Satan attacks God's preachers through their marriages. Preachers are not immune to failing marriages. The devil's strategy is to thin the ranks of those biblically qualified to serve a NT church as pastor. Although there are several spiritual and moral qualifications in 1 Tim. 3:1-7, the marriage qualification is under heavy attack. In order for a pastor to be unblameable before the world and set the right example for the church he pastors, he must be the husband of "one wife." 1 Tim. 3:2. As with "widows indeed," the similar expression is used, the Bible does not mean one husband or one wife at a time. Literally, it is a "one woman man" for a pastor and a "one man woman" to be a "window indeed." Matt 19:6 speaks of the unity or oneness of marriage. In the unity or oneness of marriage, the pastor and wife must reflect the Bible standard for marriage, which pictures the relationship of Christ and His bride.
The customs of false religions are not by the Bible in this regard. The Jewish custom of the OT priest included not taking a wife that was a harlot or divorced; the high priest could not marry anyone that was not a virgin. Lev. 21 The high qualifications of a priest pointed to Christ, our High Priest. The qualifications for pastors are high to make a difference between false worship and true worship. Robert Gromacki, in his book on 1 Timothy entitled Stand True To The Charge, page 80, wrote a pastor cannot "have more than one living wife. The phrase prohibits divorce and remarriage...Consequently,...there must be no record of divorce or other marital infidelity in the candidate, even before his conversion...Even though he could be forgiven...he would no longer be blameless in his marital life." Many try to excuse divorce and remarriage on the basis that it occurred before salvation. It is still on a person's record before men. Although it became common among the Romans and the Jews in NT times, Paul instructed Timothy that the pastor of a NT church must not be divorced and remarried.
The marital status of pastors is one standard of God's Word this is now under attack and being compromised. In his influential role, the respect and honor due a pastor of a NT church is to be reserved for those men who have no cause for reproach. It is Satan's strategy to reduce the ranks of qualified men to serve as pastors by disqualifying them in their marital status. Young preacher, be careful when choosing a wife. The only way to prevent some divorces is to prevent some marriages. Married preacher, don't take your marriage for granted. Satan is on the prowl.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Satan is attacking marriage throughout the United States. If Satan can claim one victory against God by destroting one of His called preachers he will do it.
ReplyDeleteWe mention in prayer all of the churches that are currently without pastors and we know God will provide. But I can easily think of three men who were in the ministry that could be pastoring but are not because of divorce.
These are men that believe beyond a doubt that God called them to preach.
Does Timothy discount these men to preach or just to pastor?
If the man's wife leaves him at no fault of the man and he never remarries does he still qualify?
I believe if a man is called to preach and a church will have him as pastor it will be a blessed cituation.
I have seen some great men who have been divorced and remarried who are doing a great work in their ministries, and I have seen other divorced/remarried pastors who make a mockery of the ministry.
ReplyDeleteI'm not excusing divorce, remarriage, adulterous behavoir or any departure from God's word. I just have a question.
There are a number of qualifications set forth in I Timothy 3 for pastors. My question is why does the marriage requirement seem to hold more weight than the others?
I believe the cultural and historical evidence shows the problem during this day was (as it was in the O.T.) multiple wives. Just because Joseph had done it doesn't make it right. That is what they were considering OK in God's eyes.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I'd like to address is that I more closely relate a pastor to a prophet of the O.T. instead of a priest. We all know the priest symbolized Christ, who would go to God on man's behalf for man's sins. Christ was THE priest which all those priests pictured. Prophets spoke to man on God's behalf. We preach the gospel and the entire counsel of the Word to show forth God's Word to men. We speak to men on God's behalf. Concerning the marriage, remember Hosea who was commanded to marry a harlot? I'm not saying we should do this, just that it wasn't forbidden by God.
Concerning one thing: I want to make something clear and VERY clear. I do believe the qualifications are just that, qualifications. They aren't just things you should try to meet up to. They are things you should dedicate your entire life to. A church should call a man based on the qualifications. I just disagree about the definition of the phrase, since I don't believe a remarried man has two wives. If someone wants to know why, I'll be posting my thoughts on my blog so that it doesn't get too heated on this one.
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly with Bro. Arch Bishop here. I will add just a little to that. He may or may not disagree with me on this. There is a Scripture in Proverbs that I am at the library and I don't have access to right now, but says that adultery causes a reproach that will never be wiped away (he is to be blameless). This is where I place the standard. It is my belief that a preacher must meet the marital qualification as given by Jesus in Matthew 19. If the divorce was caused by infidelity of the first wife, I still believe he has the right to preach. If he has been divorced and remains unmarried, then he is still the husband of one wife. Also, according to Paul in Romans 7, the spouse is loosed from the law to his wife by virtue of death. So I also believe a preacher who is widowed may remarry. Lastly, I do not believe that one who has been promiscous in their youth has the right to preach because in God's eyes, once they have become one flesh, they are married.
ReplyDeleteAre unmarried men qualified to pastor?
ReplyDeleteI think you are reading into scripture what isn't there Brother young landmarker. Let me give the scripture I think you attempted to quote.
