SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The husband of one wife

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
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?"


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2007/5/25 9:08Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Would that be in his entire history or just his 'Christian' history?



I'm on the conservative side of this too... reason being is because even tho the divorce may have happened before they were saved, they still have to deal with the ramifications of the divorce. They still have an ex, they still have children being carted between to families (thus two seperate value systems, usually). Just because they got saved doesnt mean all the "divided loyalties go away.

Krispy

 2007/5/25 9:13









 Re:

Quote:
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

 2007/5/25 9:15
UniqueWebRev
Member



Joined: 2007/2/9
Posts: 640
Southern California

 Re: Pastors, Elders, Teachers et. & Qualifications

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:
Quote:
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 Anderson

 2007/5/26 6:16Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
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.








_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2007/5/26 11:54Profile
lastblast
Member



Joined: 2004/10/16
Posts: 528
Michigan

 Re:

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


_________________
Cindy

 2007/5/26 13:05Profile
UniqueWebRev
Member



Joined: 2007/2/9
Posts: 640
Southern California

 Re: Radically Unconditional Matrimony

Quote:

RobertW wrote:
Quote:
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]


_________________
Forrest Anderson

 2007/5/27 5:29Profile
lastblast
Member



Joined: 2004/10/16
Posts: 528
Michigan

 Re:

Quote:
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?


_________________
Cindy

 2007/5/27 9:44Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Husband and Wife

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 ...

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/5/27 14:20Profile









 Re: The husband of one wife


Am I missing something here?

On p1 philologos mentioned Levirate marriage: so, what about the example the Sadducees gave to Jesus about 'in the resurrection' (Matt 22:28). From the woman's point of view, would she not have been [i]married[/i] to seven husbands?

I confess I have not been following this thread in detail, but this statement has been bothering me because I don't understand it.

Quote:
but I have never heard of polyandry (many husbands).

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




 2007/5/27 15:25





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy