Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Jordan Kurecki

if a divorced person marries, are they in adultery?

Recommended Posts

First, of course, there is the issue of an unbiblical authority given to deacons: deacons were never intended as a board to rule over a pastor and a church-the Bible makes clear that the pastor(s)/elder(s) has the primary authority under the Lord, also called 'bishops', meaning overseers.  In Hebrews 13, the believers addressed are told to remeber them that have the rule over you, and to obey them that have the rule over you-neither instance is speaking of civil rule, but ecclesiastical rule, ie, their pastors. The deacons didn't have authority over the pastors, nor should they: they are designed to take many burdens off the pastor, so he can concentrate on the work of study and prayer. They are assistants, not rulers over him.  But nowadays many churches foolishly create a board to rule the pastors, who should be subject to the Lord first, and then to the church, as a whole, but NOT to some small group of men who take upon themselves the authority to hire and fire. Were I to be made the pastor of such a church, the first thing I would do is to disband the deacons board, and when I came to know the men of the church well enough, I would ordain godly men to work with me, as deacons, if I needed the help. I have never had deacons in the 13 years I have been a pastor.

As for your pastor, I suppose there is some precedence for removing him, as the Bible says that a pastor should be able to rule his own household well, and a disobedient wife who ran off would seem to imply that he had no rule in his home. However, all things need to be considered-why did she leave? She did have an affair-why? was he not attentive enough to her needs? Not saying that justifies it, but a pastor certainly must maintain a careful balance between their marriage and their calling. As well, we know that everyone has a will, and some just, for no good reason, decide they are done with it. It is really something that should have gone before the entire church for a vote, not just a group of men in an unbiblical position.

There are very few churches in SE Indiana that would agree with you, to their demise no doubt. But I agree wholeheartedly. The position of Deacon has become a shame to the Baptist churches. My former pastor years ago taught that Deacons were eventually to be pastors, and as a deacons they were under his training 'wing' to help them grow into a good and honorable men of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, of course, there is the issue of an unbiblical authority given to deacons: deacons were never intended as a board to rule over a pastor and a church-the Bible makes clear that the pastor(s)/elder(s) has the primary authority under the Lord, also called 'bishops', meaning overseers.  In Hebrews 13, the believers addressed are told to remeber them that have the rule over you, and to obey them that have the rule over you-neither instance is speaking of civil rule, but ecclesiastical rule, ie, their pastors. The deacons didn't have authority over the pastors, nor should they: they are designed to take many burdens off the pastor, so he can concentrate on the work of study and prayer. They are assistants, not rulers over him.  But nowadays many churches foolishly create a board to rule the pastors, who should be subject to the Lord first, and then to the church, as a whole, but NOT to some small group of men who take upon themselves the authority to hire and fire. Were I to be made the pastor of such a church, the first thing I would do is to disband the deacons board, and when I came to know the men of the church well enough, I would ordain godly men to work with me, as deacons, if I needed the help. I have never had deacons in the 13 years I have been a pastor.

As for your pastor, I suppose there is some precedence for removing him, as the Bible says that a pastor should be able to rule his own household well, and a disobedient wife who ran off would seem to imply that he had no rule in his home. However, all things need to be considered-why did she leave? She did have an affair-why? was he not attentive enough to her needs? Not saying that justifies it, but a pastor certainly must maintain a careful balance between their marriage and their calling. As well, we know that everyone has a will, and some just, for no good reason, decide they are done with it. It is really something that should have gone before the entire church for a vote, not just a group of men in an unbiblical position.

Thank you kindly Pastor Mike I agree entirely with you, this is exactly what happen with the deacons and by what they did caused division within the church and many to leave for this reason. But as far as the relationship in the marriage I don't know, I could only view this within my own marriage there has been many times I've spent many hours in study and prayer preparing to teach and many times I've been away from my home working the mission fields as a youth pastor and other ministries. Neglecting my duties as a husband to my wife but she has been faithful and obedient to the word of God always. So just as any Pastor would have to do the same in his ministry so should his wife be faithful and obedient obeying the word of God . this would be the case of the Pastor in which I'm speaking of .yet his wife was disobedient to the word of God and committed adultery and yet the charge was laided against him as being guilty for her sin of adultery by the deacons of the church overriding his authority. For this cause I believe the pastor needs to usurp his authority over the church in which he is called to lead not allowing deacons or any others (Members) to take of his authority and abuse it as it was done in this case as no evidence was presented against the Pastor before the church and he was unjustly fired by the deacons for the sins of his wife.

I have thought about this Brother Mike could the Pastor now be fired for the sins of a member committing adultery that he's unaware of being accused by deacons of not rightly keeping Gods Church in order, Just a thought though.