ReplyDeleteProverbs 6:32. But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
33. A wound and dishonor shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
What is a greater dishonour and reproach? Cheating on your spouse, or remarrying after divorced? Didn't Paul even imply a COMMAND to remarry if one can't contain? It's best to remain unmarried. If you are married, it's okay, it isn't sin. But stay married. If you divorce, it's ok, it isn't an eternal sin, just remain separate and hope to win her back. If you remarry, it's ok, it isn't an eternal sin, just stay married to that spouse. So on and so forth.
Finally, if being remarried means one is living in sin or living in adultery, then our duty as pastors would be to preach from the pulpit all who are remarried need to divorce immediately.
ReplyDeleteSometimes we think in terms of personalities on issues rather than "Thus saith the Lord." Those who confer with flesh and blood and consider this question on the basis of family or friendship, you will probably not have the same conlusion as those who just consider a matter by the Bible. We have to divorce all thoughts of flesh and blood, just go to the Bible and draw the line where the Bible does. Any divorced man that remarries has 2 living wives (if they are both still alive). Thanks Bro. young landmarker for standing strong.
ReplyDeleteJesus said if a man looks at a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery in his heart.
ReplyDeleteLooks like none of us are qualified to pastor.
If a man is to be the husband of one wife, then doesn't scripture require that he be married to be pastor?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, is it required that he have children?
Is scripture teaching that a pastor must first be a successful family man before being called as pastor?
See, the problem here is EXACTLY what you said. Does he have two wives? If so, he is living in sin and adultery, and it is our duty to COMMAND "THUS SAITH LORD" you are living in sin and adultery and MUST DIVORCE your second wife. But the Bible teaches against this when it says a man should never go back to his first wife. I am not basing this on family, I was giving the family as an example. I judge experiences and life by the Bible, not the Bible by life or experiences. The father reference wasn't to prove a point, just an example and a question of how the Bible applies to the situation. I believe "THUS SAITH THE LORD," A man can NOT have two wives or more. I also believe THUS SAITH THE LORD (read my comment on my blog post) that one who remarries has only ONE wife. Again I repeat, if he has two wives, then every person who is remarried needs to be preached to in our churches that they are living in adultery and in sin.
ReplyDeleteI want to open and clarify that all I say here is not out of anger or being hurt or anything of such a nature. I just want to help you understand I am not coming up with from personalities or conferring with flesh and blood as you put it.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "
Sometimes we think in terms of personalities on issues rather than "Thus saith the Lord." Those who confer with flesh and blood and consider this question on the basis of family or friendship, you will probably not have the same conlusion as those who just consider a matter by the Bible. We have to divorce all thoughts of flesh and blood, just go to the Bible and draw the line where the Bible does..."
You then stated, "Any divorced man that remarries has 2 living wives (if they are both still alive). Thanks Bro. young landmarker for standing strong."
I'll your second comment first. The Bible doesn't say "living wives". It says "one wife." If one dies and you remarry, is that ok? What about if you remarry, then one dies. Is that ok? You see, this idea of only having one "living wife" is the conferring of flesh and blood, or dealing with personal situations instead of just letting God draw the line in the Bible, like you said. We must be careful not to take away from the scriptures, but we must equally be careful to not add to the scripture either.
As to your first post, let us see which parts are strictly scripture, and which parts are added from conferring with the thoughts of flesh and blood. I will bold all the parts that are written in the Bible or the principles are taught clearly in the Bible.
Satan attacks God's preachers through their marriages. Preachers are not immune to failing marriages. The devil's strategy is to thin the ranks of those biblically qualified to serve a NT church as pastor. Although there are several spiritual and moral qualifications in 1 Tim. 3:1-7, the marriage qualification is under heavy attack. In order for a pastor to be unblameable before the world and set the right example for the church he pastors, he must be the husband of "one wife." 1 Tim. 3:2. As with "widows indeed," the similar expression is used, the Bible does not mean one husband or one wife at a time.
Literally, it is a "one woman man" for a pastor and a "one man woman" to be a "window indeed."
What are you referring to here? Surely you aren't saying the Bible is translated wrong with "the husband of one wife". Sure you aren't saying "one woman man" is a better translation? The KJ translators picked these words for a good reason, and let us stick with it. A wooden translation gives us "to be of one wife a husband" or as KJ properly translates "he must be... the husband of one wife"
Matt 19:6 speaks of the unity or oneness of marriage. In the unity or oneness of marriage, the pastor and wife must reflect the Bible standard for marriage, which pictures the relationship of Christ and His bride.
How did a man show Christ and his bride when lost? It was an ungodly marriage full of sin with no focus on the father.
The customs of false religions are not by the Bible in this regard. The Jewish custom of the OT priest included not taking a wife that was a harlot or divorced; the high priest could not marry anyone that was not a virgin. Lev. 21 The high qualifications of a priest pointed to Christ, our High Priest. The qualifications for pastors are high to make a difference between false worship and true worship.
Just want to point out here, your next statement is going to be SOLELY conferring with flesh and blood.
Robert Gromacki, in his book on 1 Timothy entitled Stand True To The Charge, page 80, wrote a pastor cannot "have more than one living wife. The phrase prohibits divorce and remarriage... Consequently,... there must be no record of divorce or other marital infidelity in the candidate, even before his conversion...Even though he could be forgiven...he would no longer be blameless in his marital life."
