Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

if a divorced person marries, are they in adultery?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

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

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

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: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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.

 

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...