Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

chev1958

Are Pastoral Disqualifications Permanent?

Recommended Posts


This is somewhat vague and I apologize for that in advance. But, what I've heard in the past but unsure on complete details, please let me know if you understand what I'm talking about, is this:

The divorcement the Scriptures are speaking of in regards to what Moses suffered to the people is a bill of divorcement for the eloped period (one year where the couple were together but not officially married). If the man found out the women had done something he was unaware of (fornication) and was not a virgin he could give her a bill of divorcement. Fornication I thought was sexual activity outside the marriage whereas adultery is within the marriage. If this is true, then once a couple is married (officially, not the eloped period) there is no reason (except death) that releases you from that bond.


Fornication is defined in the dictionary as being any sexual sin, whether it’s done by a married person or not. Adultery is more specific, and fornication is broader.

I'm not actually arguing against you, I'm trying to see your biblical position for this.

It has been asked if a man marries a divorcee, is he qualified to be a pastor or not. What are the biblical grounds for saying yes or no?


Sure thing brother, I didn’t think you were. :) Because this is a very unpopular position on this board, I hope you can understand my hesitation to go much further. 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.

I think there are a lot of assumptions made when it comes to the qualifications of a bishop and deacon. The first assumption made is that the husband of two wives means for the man’s whole life, as opposed to polygamy. If the Bible clearly said that a divorced man could not pastor or be a deacon, then there’d be no question about it – but it doesn’t. That’s the first assumption.

If “a husband of two wives” means EVER and not polygamy – then the first huge problem I have with that is if a divorced man gets saved he’s banned from even being a deacon because of something he did before he was saved. The response to this is that it doesn’t count before Calvary – but there’s nothing to back this up. If “a husband of two wives” means EVER, then it in fact means EVER and includes life before salvation.

There’s plenty of other cases too. What if a man gets saved and starts living for the Lord (happens all the time) and his wife refuses to (nothing new) and then she gets fed up and leaves him six months into his new life in Christ. Twenty years down the road he can’t be a deacon because of this ASSUMPTION that “the husband of two wives” means a person’s entire life and not polygamy.

The next assumption, which is what this whole thread is about, is that when a man is disqualified it’s permanent. The Bible doesn’t say one way or another. If a guy is known for being a brawler (disqualifier), who doesn’t know how to treat people (inhospitable - disqualifier), and is a lousy Bible teacher (“apt to teach”) does that mean he is forever banned from being a pastor? I honestly don’t think so, if ten years later the Lord has really changed the man (it happens all the time) and those things are no longer an issue then he should be qualified.

I believe the qualifications of bishops and deacons have to do with that man at that moment. Is he qualified NOW – not is he qualified twenty years ago. Is his house in order NOW? His family may have gone through something terrible with a rebellious teenager ten years ago, but once the situation has been resolved, and time has passed, and it’s clear that it’s no longer an issue, I don’t think it should be held over his head for time and eternity.

It doesn't, its his way of striking out at what he disagree with someone, he has done that several times. Some people just can stop from striking out when they disagree with someone, they have to start saying things such as he did.


Striking out? I disagreed and stated an unpopular opinion in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Please don’t accuse me of something I didn’t do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Fornication is defined in the dictionary as being any sexual sin, whether it’s done by a married person or not. Adultery is more specific, and fornication is broader.



Sure thing brother, I didn’t think you were. :) Because this is a very unpopular position on this board, I hope you can understand my hesitation to go much further. 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.

I think there are a lot of assumptions made when it comes to the qualifications of a bishop and deacon. The first assumption made is that the husband of two wives means for the man’s whole life, as opposed to polygamy. If the Bible clearly said that a divorced man could not pastor or be a deacon, then there’d be no question about it – but it doesn’t. That’s the first assumption.

If “a husband of two wives” means EVER and not polygamy – then the first huge problem I have with that is if a divorced man gets saved he’s banned from even being a deacon because of something he did before he was saved. The response to this is that it doesn’t count before Calvary – but there’s nothing to back this up. If “a husband of two wives” means EVER, then it in fact means EVER and includes life before salvation.

There’s plenty of other cases too. What if a man gets saved and starts living for the Lord (happens all the time) and his wife refuses to (nothing new) and then she gets fed up and leaves him six months into his new life in Christ. Twenty years down the road he can’t be a deacon because of this ASSUMPTION that “the husband of two wives” means a person’s entire life and not polygamy.

The next assumption, which is what this whole thread is about, is that when a man is disqualified it’s permanent. The Bible doesn’t say one way or another. If a guy is known for being a brawler (disqualifier), who doesn’t know how to treat people (inhospitable - disqualifier), and is a lousy Bible teacher (“apt to teach”) does that mean he is forever banned from being a pastor? I honestly don’t think so, if ten years later the Lord has really changed the man (it happens all the time) and those things are no longer an issue then he should be qualified.

I believe the qualifications of bishops and deacons have to do with that man at that moment. Is he qualified NOW – not is he qualified twenty years ago. Is his house in order NOW? His family may have gone through something terrible with a rebellious teenager ten years ago, but once the situation has been resolved, and time has passed, and it’s clear that it’s no longer an issue, I don’t think it should be held over his head for time and eternity.



Striking out? I disagreed and stated an unpopular opinion in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Please don’t accuse me of something I didn’t do.


Suggestion, Why not say you just disagree, them explain why, them leave statements such as this off."...for a man to say a person is disqualified would seem, well, pharisaical." Click on and it will teak you to that post, and your striking out because you disagree.

There was no need for you to call me, "pharisaical."

Sad to say many men and women do things that put them in a position that God cannot use them for certain positions, such as pastor, deacon, and even Sunday school teachers.

I know of a few men, some are now dead, that were in the position of being married to a divorce woman that served the Lord quite well as a preacher, but not a pastor. I commend them for happily serving the Lord as a preacher and recognizing that they cannot hold the position of pastor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest



Fornication is defined in the dictionary as being any sexual sin, whether it’s done by a married person or not. Adultery is more specific, and fornication is broader.



Sure thing brother, I didn’t think you were. :) Because this is a very unpopular position on this board, I hope you can understand my hesitation to go much further. 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.

I think there are a lot of assumptions made when it comes to the qualifications of a bishop and deacon. The first assumption made is that the husband of two wives means for the man’s whole life, as opposed to polygamy. If the Bible clearly said that a divorced man could not pastor or be a deacon, then there’d be no question about it – but it doesn’t. That’s the first assumption.

If “a husband of two wives” means EVER and not polygamy – then the first huge problem I have with that is if a divorced man gets saved he’s banned from even being a deacon because of something he did before he was saved. The response to this is that it doesn’t count before Calvary – but there’s nothing to back this up. If “a husband of two wives” means EVER, then it in fact means EVER and includes life before salvation.

There’s plenty of other cases too. What if a man gets saved and starts living for the Lord (happens all the time) and his wife refuses to (nothing new) and then she gets fed up and leaves him six months into his new life in Christ. Twenty years down the road he can’t be a deacon because of this ASSUMPTION that “the husband of two wives” means a person’s entire life and not polygamy.

The next assumption, which is what this whole thread is about, is that when a man is disqualified it’s permanent. The Bible doesn’t say one way or another. If a guy is known for being a brawler (disqualifier), who doesn’t know how to treat people (inhospitable - disqualifier), and is a lousy Bible teacher (“apt to teach”) does that mean he is forever banned from being a pastor? I honestly don’t think so, if ten years later the Lord has really changed the man (it happens all the time) and those things are no longer an issue then he should be qualified.

I believe the qualifications of bishops and deacons have to do with that man at that moment. Is he qualified NOW – not is he qualified twenty years ago. Is his house in order NOW? His family may have gone through something terrible with a rebellious teenager ten years ago, but once the situation has been resolved, and time has passed, and it’s clear that it’s no longer an issue, I don’t think it should be held over his head for time and eternity.