He is giving his opinion as he sees it. I simply disagree with him, since this isn't clear in scripture or the language.
Many try to excuse divorce and remarriage on the basis that it occurred before salvation. It is still on a person's record before men. Although it became common among the Romans and the Jews in NT times, Paul instructed Timothy the pastor of a NT church must not be divorced and remarried.
Did he say this or did he say he must be the husband of one wife? Another common practice which was among the Roman culture and gentiles was having many wives. If the issue here is public record and testimony, then surely all the Bible characters who had tainted records like Paul could not pastor.
The marital status of pastors is one standard of God's Word this is now under attack and being compromised.
It isn't a compromise. A compromise is when someone believes something to be right, but gives in for the sake of peace or whatever. I do not believe the Bible teaches a man who is remarried has two wives. I believe the Bible teaches adultery is the breaking of the marriage. If a marriage is broken, there is no more husband/wife relationship, and no more title of husband and wife. Ask ANYONE who is remarried if they have two wives, and most of them will tell you emphatically no.
In his influential role, the respect and honor due a pastor of a NT church is to be reserved for those men who have no cause for reproach.
While this is certainly true, how then did Paul effectively pastor in his apostolic position? He had GREAT cause for reproach from before his salvation in murdering Christians. I'm sure Peter, and Matthew the publican (tax collector) both had GREAT reproach from their previous lives. By this standard, they had no right to pastor in an apostolic way. Yet THUS SAITH THE LORD chose them.
It is Satan's strategy to reduce the ranks of qualified men to serve as pastors by disqualifying them in their marital status. Young preacher, be careful when choosing a wife. The only way to prevent some divorces is to prevent some marriages. Married preacher, don't take your marraige for granted. Satan is on the prowl.
-----------------------------------
I close with these verses. Notice how there is a clear distinction between a former spouse, and a current spouse. One is a spouse now, one used to be a spouse. This means the former spouse is no longer a spouse. The mere use of the phrase "former" spouse suggests they are no longer a wife, or husband to one another. And the context here should clear it up. If they are still married, if they are still husband and wife, then the command given in the verses about not returning is ridiculous. Instead of added the term "living" and assuming a divorced person has multiple wives (NOT GIVEN FORTH CLEARLY IN THE SCRIPTURES), let us see "THUS SAITH THE LORD" in these verses. As a matter of fact, notice the husband can not take her again "TO BE HIS WIFE". B/C she is no longer, and is NEVER AGAIN to be his wife.
Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
I am wondering about your Deut 21:1-4 in light of what Jesus says in light of Matthew 19:7-9 "They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." Isn't He indicating, in an to the Pharisees' question, that the Deut. 24 law concerning divorce is a legal accommodation to protect women from hard hearted (evil, lustful) men rather than it being the scriptural definition of marriage?
ReplyDeleteThat should be "I am wondering about your [interpretation of] Deut 21:1-4..."
ReplyDeleteSorry about that.
Bro. Vaughn, I agree that Deut. 24 is a legal accomadation to protect women from hardhearted, lustful men. A good definition of marriage is one man for one woman for one lifetime, as it was in the beginning of marriage with Adam and Eve. More than one living wife started in Cain's line (that says something, doesn't it?). I also like Bro. James "wooden translation" - it seems like it proves my point.
ReplyDeleteBrother Arch Bishop, sorry to post again, but I found a number of typos and some unclear comments, so I thought it might be best to re-post what I posted above.
ReplyDelete(James) I am wondering about your interpretation of Deut. 24:1-4 in light of what Jesus says in Matthew 19:7-9: "They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." Doesn’t this indicate, in answer to the Pharisees' question, that the Deut. 24 law concerning divorce is a legal accommodation to protect women from hard-hearted, evil, lustful men rather than it being the scriptural definition of marriage?
It does indeed refer to legal accommodation, but it also shows it is an abomination to remarry the former (not current) wife. It shows in God's eyes, one can NEVER remarry the former woman. Why? Perhaps because of some legality, perhaps because of some hardness. Why doesn't matter in the question at hand. What DOES matter, is that in God's eyes, she is no longer his wife. If she is no longer his wife, then a remarried man who can NEVER take the first spouse to be his wife again is only married to one wife, and only has one wife. It doesn't matter why the allowing of divorce was given. What matters is "Does a remarried man have two wives?" and according to the Deuteronomy 24, indeed, he does not. This is the only thing I wanted to show.
ReplyDeleteBrother Bishop, as to a wooden translation, there is a reason we don't use them. They don't make sense when spoken. The Bible was partially written to be spoken aloud and communicated to a crowd (whether congregation or lost, it is still the same). The important thing to remember when using a wooden translation is the Greek to English difference in understanding. The word order in English means one thing, but in Greek it means another. That is why the words are changed around to fit our grammar in most translations.
In Greek, any time the word order is changed from the normal word order, it is to place emphasis in special ways our English minds can only begin to comprehend. Too bad no one speaks Kioni Greek anymore.
On the living and dead wives question: We know that we will not be married or given in marriage when we get to heaven. I believe each Baptist will have a manion in the New Jerusalem - not just families. CHRIST will be our all in all then (as He should be now, but you know what I mean). According to Romans 7 death would make a wife no longer a wife and the pastor would be able to remarry because he (scripturally) would no longer have a wife. Again, the true comparison is of Christ and His bride (Ephesians 5).