God bless Borther

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are very few churches in SE Indiana that would agree with you, to their demise no doubt. But I agree wholeheartedly. The position of Deacon has become a shame to the Baptist churches. My former pastor years ago taught that Deacons were eventually to be pastors, and as a deacons they were under his training 'wing' to help them grow into a good and honorable men of God.

In one of my old churches, despite having over 1000 people, he had no deacons, just associate pastors-I think that's a great idea in this day and age of ruling deacon boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've known two pastors personally I would place in the "great" category and one of them was forced out of the church because the board of deacons was power hungry and didn't like the pastor doing anything without their permission or anything other than what they wanted him to do.

Our church has boards, but no board of deacons. The few deacons in our church are servant-helpers as Scripture describes. We have a board of Christian education, board of physical properties and a main church board. All three boards are filled with members voted on by the members of the church and a person can only sit on a board for two consecutive terms. This keeps our boards from being dominated by anyone. Our associate pastor sits on the Christian education board and our senior pastor sits on the main board. Board members function as servants of the church, not as rulers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you kindly Pastor Mike I agree entirely with you, this is exactly what happen with the deacons and by what they did caused division within the church and many to leave for this reason. But as far as the relationship in the marriage I don't know, I could only view this within my own marriage there has been many times I've spent many hours in study and prayer preparing to teach and many times I've been away from my home working the mission fields as a youth pastor and other ministries. Neglecting my duties as a husband to my wife but she has been faithful and obedient to the word of God always. So just as any Pastor would have to do the same in his ministry so should his wife be faithful and obedient obeying the word of God . this would be the case of the Pastor in which I'm speaking of .yet his wife was disobedient to the word of God and committed adultery and yet the charge was laided against him as being guilty for her sin of adultery by the deacons of the church overriding his authority. For this cause I believe the pastor needs to usurp his authority over the church in which he is called to lead not allowing deacons or any others (Members) to take of his authority and abuse it as it was done in this case as no evidence was presented against the Pastor before the church and he was unjustly fired by the deacons for the sins of his wife.

I have thought about this Brother Mike could the Pastor now be fired for the sins of a member committing adultery that he's unaware of being accused by deacons of not rightly keeping Gods Church in order, Just a thought though.

God bless Borther

Mind you, I'm not saying that a pastor, by keeping faithfully to the work of God, is neglecting his wife-but there are those who insist on going so over and above for the church, that the wife can feel left behind and alone, especially if they have children. However, I agree, this is no reason for a wife to leave her husband. Ideally, they should talk about it and work things out. My wife can't accuse me of it, as I put more time into her farm than I do the church-mostly because there are always things needing repairing, feeding, cleaning, etc-just the nature of a farm.

As for the second part, yes, a deacon board just might fire a pastor for the behavior of a rebellious member, even if he didn't know about it, by the excuse "You're the pastor, its your job to know!" and then fire him. Sadly, if the deacons knew, why had they not talked to the pastor about it?  No, I think little good can be done by giving a group of men an unbiblical power over the authority God has given the pastor. Trouble and confusion is sure to reign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, I'm not saying that a pastor, by keeping faithfully to the work of God, is neglecting his wife-but there are those who insist on going so over and above for the church, that the wife can feel left behind and alone, especially if they have children. However, I agree, this is no reason for a wife to leave her husband. Ideally, they should talk about it and work things out. My wife can't accuse me of it, as I put more time into her farm than I do the church-mostly because there are always things needing repairing, feeding, cleaning, etc-just the nature of a farm.

As for the second part, yes, a deacon board just might fire a pastor for the behavior of a rebellious member, even if he didn't know about it, by the excuse "You're the pastor, its your job to know!" and then fire him. Sadly, if the deacons knew, why had they not talked to the pastor about it?  No, I think little good can be done by giving a group of men an unbiblical power over the authority God has given the pastor. Trouble and confusion is sure to reign.

Thank you brother Mike ,it is indeed a very sad situation when this happens.

God bless Brother

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this cause I believe the pastor needs to usurp his authority over the church in which he is called to lead not allowing deacons or any others (Members) to take of his authority and abuse it as it was done in this case as no evidence was presented against the Pastor before the church and he was unjustly fired by the deacons for the sins of his wife.