Striking out? I disagreed and stated an unpopular opinion in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Please don’t accuse me of something I didn’t do.


Well put RIck! I'm in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestion, Why not say you just disagree, them explain why, them leave statements such as this off."...for a man to say a person is disqualified would seem, well, pharisaical." Click on and it will teak you to that post, and your striking out because you disagree.

There was no need for you to call me, "pharisaical."

Sad to say many men and women do things that put them in a position that God cannot use them for certain positions, such as pastor, deacon, and even Sunday school teachers.

I know of a few men, some are now dead, that were in the position of being married to a divorce woman that served the Lord quite well as a preacher, but not a pastor. I commend them for happily serving the Lord as a preacher and recognizing that they cannot hold the position of pastor.


I certainly didn't mean to offend you, and I even stated that as such. I still don't want to, I'm sorry if I did. By conscience, I have to stand by my statement though. If a person or organization creates a law, requirement, or standard that God doesn't have, it is pharisaical. You and I both would agree that that word "Pharasee" is abused to no end by people who try to make everything a-okay; things that there is no Scriptural basis for saying are acceptable. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about things that God clearly states are in fact acceptable, and then men say they are not.

I'll explain a little further. There are some things that are genuinely pharisaical if they're laid down on people. Saying that a man is sinning by eating bacon is pharisaical according to Acts. Saying that a man is required to be circumcised is pharisaical according to the Pauline epistles (you'll have to forgive me if I don't know exactly where the proof text is on that awkward subject :)). Requiring that a man refrain from marriage (i.e. Roman Catholic Church) to be in the ministry is pharisaical according to Colossians. Saying a man MUST do something that God clearly states that he DOESN'T have to do, is pharisaical. It’s laying down a tradition or commandment of men, not something of God.

What I'm saying is that if God makes an allowance for divorce in the Bible, for us to say that in every case divorce is a sin - in spite of God's clearly stated exception - is pharisaical. I don’t think we should assign blame where God doesn’t. So if God doesn’t assign blame to a divorced man because it was biblical in his situation, then I don’t think we should assign blame and tell him he can’t be a deacon or pastor forever.

I don't think you are a Pharisee, and I'm sorry if you got that impression. I don't anyone here is, but that doesn't mean that at times we don't start thinking like one. To be honest, I'll take a Pharisee any day over a Sadducee - which is what the body of Christ struggles with more today than anything. Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask, where did I say man was to reframe from marriage as do the Catholics?

Of course once he has divorced, he is not to remarry, nor is a woman to remarry after she is divorced. and the man or woman that marries someone that is divorce causes them to commit adultery.

Mt 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.

Mr 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Mr 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

1Co 7:10 ¶ And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Yet when there is divorce in the marriage they are not blameless nor of a good report, nor of good behavior.

1Ti 3:1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.


With the reply you gave me, all that stuff about bacon, it sounds if you think I'm saying that man nor his wife cannot be a good Christian, that I think he is a 2nd rate Christan, I never said that, never! I only said that he was not qualified to be a pastor of a New Testament Church.

He can be a preacher, he just can't be a pastor, again, he meets not the qualifications. Remember once again, these qualifications are not to be a good Christian, but to be a pastor of Jesus' New Testament Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





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..."

I'm not sure why you say you are giving up. My post agreed with your position. I said that I believe those verses in Romans DO apply and I said they are in agreement with the rest of Scripture on the topic, both in the Old and New Testaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



No, they're the qualifications for a New Testament pastor, whither you agree or disagree.



Context, brother. Paul was concerned how the man of God appeared in the community. If a man was called by God to be a pastor but blows it along the line for whatever reason doesn't mean that calling was revoke. You don't "qualify" yourself in front of God but in front of people.

"Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without"- I Timothy 3:7(a)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I'm not sure why you say you are giving up. My post agreed with your position. I said that I believe those verses in Romans DO apply and I said they are in agreement with the rest of Scripture on the topic, both in the Old and New Testaments.



I know you agreed, but there is no need to debate with someone after they throw out parts of the Scriptures saying they do not count in this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...