ReplyDeleteBro. James,
ReplyDeleteIf a man does not have 2 wives when he remarries, I would like to know what you do with this verse:
The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: 18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
Um.... Thanks for proving my point? "Thou hast well said" that she currently has NO HUSBAND!
ReplyDeletev. 18 actually says "thou hast had 5 husbands" and in God's sight the man she is living with is not her husbasd (which in God's sight was her first one). Bro. young landmarker has a valid point. Her present one although legal by man would not be acceptable to God for a pastor or a deacon.
ReplyDeleteWow. What a mouthful. Are you really willing to step out and say the one she was living with was legally married to her? Also, are you willing to suggest God doesn't consider the other 4 her husbands even though Jesus, God in flesh, specifically said she HAD five (but currently does not)? I've NEVER read this and got that she was married to the current one. I don't think I've ever heard anyone saying the current was a husband. If so, why would Jesus have considered all five before to be her husbands and not this one? What was his exception?
ReplyDeleteThe only logical understanding of this passage to me is that she had been married five times previously, and currently lived with a man with whom she was not married. If you have biblical scriptures to show she was married to the current man, please provide them. If not, it is just speculation (and a stretch of one at that) to prove a point. The easiest reading to me seems that she had a husband, then divorced him, had another, then divorced him, had another, then divorced him, had another, then divorced him, had another, then divorced him and began living with a man before she married him (if she ever had that intention.) (BTW, you can replace divorced with "he died" if you choose). Someone may ask "Why live with him if it wasn't legal?". Perhaps she'd been married to five losers in the past, and didn't want to make the same mistake again. Whatever the reason, she was living with him and he was NOT her husband.
Besides all this, even the first husband was no longer her husband when Jesus said "You have had...". He used to be, but is not currently.
Love you brother! :-p Thanks for the help. I think I finally found the layout I'm going to keep for a while.
ReplyDeleteJust curious. If you believe a man who was divorced pre-salvation still has reproach that keeps him from pastoring, do you believe a man who has a public record of murder is disqualified from pastoring? What about a man who has gone to prison for murder, thievery, child predator? I agree a child predator's testimony is gone and ruined for life. But what about that murderer who served his time? Surely he still has reproach greater than the reproach of a divorce. He may have been forgiven, but public opinion is still that he is a murder. Could he pastor?
ReplyDeleteAnother question off subject. If you could email your answer to calvaryyouth@live.com, that'd be great.
ReplyDeleteI am under the full persuasion Brother Crain is right, that the Holy Spirit does not lead outside of using the Word of God, since that is his tool He uses (Ephesians 6:17). He doesn't come mystically and perform a work in someone to bring them to conviction of salvation, for that would be Calvinism. Instead He convicts them through the Word. I believe this and stand on it.
However, I was reading 1 John and came across 2:27. What is the anointing that teaches in this context?
We may conclude either she was married or not (insufficient data to confirm either way). According to the Lord, her 5 husbands (as man saw it - he was speaking to woman)and the man she was now with (whether married or not) were not her husbands as far as God was concerned (only the first). Marraiage is a covenant before God, not just a civil ceremony. In God's eyes, only the death of one sopouse frees the other to remarry. 1 Cor 7:10, 11, 12, 13, 27, 39. I wouldn't try to explain away plain verses like these. hOw can anyone miss these obvious statements made over and over?
ReplyDeleteHe didn't say that the other 5 weren't her husbands. If that was the case, even the first wasn't her husband. He didn't exclude the first in any way. I don't see the obvious statements at all. They aren't obvious at all. Even if I could see a slight hint of what you were saying, I wouldn't argue it this much. I will repost the scriptures, give my understanding, and then ask how you get yours. Maybe I'm just not understanding you.
ReplyDeleteJohn 4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
John 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
My understanding is as follows (the clearest, simplest and easiest understanding I can see.)
John 4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
She told the truth, that she has NO husband. (Not even the first, NO NOT ONE! Jesus told her she did well to say she had NO HUSBAND, NO NOT ONE!) How does Jesus' confirmation and positive affirmation of her comment mean anything other than the fact that she had no husband? Not even the first?
John 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
For thou hast had five husbands;
In the past (past tense) you had five husbands.
and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband:
The current man you are with is not your husband. You are living out of wedlock with him.
in that saidst thou truly.
You told the truth that you currently have no husband, just like before when Jesus said Thou sayest well.
So where in the world does one get the idea that Jesus is saying the previous five husbands (that HE, not her, brought up as her husbands (not man, but Jesus) aren't her husbands? And if they are not her husbands, then why didn't Jesus exclude the first? As far as we can tell, he never did. If he did exclude the first husband, where is it? And finally, where do you get your understanding that Jesus was saying ANY of them weren't her husband at all? He did not say this. The ONLY ONE he said was not her husband, was the one she was currently with. I just don't see or understand how you get your understanding even a little bit. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
Aside from all this, no one has addressed Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which states obviously that a remarried man not only no longer has the first wife as wife in God's eyes, but to take her back as wife (even if his second dies) would be an abomination to God. How can ANYONE justify this if they believe a divorced man is still married in God's eyes?