 

Just a note... 'usurp' means 'to take a position illegally or by force'. I don't think that's what you meant, exactly...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note... 'usurp' means 'to take a position illegally or by force'. I don't think that's what you meant, exactly...?

tired and wasn't thinking , thanks sister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we, as humans, tend to go to extremes.  the Pharisees added a bunch of regulations to the Law, presumably because they felt the Law was not clear enough, or perhaps it was because all these additional regulations put the people in subjection to them.  we can see the same kind of behavior in our churches.  as Christians we have a certain amount of liberty in our salvation.  many leaders, in an effort to keep liberty from becoming license, have developed a bunch of regulations that they impose, and it becomes legalism.

the passage dealing with the qualifications of a bishop and deacons, I feel, is a guide to determine if a man is the kind of leader he needs to be.  almost every pastor and church I know fixates on the "can't be divorced" qualification and ignores the fact that the man's kids are hellions, his wife is a gossip, and he is argumentative to a fault.  in fact, there is a group around here that believes if you don't get offensive with your message you haven't preached God's word.  It is one thing if your message convicts and a person gets offended, it's another if the messenger is argumentative and offensive on purpose.

I see that passage as "Is this man characterized by these behaviors?"  meaning, these things define who he is.  for a man to have had one divorce in his history, I don't think, should be an automatic deal breaker.  his situation should be carefully evaluated.  if his wife divorced him because he was promiscuous, then that's a red flag.  if he has been divorced several times, then that is a point for concern.  a person who has had one unfortunate divorce in his life, especially if his wife left him because of the stubbornness of her own heart, shouldn't automatically be disqualified, especially if he meets all the other requirements.  most people I know who have been through a divorce are the strongest advocates AGAINST divorce.  they will come alongside someone having problems and point out why it is better to work it out.  a person will listen more carefully to someone who has gone through something like that, in most cases.

because of "no fault" divorce, any person could find themselves divorced at any time.  our spouses have free will.  if they want to walk out on the marriage, then there is nothing to stop them, other than God striking them dead.  that rarely happens.  no marriage is perfect, no spouse is perfect.  there will always be things that a husband or a wife could have done better in the relationship, but very few are good reasons for divorce.  it is the hardness of the heart that makes a person walk away, in most cases.  I think it is a shame that we tend to victimize the person all over again in that situation.

don't get me wrong, I don't think we should just indiscriminately give all divorced people a "pass" and accept divorce as par for the course, now, but I do think we've gone overboard in how we penalize people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we, as humans, tend to go to extremes.  the Pharisees added a bunch of regulations to the Law, presumably because they felt the Law was not clear enough, or perhaps it was because all these additional regulations put the people in subjection to them.  we can see the same kind of behavior in our churches.  as Christians we have a certain amount of liberty in our salvation.  many leaders, in an effort to keep liberty from becoming license, have developed a bunch of regulations that they impose, and it becomes legalism.

the passage dealing with the qualifications of a bishop and deacons, I feel, is a guide to determine if a man is the kind of leader he needs to be.  almost every pastor and church I know fixates on the "can't be divorced" qualification and ignores the fact that the man's kids are hellions, his wife is a gossip, and he is argumentative to a fault.  in fact, there is a group around here that believes if you don't get offensive with your message you haven't preached God's word.  It is one thing if your message convicts and a person gets offended, it's another if the messenger is argumentative and offensive on purpose.

I see that passage as "Is this man characterized by these behaviors?"  meaning, these things define who he is.  for a man to have had one divorce in his history, I don't think, should be an automatic deal breaker.  his situation should be carefully evaluated.  if his wife divorced him because he was promiscuous, then that's a red flag.  if he has been divorced several times, then that is a point for concern.  a person who has had one unfortunate divorce in his life, especially if his wife left him because of the stubbornness of her own heart, shouldn't automatically be disqualified, especially if he meets all the other requirements.  most people I know who have been through a divorce are the strongest advocates AGAINST divorce.  they will come alongside someone having problems and point out why it is better to work it out.  a person will listen more carefully to someone who has gone through something like that, in most cases.

because of "no fault" divorce, any person could find themselves divorced at any time.  our spouses have free will.  if they want to walk out on the marriage, then there is nothing to stop them, other than God striking them dead.  that rarely happens.  no marriage is perfect, no spouse is perfect.  there will always be things that a husband or a wife could have done better in the relationship, but very few are good reasons for divorce.  it is the hardness of the heart that makes a person walk away, in most cases.  I think it is a shame that we tend to victimize the person all over again in that situation.

don't get me wrong, I don't think we should just indiscriminately give all divorced people a "pass" and accept divorce as par for the course, now, but I do think we've gone overboard in how we penalize people.

While I have some diagreement that the pahrase, "Husband of one wife" means divorce, specifically, in general I agree with what you are saying.

I have heard some say that the phrase is more akin to being a one-woman man. In other words, his heart belongs to one woman. I also don't believe that it precludes a single man from being pastor, any more than the qualification for a deacon being "not given to much wine" means he has to drink SOME wine, just not much, to be qualified. Its more in his attitude: 'I have one wife, she is my mate, and my love, and other women have no interest for me.' Whether that's true, I'm sure there would be no end of argument, even if we looked at the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Aramaic and Latin. We have the KJV English, its good enough, it says 'husband of one wife.' I have one wife. I once had another who was my one wife, but she left and married another. Ten years later I married a woman, now she is my 'one wife'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have some diagreement that the pahrase, "Husband of one wife" means divorce, specifically, in general I agree with what you are saying.

