Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Are Pastoral Disqualifications Permanent?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I try to be cut-and-dry and black-and-white about everything I can, but in the area of divorce God did make at least one exception, and we’ve already seen it to be fornication and possibly abandonment.


The "exception" isn't really one at all. In three of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke God says that to divorce and re-marry is "adultery" in his eyes. In only the book of Matthew, written to Jewish believers, is the "saving for the cause of fornication" clause mentioned. That is because as Dennis D alluded to, the Jews considered the betrothal period to be a time of where the couple was married but had not come together physically yet. Thus when the angel appeared to Joseph after mary was found with child during the betrothal period he said "fear not to take unto thee mary thy wife". We don't have that custom and "betrothal" is not a binding contract today as it was in the Jewish world then. If Jesus had meant it was ok to divorce because a spouse had committed adultery he would have used that word. Instead he used the word translated "fornication" which is different from the one for adultery. The greek word translated "fornication" is the same one the english word "pornography" comes from. It is an extremely broad word that literally could cover just about anything from improper relations before marriage to immodest manner of dress, to lustful looks. If you think the Matthew reference to "save for the cause of fornication" is a biblical reason to divorce as we define divorce today your not only mistaken your inconsistent by limiting it to adultery when the word is not the word for adultery in either the English or the Greek. If you stuck to the literal definition of "porneiva" as a legitimate reason for divorce as we know it the slightest form of unfaithfulness would be considered an acceptable reason to divorce. In short you could never claim anyone was biblically wrong to divorce if they claimed that as a reason. Technically a a wife could divorce her husband for an improper look at another woman, a husband could divorce his wife for dressing provocatively, etc. That "exception" would be so broad that it would make the prohibition meaningless in the first place.

As far as the "abandonment" by an unbeliever issue Paul mentions it does not give the "abandoned" permission to re-marry, it only states that if such a situation happens and the unbeliever leaves them they should allow the unbeliever to do so and states they are not under "bondage" in such situations and that they are called to peace. I think the issue there was that some people had converted and that their spouses absolutely detested Christianity and left them, but the new believers were afraid that they were guilty of something if they "allowed" such a thing to happen because they knew Gods views on divorce. Apparently some of the church had written Paul about this kind of situation. Paul replied and reassured them that if they had done what they could and were not the ones initiating the divorce it wasn't their fault and they should have no guilt. In light of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and the Lords direct command they should remain unmarried if being reconciled isn't an option for one reason or another. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what can be gleaned from the scriptures below (bold)...it does mean never divorced?

In particular...
1 Timothy 3:1-7
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.

Titus 1:5
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So if an engaged person breaks up with a girl because she dressed immodestly then that girl can never get married again or she'll be guilty of adultery, even if she’s a virgin? I hope you understand if I don't agree with your interpretation, Seth. That was a really good post though and I appreciate it.

Matthew 19:9, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

I do agree that fornication is broader than just "adultery": fornication is sexual sin, but I don't think it's as broad as you put it. All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. God's will is always reconciliation, but the allowance is there and I don't think a Jewish custom changes the word of God, especially in light of implications it would mean for an engaged person. God wants folks to reconcile, but if there is a case of habitual unrepentant fornication divorce is acceptable. Besides, if divorce was always a sin for both parties, God would have never spoken of Himself divorcing Israel, spiritually or not, for the cause of adultery (which is specific to married, non-engaged people) multiple times in the Old Testament.

As far as the abandonment thing, if God says a person isn't under bondage then there's no reason to assume that they can't get married again just like a widowed person can.

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Betrothal, that's the word I was looking for! Thanks.

Eloped... :blink: what an idiot I am.


I must say that I disagree with that comment, 100%! Your just like all other godly people, human. Some maybe more so than others, and I suppose there be a few that will not admit it. th_tiphat.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They can, when and if their divorce spouse dies, yet not until.

Ro 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Ro 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

The verse says that the divorce woman while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress, and will be called that as long as her husband shall live.

So how can someone proclaim its a one time adultery for a divorce person to marry, that disagrees with the Bible.

We are to accepting of the ways of this world, and this world has gobbled up divorcing taking it to a new level. Yet I hear that since more are now shacking up, instead of getting married, that the divorce rate is down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They can, when and if their divorce spouse dies, yet not until.

Ro 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Ro 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

The verse says that the divorce woman while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress, and will be called that as long as her husband shall live.

So how can someone proclaim its a one time adultery for a divorce person to marry, that disagrees with the Bible.

We are to accepting of the ways of this world, and this world has gobbled up divorcing taking it to a new level. Yet I hear that since more are now shacking up, instead of getting married, that the divorce rate is down.


I wouldn't use Romans 7 in the context you have. Because it speaks specifically to the Mosaic law given to Moses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This "husband of two wives" thing is crazy. I know of a Christian man who wanted to be a pastor but was told by a pastor that he would have to leave his saved wife whom he married not too long after being saved and go back to his unsaved wife he was married to while he was unsaved. If not then he was disqualified because he had "two living wives".

The passage is clearly about polygamy.

The gifts and callings of God are without repentance. If God calls a man to the pastorate then he is a pastor no matter what and this can't be taken away. He may place himself in a difficult position to be a pastor through certain behavior though. If a group of people don't care if the man was divorced and they want him as their pastor then he should be their pastor no matter what some IFB pharisee says.

The "qualifications" which Paul spoke of were qualifications before society NOT God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



I wouldn't use Romans 7 in the context you have. Because it speaks specifically to the Mosaic law given to Moses.