ReplyDeleteAre you ducking the truth that marariage is a covenant before God and not just a civil ceremony?
ReplyDeleteBoth of these scriptures seem to me to point out more clearly than anything that a remarried person no longer has the first spouse as a wife/husband in God's eyes. I just can't even fathom how these verses can mean ANY other thing. Even if 1 Timothy 3:2 means a remarried man can't pastor, I still don't see how these scriptures mean this at all!
ReplyDeleteAnd finally, if a remarried man is still married to the first wife in God's eyes, then why don't we command them to divorce, because they are living in sin? And a person living in public sin should never be allowed to join the church. None of this makes sense to me and I don't know how to say it any clearer. Until someone explains how John 4 and Deuteronomy 24 mean anything other than a remarried man has only one wife, I won't understand. I feel like they are going on "thus saith man" in the whole "living spouse" idea. I think the whole "You are still married in God's eyes to your first spouse" is in NO way found in scriptures. I think it is a legalistic idea some men came up with, and other legalistic men liked it, so it spread like wildfire (itching ears) and while the majority may have or may not have accepted it, it is a man's idea that sounds good. I don't see it in the Bible.
Again, and I hate to keep saying it, but Deut 24:1-4 teaches a remarried man has only one wife, and in God's eyes, can't ever take the first woman to be his wife again, for in God's eyes, she is no longer his wife and never should be his wife.
The whole "remarried men have two wives" seems to be in total contradiction to the rest of the Bible.
I agree a Christian brother is released from the bonds of marriage by death, but that doesn't necessary show at all that he may not be released in other ways also. Just b/c there is one way doesn't mean there aren't two ways. After all, didn't Jesus say if you divorce for fornication, it isn't adultery when you remarry? Or more specifically, EXCEPT for the cause of fornication, a person who divorces causes his spouse to commit adultery? So if it is for fornication, there is no adultery, indicating QUITE the opposite to the "two wife" theory.
No, of COURSE it is a covenant before God. But you can break covenants before God. You should NEVER do so, but you can. Are you ducking Deut 24 and the clear understanding of John 4?
ReplyDeleteGood question. What about the scriptures in 1 Cor 7? Or have we chased this rabbit far enough?
ReplyDelete1Co 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
ReplyDelete1Co 7:28 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.
JamesCharles, if we use language of accommodation in Deut and John to prove that a first wife is no longer a wife in God's Word, should we also use language of accommodation that speaks of multiple wives as "wives" to prove that polygamy is ok and these are all wives in God's sight and plan?
ReplyDeleteConcerning the Spirit working apart from the Word being Calvinism, it would be just as easy to claim His being confined to only working that way as Campbellism. This is one thing our forefathers debated against the Campbellites (the Campbellites were the ones who took the position that He doesn't work apart from the Word).
God has all knowledge of the past, present and future. Therefore, He knew before all of us did, that divorce would be accepted, at some point, by men.
ReplyDeleteI remember when I was in school there were very few parents who were divorced. It just didn't happen. It was shameful.
Now, why would God use the words "husband of one wife"? Do you really think that He's saying it's ok for the other men in the church to have more than one wife at a time, just not the pastor or the deacons? That just doesn't make sense. Pretty simple to me.
Brother Vaughn, it isn't Campbelism as I researched what that was since I didn't know.
ReplyDeleteAs to the pastoral qualification, he was making sure churches knew their pastor couldn't be a polygamist as was accepted of many leaders in the day (officials). He also needed to be blameless, and rule well his house. All of these standards apply to ALL God's children with the exception of being a man. So why would a church member be exempted from the rule? As Brother Arch says, God has one standard.
The difference is, we needed to have certain written things to know what to look for when choosing a pastor. He couldn't say "A perfect man" which is what He wants for all of us, because I don't know any perfect men today.
SO the qualifications of godliness apply to the whole church as well, they are just what to look for when seeking a pastor.
The problem is pastors with two living wives have a reproach before the world - and then get up and preach GOd's plan for marriage is one man for one woman for one lifetime and that it picures Chist and the church, but don't do what I do, do what I say. Or, how can he explain to a candidate in his church to be ordained as a preacher or a deacon that the Bible means what it says except when you are going to be ordained and you can forget that qualification (I know they are all important) but you better expect some old preachers to still believe the Bible means what it says and object to such an ordination (or just refuse to be part of it). Where I have been for ordinations, if the letter seeking ordained brethren to come doesn't give the marital history, I have to call and ask for it. To not give it might be considered deceptive unless one knows ahead of time that the particular pastor doesn't believe the Bible means what it says in that qualification. There are still churches (thank the Lord) where they stand by all the qualifications the Bible gives for a pastor.
ReplyDeleteWell, the issue isn't do we believe what the Bible says. The question is What does the Bible say. I believe 100% the Bible teaches emphatically that a remarried man has ONLY one wife due to John 4 and Deut 24. I don't see how ANYONE can believe otherwise. It doesn't make any sense how they can ignore these obvious clear passages. I believe the "man of one wife" is also EXTREMELY clear. I have one wife. If I divorce, I have no wife. If I remarry, I have one wife. If I marry two at once (as was common then), I have two wives. THIS WAS FORBIDDEN! I don't see how anyone can't see that, even though they do.
