who justly divorce their wives might marry another. Some cultures, like the ancient Greeks and Romans, even allowed the husband to kill the adulteress. This was later changed by the Romans, but the offense still remained a capital offense. In these cases, divorce took place to purposely allow the innocent person the freedom to marry again. Therefore, the view that divorce is merely “from table and marriage bed”—from the duties and obligations of marriage alone and not from the bond of it—is a false view.

The first view—that divorce absolutely dissolves the marriage bond and allows for remarriage—is the true view. There are three reasons for this. First, that which dissolves the structure (union) of marriage and thus destroys all the practices (obligations) of marriage does therefore dissolve the bond of marriage. If you take away the inherent structure and purpose and end of any moral relation, the relation ceases to be. And this is what is done by adultery and therefore calls for divorce. For the structure of marriage consists in this:

The two persons become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:6). But this union is dissolved by adultery, for the adulteress becomes one flesh with the adulterer (1 Cor. 6:16). Thus she is no longer one flesh in union with her husband, but rather she absolutely breaks the bond and covenant of marriage. And when she breaks the bond she also absolutely destroys all the obligations and duties which accompany that bond. For how can one talk of a bond that exists if at the same time it is broken? Is that still a bond? Or how can one speak of a bond that doesn’t bind? But isn’t this what the second view teaches? Secondly, if the innocent party of a divorce is not at liberty to marry again then two things ensue:

1. The innocent party is deprived of their freedom by the sin of another. This is against nature. This gives the wicked great power over the righteous for every wicked and unfaithful spouse then has it in their power to deprive their partner of their natural rights and freedoms.

2. The innocent party, if not allowed to remarry, is exposed to sin and judgment because of the unfaithfulness of another. Our Savior allowed divorce in the case of adultery as an option to the innocent party to allow for their liberty, advantage, and relief. But if one is not allowed to remarry, this liberty would be no liberty at all, but would only prove a snare and a yoke to them. For if one does not have the gift of celibacy, then he is exposed to sin and judgment. Thirdly, our blessed Savior gives express direction in the case of adultery. “And I say unto you, whoever shall divorce his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). Thus it is evident and is the plain sense of the words that the opposite is also true: “He who puts away his wife for fornication and marries another does not commit adultery.” According to Jesus, the bond of marriage is in the case of adultery dissolved, and the person that puts away his wife is at liberty to marry again. While Jesus teaches against divorcing the wife and marrying again for any cause whatsoever, the exception of adultery allows the husband to both divorce and remarry.

Every exception is a particular case that is contradictory to the general rule. The rule here in general is: “He that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” The exception here is: “He that divorces his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery.” This could be stated another way. The rule in general: “It is not lawful to divorce a wife and marry another; it is adultery.” The exception: “It is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for fornication, and marry another.”

It is of no use to argue that the other gospel writers, Luke and Mark do not include the exception clause in their gospels (Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). For even though they do not comment on it, it is used twice by Matthew (Matt. 5:32;19:9) and therefore was certainly spoken by our Savior. Also, every good interpreter knows that where the same thing is reported by several writers, the briefer and shorter expressions are to be measured and interpreted by the fuller and longer accounts. And every general rule in Scripture is to be limited by any exception attached to it in another place of Scripture. Know for certain that there is hardly any general rule of Scripture that does not admit of an exception.

It is even more vain to argue that our Savior speaks here with respect to the Jews alone so that the exception clause only has application to them. In Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees he refers back to the law of creation and the original creation ordinances which have authority over all mankind and not merely the Jews. He declared that the original institution of marriage was prior to the law of Moses and therefore is not limited to the Jews alone. This is a law, therefore, that is applicable to all mankind.

Also, when the Pharisees inquired of Jesus concerning divorce, they inquired of a divorce that was absolute and provided liberty to marry following the divorce. They had never heard of any other type of divorce. They had never heard of a mere separation “from table and marriage bed” in the Old Testament. Our Savior answers their query according to their understanding and therefore refers to the bond of marriage and not merely a separation from the duties and obligations alone. Therefore, Jesus denies the causes of divorce which the Pharisees allowed and then asserts fornication to be the only just cause of divorce. He therefore teaches that this divorce, of which they inquired about, was an absolute divorce from the bond of marriage. This is how the Pharisees would understand it and we cannot assume that Jesus does not answer them according to their understanding. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul clearly states that the innocent party who is maliciously and obstinately deserted by their partner is set free to marry again. This affirms that the Christian religion does not remove the natural right and privilege of men in the case of divorce. “If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases” (1 Cor. 7:15). If a spouse departs—whether due to religious differences or otherwise—and refuses to live together with a husband or wife, the deserted party is at liberty to marry again. The deserted spouse is at liberty because all the purposes and obligations of marriage are frustrated by this condition of desertion. Therefore, what shall a brother or sister that is a Christian do in the case that they are deserted? The apostle says, “They are not in bondage, but are free and thus at liberty to marry again.”

This is the constant doctrine of all Protestant churches in the world.

RICH, please consider these guidelines that follow from a wise and seasoned saint:

John Wyclif's Guidelines for Understanding Scripture

It Will Greatly Help You, For Understanding Scripture:
If you pay attention not only to WHAT is spoken or written,But also OF WHOM it was spoken or written,And TO WHOM,
With what CHOICE OF WORDS,
At what TIME (in history),
WHERE (what country or town),
For what PURPOSE,
In what CIRCUMSTANCES;
Considering also WHAT IS SAID BEFORE (previous verses)
And WHAT IS SAID AFTER (the following verses).