Amazing, simply amazing, throw out Romans, or that is part of Romans at least, and its New Testament Teachings by the Apostle Paul. I love picking and choosing what to accept, them you can go the direction you desire.

By the way, the Romans teachings does agree with other New Testament teachings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This "husband of two wives" thing is crazy. I know of a Christian man who wanted to be a pastor but was told by a pastor that he would have to leave his saved wife whom he married not too long after being saved and go back to his unsaved wife he was married to while he was unsaved. If not then he was disqualified because he had "two living wives".

The passage is clearly about polygamy.

The gifts and callings of God are without repentance. If God calls a man to the pastorate then he is a pastor no matter what and this can't be taken away. He may place himself in a difficult position to be a pastor through certain behavior though. If a group of people don't care if the man was divorced and they want him as their pastor then he should be their pastor no matter what some IFB pharisee says.

The "qualifications" which Paul spoke of were qualifications before society NOT God.


No, they're the qualifications for a New Testament pastor, whither you agree or disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members





Amazing, simply amazing, throw out Romans, or that is part of Romans at least, and its New Testament Teachings by the Apostle Paul. I love picking and choosing what to accept, them you can go the direction you desire.

By the way, the Romans teachings does agree with other New Testament teachings.

I really don't see how those verses from Romans couldn't apply. They are in accord with the rest of Scripture, New and Old.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members





Amazing, simply amazing, throw out Romans, or that is part of Romans at least, and its New Testament Teachings by the Apostle Paul. I love picking and choosing what to accept, them you can go the direction you desire.

By the way, the Romans teachings does agree with other New Testament teachings.


We're all here to learn about the Bible. You've used the verses in Romans out of context for this particular discussion. No one said throw out Romans or pick and choose Bible verses. Didn't someone earlier mention Matthew is written primarily to the Jew? Did you get so upset over that, no, well why now? This chapter of Romans is discussing the Law given to Moses for the Jew.

Some of us (me included) may be forming a final and personal understanding of all this. This is one area I'd not studied in great detail but have always heard it preached...once divorced never a pastor. So, I've seen good arguments from many here and had yet to compile it internally. I've since gone to Strongs, compared all the scriptures presented, and full well believe a man should not be a pastor if he has been divorced. You're taking this too personal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Didn't someone earlier mention Matthew is written primarily to the Jew? Did you get so upset over that, no, well why now? This chapter of Romans is discussing the Law given to Moses for the Jew.


Just wanted to touch on this since I believe I was the one that said this. My point was not that Matthew was not applicable to non-jews, my point was that it was written to people with a Jewish background and an understanding of Jewish custom. A understanding of Jewish custom his helpful in understanding a few things in the book. This is contrary to some of the other gospels which either leave out references to Jewish custom or make a point of explaining them if they are mentioned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So if an engaged person breaks up with a girl because she dressed immodestly then that girl can never get married again or she'll be guilty of adultery, even if she’s a virgin? I hope you understand if I don't agree with your interpretation, Seth. That was a really good post though and I appreciate it.


In our culture engagement is not a marriage, it isn't anywhere near as serious. It is more of a general declaration of intent, and can be broken just by one or both individuals having a change of heart. Jewish betrothal was a much more serious matter. It was considered marriage, but a unconsummated one. It actually required a divorce to get out of it which is why Joseph who was "not willing to make her a public example" was minded to "put her away" privatively when mary was found with child. Today if your fiancée is discovered to be pregnant and you never had immoral relations with her you don't have to divorce her, there is no concrete commitment anyway. You just tell her you have changed your mind. In our culture there really is no such thing as a "betrothal" period in the same sense the Jews had one. Even if someone chooses to call "engagement", "betrothal", today they really don't mean what it meant back then. It would be more the equivalent of a couple on their wedding day that have already said their vows and are married but yet haven't actually come together yet.

Besides, if divorce was always a sin for both parties, God would have never spoken of Himself divorcing Israel, spiritually or not, for the cause of adultery (which is specific to married, non-engaged people) multiple times in the Old Testament.


I assume you are speaking of Jeremiah 3:8 and taking that as a stand alone verse leading to an improper interpretation. If there was no context I would have to agree with you but if you look at the context it wasn't that God had divorced Israel, it was that Israel had divorced him, but yet in spite of that he still considered himself married to them. Lets look at the whole passage to make it a bit clearer hopefully. I will underline a few of the most pertinent places and enlarge the print in two spots.

Jeremiah 3:6-22 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD. And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more. At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers. But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me. Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD. A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the LORD their God. Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the LORD our God.

So lets break this passage down, first Israel "commits adultery" against God, then God says " Turn thou unto me". Israel refuses. Then Israel gets the bill of divorcement from God. Up to this point it would it would not be unreasonable to assume that God was divorcing Israel for adultery and refusing to repent, yet the following verses show that it was Israel that "demanded" the divorce and not God. So lets move on. AFTER this bill of divorcement has been given God AGAIN calls on Israel to return to him. That right there would be enough to show that it is Israel that is divorcing God not the other way around. If you willfully just divorced someone you don't immediately try to get them to come back, and God does call them yet again. Not only that, but after the bill of divorcement has been given and God calls them to return he STILL says "I am married unto you". God obviously did not consider that he was divorced from them even though they were divorced from him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


I really don't see how those verses from Romans couldn't apply. They are in accord with the rest of Scripture, New and Old.




I give up on this issue. When any person decides that certain parts of the Bible is not to be used by us, they them are free to make their own rules.


I recall a long time back we had some dispersion believing people that claimed that certain parts of the New Testament does not apply to us, they also believed there was more than one way for man to be saved.


2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Yet the Holy Scriptures them self says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...