ReplyDeleteIf I were going to accept a pastor couldn't be remarried, it'd have to be NOT on the grounds of "he currently has two wives" but on the grounds of "he's had (in the past) multiple wives" and this makes him a man of more than one wife in his lifetime, even though he only currently has one wife. The problem is, a murderer has a reproach, but Paul was called to pastor as apostle. Could he not just as easily preach NEVER MURDER A CHRISTIAN, and say "Do as I say, not as I did"?
Anyway, I'm not posting on this. We've run it into the ground. No one will even attempt to explain Deuteronomy 24:1-4 or give an explanation of how they believe Jesus lied when He said the woman at the well spoke well and spoke truth in that she had NO husband in John 4, even though she'd been married five times. If God only considered the first husband her real husband, he'd have said "You DID NOT say well, I have no husband".
I suppose the lack of addressing these issues which have been brought up again and again only means that those on your side of the fence have no answer to them. They just choose to ignore them and overlook them so they can continue to hold their skewed view that a remarried man has two living wives and is living in adultery, which Jesus OBVIOUSLY also refuted in saying "except for fornication".
Aside from this whole disagreement, you know I love you Brother and I was open to all you said. I agree one should not marry, but if they do, they should stay married. And I agree one should not separate, but if they do, they should remain unmarried. And I believe one should not remarry, but if they do, they sin not (according to 1 Corinthians 7). I believe this is the Bible's teaching. I do not compromise what I believe the Bible teaches.
As to the book you recommended, it is helping me to change my whole view of how things should be done in ministry and youth ministry. Thanks!
The "except for fornication" referred to a Jewish man for whom Moses gave writing of divorcement (in a time when they divorced wives for no reason, leaving them without support)for men who discovered on their wedding night their wife was not a virgin - incontrovertible evidence that the seal had been broken and she was not a virgin.
ReplyDeleteJohn 4 - the first man was the woman's husband in God's sight, although she in man's affairs had 5- thus the one she now had was not considered by God to be her husband. Plain and simple answer without trying to explain away the words.
Deut 24 - God's accomodation for men in Israel (context). The NT standard as in the 10 commandments is higher for marriage, same as for Adam and Eve before marriages became corrupted. God did not approve of marrying, divorcing, remarrying, divorcing and then going back to marry the first mate.
God's Word does not teach in Deut 24:1-4 that GOd's ideal is that people can violate HIs standard of one man for opne woman for one lifetime with HIs approval. He permitted this accomadation forthe hardness of their hearts. If a man due to hardness of his heart does not fit marital qualification, he should not be ordained as a pastor or deacon. If he is too hardhearted to forgive in his marariage relationship, how can he be forgiving as a pastor or deacon?
Brother James, when you write, "...it isn't Campbelism as I researched what that was since I didn't know" I assume you are speaking of Brother Crain's position. I am somewhat in the dark since I haven't read his position. Campbellism, or the "Church of Christ" position is that baptism is an act of obedience that secures the forgiveness of past sins. They do not believe the Holy Spirit performs any kind of operation on the soul either in faith, baptism or anything. They believe only the Word operates, and any references to the Spirit mean the work of the Word (or something like that). Origin of Campbellism by J. H. Milburn is a good source on some of these teachings. I am under the impression that some Baptists don't believe that God does any kind of operation or actual change in the new birth, but that it is simply a matter of exercising the will to believe.
ReplyDeleteBut back to the general subject, I have been wondering about something younglandmarker wrote. I don't think anyone addressed it either pro or con: "I do not believe that one who has been promiscous in their youth has the right to preach because in God's eyes, once they have become one flesh, they are married."
If I am not misunderstanding, this equates the sex act with marriage. That is, if an unmarried youth becomes one flesh, he is in effect married. It is my understanding that the Bible calls this fornication rather than marriage. If we apply this definition of marriage, how should a church deal with a couple that is living together? Are they actually married and therefore the church has no right to exercise discipline? I'm just wondering where such an idea will take us, if that is what is meant?
Thanks.
He's probably using the verse that refers to not sleeping with a harlot, for "two shall be one flesh". Some scripture in the New Testament I think.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the H.S. DOES indeed work in salvation, it just doesn't bring you there OUTSIDE of the Word. He uses the Word to do the convicting. Or you could say He accompanies and empowers the Word in it's piercing. Either way, He does it, but mediately THROUGH the Word. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. The Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit.
Brother Merritt, you still didn't answer Deut 24:1-4 which says no man can EVER go back and take the first woman he married TO BE HIS WIFE, because it is an ABOMINATION before the Lord. If she is already his wife, or still his wife, this command is SENSELESS. So you did indeed explain away the words, or ignore them completely.
The same in John 4. Jesus said that she spoke well, and she spoke truth, that she had NO husband. You are either explaining away or ignoring these words. Either way, you haven't explained the fact that Jesus confirmed the truth of what she spoke, that she had NO husband (NOT EVEN THE FIRST!)