I have heard some say that the phrase is more akin to being a one-woman man. In other words, his heart belongs to one woman. I also don't believe that it precludes a single man from being pastor, any more than the qualification for a deacon being "not given to much wine" means he has to drink SOME wine, just not much, to be qualified. Its more in his attitude: 'I have one wife, she is my mate, and my love, and other women have no interest for me.' Whether that's true, I'm sure there would be no end of argument, even if we looked at the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Aramaic and Latin. We have the KJV English, its good enough, it says 'husband of one wife.' I have one wife. I once had another who was my one wife, but she left and married another. Ten years later I married a woman, now she is my 'one wife'.

my husband took a course in NT Greek, and there is no word in the greek for husband or wife, so the passage literally says "man of one woman" -- so that would strengthen the idea that these are things that are supposed to characterize the man, not a "it happened once in his entire lifetime and now he's done forever" thing.  however, in most IFB circles if you bring that out you are likely to be crucified.  it has become a sacred cow.

My wife's not perfect??????????????????

Oh well, it has been too many years at this point to check and see if that's true. :wub:

if you think she is then that's all that matters.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my husband took a course in NT Greek, and there is no word in the greek for husband or wife, so the passage literally says "man of one woman" -- so that would strengthen the idea that these are things that are supposed to characterize the man, not a "it happened once in his entire lifetime and now he's done forever" thing.  however, in most IFB circles if you bring that out you are likely to be crucified.  it has become a sacred cow.

Boy, isn't THAT the truth.

There are some things I really dislike that somehow have crept into the IFB way of thinking, things that are unbiblical and don't belong. There have been times I have had to carefully consider whether I wil continue to bear that standard, because, even though I agree with what the IBF ideal is, many in the movement have gone far and away from it. I know it is why the "I" is there, independent, so we technically aren't to be called to account for what some other knucklehead does, but that's not very comforting at times. Maybe just go back to "Christian".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

because of "no fault" divorce, any person could find themselves divorced at any time. 

The thing is... in the culture of Moses' time, they had 'no fault' divorce too (at least the men did). The Law put a restriction on it, allowing divorce only in certain circumstances. It was that same Law that told them that if a person were to marry one who had been divorced, they would commit adultery. In Jesus time, I am told (and could be wrong), divorces could be had by a man saying 'I divorce you' 3 times. Jesus tempered that with grace when He said that if an unbelieving spouse depart the believer was not under bondage. I'm not entirely sure what I think about remarriage connected to that last one - He didn't say anything about the status of someone trying to marry them (which is where the adultery would be found in the OT) - and I definitely think it only applies to people that were both unsaved when they got married. But that's beside the point. The thing is that no-fault divorce has often existed in the culture around believers, and has sometimes affected believers. It's nothing new. We have a different dynamic nowadays, since woman can initiate divorce. That would not have been a legal or economic option for most women throughout history. And so men & pastors can find themselves on the receiving end, which before would have been quite unlikely. God doesn't treat men & women differently, though, when it comes to sin or the effects thereof. And sometimes people are hurt by the effects of other people's sins. I agree that it doesn't seem fair - but is that, by itself, a reason to disregard God's instructions?

I have a feeling that all may have come across a little fuzzily. Fair enough. It's a fuzzy subject. :frog: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ezra was dealing with a specific situation, under a specific dispensation, with a specific people. New Testament believers are under a different dispensation. That difference is not insignificant. I would give far more credence to Paul's instructions than to what happened in the time of Ezra.

Also, the Bible doesn't say that God commanded Ezra to do what he did. God does say, in another scripture, that He would hold back the rain when the people sinned. But the Word of God, for some reason, wanted us to know that it was raining the whole time this was going on. And, the Bible also says that they had little children, who were now fatherless. And the Bible says in other places that God "hates putting away", and that He has great compassion for the fatherless. So I wonder if Ezra, in his zeal, went overboard. Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the Bible doesn't say that God commanded Ezra to do what he did. God does say, in another scripture, that He would hold back the rain when the people sinned. But the Word of God, for some reason, wanted us to know that it was raining the whole time this was going on. And, the Bible also says that they had little children, who were now fatherless. And the Bible says in other places that God "hates putting away", and that He has great compassion for the fatherless. So I wonder if Ezra, in his zeal, went overboard. Strange

Well, mwhen the people sinned after the manner of Balaam, God ordered the deaths of those who had joined themselves to the women of the other culture. God hates putting away, but I suspect He also hates our willfulness in deciding against HIS will who we marry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 37 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

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...