Finally, the best not to touch a woman, but if you do, then marry. Best not to separate, but if you do, remain separate. Best not to remarry, but if you do, you sin not isn't from John 4 or Deut 24, but 1 Corinthians 7. I apologize for saying my last post would be my last. I did not suppose you would misunderstand my questions and comment. If you or anyone feels violated by my breaking of my promise, go ahead and delete this. :-p
Clarification of the 1 Corinthians comment.
ReplyDelete1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Co 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1Co 7:28 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.
1 COR 7:27 CAN IT BE SAID ANY PLAINER? If you are married, don't get a divorce. If you are divorced, don't get married.
ReplyDelete"Loosed from a wife"is 1 wife and the wife you get when seeking a wife after divorce is second wife. The day was when a missionary would not be voted for salary support as an insterstate missionary if he was divorced and remarried. I believe there is still a question on the MIssionary Recommendation Form to that effect.
Anonymous (on your Snide blog) called a famous religious writer a serial polygamist. I had an aunt that married 5 times. My wife had a cousin who had a new wife everty Chirstmas for years, up to 8 marriages. Surely we can agree a preacher should not be a serial polygamist.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the issue is not whether or not God permits divorce and remarriage, the Bible teaches against divorce and remarriage. The issue is whether scripture require a man to meet all of the qualifications (if that's even possible) and why the marriage qualification would be the only one that's non-negotiable.
ReplyDeleteEven in the case of adultery, God wants that marriage worked out... and it can very well be worked out.
If a pastor commits adultery and leaves his wife, that pastor has disqualified himself from future ministry. I believe younglandmarker is right to point out the scripture that said adultery is a reproach to never be taken away. That pastor has proven himself to be untrustworthy, and that action also violates the qualification of being blameless, of good behavior, and being of a good report to those who are without.
But if you look at 1 Timothy 3, there are a number of qualifications listed that describe the ideal Christian. No one will live up to all of the qualifications. What about preachers who are money-motivated (greedy of filthy-lucre), those who are arguing in favor of consuming alcohol (not given to wine), those who enjoy a good argument and actually do things to get stuff stirred up (brawler), or what about the qualifications about ruling his own house well?
The husband of one wife (which I interpret to both teach against polygamy and against marrying/divorcing/remarrying/divorcing, etc.), seems to be the only qualification that is non-negotiable. I don't believe that a man who has been divorced and remarried fits this qualification, but does one have to fit ALL of the qualifications to qualify? If not, then why is this one qualification the only one that is non-negotiable?
Personally, if my wife left me, I'd resign. It would emotionally and spiritually devastate me to the point that I would be unfit and incapable of continuing my ministry at that point.
THE FOLLOWING IS TOTALLY 100% THEORETICAL, MY MARRIAGE IS IN GOOD SHAPE.
However, once the situation is resolved, say she divorces me and moves to Tennessee, am I disqualified from pastoring from that point on? Not according to this scripture, but many churches wouldn't even call me in that situation. That's okay, those churches have to do what they think is best.
Suppose years down the road, though, I'm pastoring, and I meet a woman (I haven't been looking), reconciliation is not going to happen (no contact or even knowledge of the whereabouts of the exwife), must I resign the church to marry? Must I resign, even if I'm blameless, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, not given to wine and so on?
You may say yes, I see your point and respect it. Still, I look around our associations, and I see some men that have great influence, that have a great ministry, that have done great things for the Landmark Baptist movement, who have been divorced (and some remarried) through no fault of their own, who are ministering and continuing to do great things for God. Are those men in rebellion against God's Word? Are they outside of God's will? Should they be removed from their pastoral positions? I can not accept a yes answer on that.
I feel like I'm rambling here, but I'm not being permissive of divorce, I'm not encouraging it, I don't see any wisdom in rushing over to a pastor who's getting divorced and trying to restore him to a place of ministry as soon as possible (I see the wisdom in helping him recover from the emotional devastation).
What I am saying is I do see instances where a man can meet most, if not all of the other qualifications, and for reasons that are not necessarily his fault, have a divorce and remarriage in his life. In that situation, I think the man can pastor, if he meets the other qualifications.
1Co 7:1 Don't touch a woman.
ReplyDelete1Co 7:2 To avoid fornication, go ahead and marry.
1Co 7:27 Married? Don't divorce. Divorced? Don't remarry.
1Co 7:28 Remarried? Not a sin.
Virgin marries? Not a sin.
Trouble in flesh, but no sin.
In the book Old Landmarkism: What Is It? by J. R. Graves, page 94, 39 of his landmark principles, he wrote, "To preserve and perpetuate the doctrine of a divinely called and scripturally qualified and ordained ministry, to proclaim the gospel, and to administer the ordinances, not upon their own responsibility, but for, and under the direction of, local churches alone." One of the things found in false religion is men who are not divinely called and scripturally qualified. If we get away from scripturally qualified, we are becoming more like Protestants. We need to stay within the bounds of divinely called and scripturally qualified preachers.
ReplyDeleteI'm not advocating moving away from sticking within the parameters of divinely called and scripturally qualified. In no way do I think 1Timothy 3 should be disregarded, nor am I on a crusade to get divorced and remarried men into the ministry. My question is (a) is it possible to meet ALL the criteria and if not (b) why is the divorce/remarriage qualification the only one that becomes the uncompromisable litmus test.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, the men whose only flaw is the divorce/remarriage qualification are few and far between. Usually, divorce can signal other character issues, that once examined, can surface and big problems emerge.
I agree Brother Bishop.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here, however, is not whether or not we will stand up for and stand firmly upon the qualifications in God's Word. I think most ABA preachers with conviction about literal interpretation will stand upon the Word.
The problem here is we do not agree upon what the qualification is or means. I try, but I just can not see God forbidding remarriage. I believe this is inconsistent with His Word. I believe the idea that a man being remarried having multiple wives, or having only the first wife in God's eyes is a direct contradiction of God's Word.
As much as one may believe he should stand firm upon this teaching that a remarried man is disqualified, I stand just as firm upon the teaching that a marriage is a covenant between a man and woman, before God, but just like ANY other covenant, can be broken (as wrong as that may be).
Once one remarries, they form a new covenant before God, and God honors it (else we must command all remarried couples divorce immediately).
I firmly believe the anti-remarriage idea is a blatant contradiction of Deut 24:4, Jesus' reply that the woman spoke truly and well in her admission of having no husband in John 4:17-18, and 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 showing remarriage is not a sin.
To clarify:
1. I believe the best case scenario is a person does not marry, but instead dedicates their whole life solely to God. If they can't contain, they should marry.
2. Second best scenario, if they can not contain, let them marry, but never separate.
3. Third best scenario, if they can not stay married, let them separate, but stay separated and not divorce so they may win that person back.
4. Fourth best scenario, if they divorce, let them stay single and love the Lord the rest of their lives.
5. Fifth best scenario, if they can't contain, let them remarry.
This is the order from 1 Corinthians 7.
And so while I do not ever recommend divorce, but I do not believe 1 Corinthians 3 states a remarried man cannot pastor. I believe it is obviously referring to having multiple wives, both in context and definition. Remarriage leaves less of a reproach before men than murder does. If Paul could be called to pastor as an apostle, then a remarried man with FAR FAR FAR less reproach can be called to pastor. A man who has two or more wives (polygamist) can NOT effectively pastor, no matter how hard he tries. This is a reproach people will continuously notice, and continuously think of when he speaks. This fits with the rest of the context of choosing a man who meets qualifications referencing to the present time, such as the following.
"Must be" in the presently being blameless, presently being vigilant, presently being sober, presently being of good behavior, presently being given to hospitality, presently being apt to teach, presently being not given to wine, presently being no striker, presently being not greedy, presently being patient, presently being not a brawler, presently being covetous, presently being one who rules well his own house, presently being not a novice, presently being one of good report of those who are without. If any of these refer to what a man did in the past, it MUST then disqualify me, and most likely all preachers who lived wrong in any aspect of life (blameless) before salvation or surrender to ministry.
So why then would we assume the only other qualification doesn't refer to present actions and how people view your current choices, but we say "man of one wife" refers to a past deed or action? I just believe by definition, syntax and context, this verse can ONLY refer to polygamy, and so I will stand firm upon it and NOT at all back down. I will not compromise the truth just because brethren look down on me for it.
I will stand firm on what God's Word teaches, and while I know some may disagree, I do ask that you not view me as one who compromises or "laxes" God's standards. Instead view me as I am, one who stands firm upon what He believes God's Word teaches. And as you view me as one who isn't laxing God's standards, I won't view you as one purposefully and legalistically places standards that God has not.
The legalists were those in NT who were Judaizers wanting to add circumcision to the plan of salvation. They were trying to inflict a change in doctrine on others by coersion. On who stands by the Bible cannot be a legalist. I am glad you stand by what you believe, Bro James Charles. I just wish you believed more.
ReplyDeleteYou mean you wish I believed differently, not "more." Perhaps "more like you do".
ReplyDeleteBTW, I agree those who stand on the Bible aren't legalists, but the question is, "Who is standing on the Bible?" I just don't want people to think I am compromising my beliefs or giving in to the world. I am studying, and standing firm on what I am convinced God's Word teaches. Can I be wrong on something? As much as you or any other can be.
As to legalism, I agree. A legalist (in my use of the word) is one who purposefully adds regulations to the Scriptures that God does not impose. I also view a liberal as one who purposefully speaks or freedoms that God prohibits, both morally and doctrinally. Just as I would not consider you or others legalists (purposefully adding), I would ask the same, that others not call me a liberal, for if I subtract or give any freedom the Scriptures do not, it is NOT at all intentional, by lack of study or purposefully compromising the truth. If I do teach freedoms not contained in Scriptures, it is 100% unintentional and I do my ABSOLUTE best to see what Scriptures do indeed teach. I believe it is the same way with my extremely traditional brethren. They've studied, studied, studied the subjects, and if they are being too legalistic (based on my previous understanding of the word), then it isn't on purpose, but purely unintentional.
I and my family always sat in the beautiful countryside on Saturday morning, Abercrombie and Fitch Clothing in silence. Of course, D&G sunglasses it is the rhythm of headphones from the other soft and clear music. Some say that our family has a different pattern almost dr dre headphone beat. Also shot headphones, including me, Franklin Marshall Hoodies my friends are a model of a monster. This is indeed that monster beat in our lives is to become a regular thing. Morning, Hogan Men shoes my friend has just started their baseball game.
ReplyDelete