The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce

Thanks for the replies. My question then, why does this particular sin appear to carry some sort of scarlet letter. If it is forgiven, and not any greater sin, should the person once forgiven of that sin, be treated as any other Christian who has sinned. For example if a Christian is known to have been drunk on a specific occasion, say ten years ago, would it be brought up or thought of in the same way one being divorced is?

I guess my question is why, does it ( the sin of divorce) appear to be handled and viewed differently by us, if it isn't different to God?

 

I agree with you on this. Also, I posted about the passage you quoted about God's divorce from Israel which is VERY CLEAR in Scripture. And why the passage they quoted from Romans about the remnant is about Judah, not the Kingdom of Israel. For some reason, the opposing side is silent. Maybe it's because they don't know OT history and about the 2 kingdoms....??? Or maybe because they have seen the error of their beliefs based upon Scripture?

 

You do not rightly divide the word of truth regarding Romans 11.
There is nothing in that passage about divorce or adultery--nothing; zip!

God promises to save a remnant. That promise was given back in the OT, hundreds of years ago, if not thousands. It was given to Judah for that is the line of David, and from where Christ came.
God punished Israel more severely because they were far more wicked than Judah. The most wicked kings were from Israel; Judah had the most Godly kings.
However the remnant that will be saved will be from all the tribes of Israel--all twelve. You can count them in Revelation 7. They are there, except possibly with the exception of Dan. Thus Israel is included here also. You are mixed up in your eschatology.

 

All sin is forgiven. But all sin carries a consequence. There is a consequence for sin. If you lie, that lie will affect someone; you can be assured of that.

I know of someone who got drunk and then got behind the wheel, and you can guess what happened. Today he is a parapelegic, confined to a wheelchair without the use of his legs. God used that incident to bring him to the Lord. He forgave all his sins that day--past, present and future. He also forgave him the sin that left him in that terrible condition that would confine him to a wheelchair the rest of his life.
He is forgiven; but he remains in a wheelchair.
You say: But he is forgiven?? Yes, but the consequences of his sin remains. He doesn't regain the use of his lost legs just because he has been forgiven.

A divorced and remarried person doesn't gain the privileges that he/she lost before they sinned. They have disqualified themselves from the ministry. They can no longer say "They are blameless." Or "the husband of one wife." Or, "they rule thier household well."

 

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Polygamy was not the problem in Paul's day; it was divorce. A man could divorce his wife on almost any grounds. Paul spent much time on divorce such as in Romans 7.

The phrase "the husband of one wife" means "a one-wife husband." It means he has had and only has one wife. It encompasses divorce and remarriage. He could not have had a previous wife or he would have been disqualified. Notice that Paul never remarried.

 

I agree there are consequences from sin, that isn't my question. My question is, why is it that others seem to view those that have divorced differently than they would those never divorced, but that have committed many other sins? If it is the equal in God's eyes, and forgiven as other sins are, why do fellow Christians act like it is ongoing? Why do many treat it different from most other sins? Shouldn't those that have been divorced be viewed just as any other Christian, and no differently?

 

From where do you get your diffinitions of fornication and adultery?????

1Cr 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

(This is what you are calling adultery, right??, Bible calls it "fornication".) There are different words for "fornication", but in Matt: it is "adultery".

Fornication:
3430
moiceia
moicheia
moy-khi'-ah
from moiceuw - moicheuo 3431; adultery:--adultery.


Fornication:
4202
porneia
porneia
por-ni'-ah
from porneuw - porneuo 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:--fornication.


Fornication:
2181
zanah
zaw-naw'
a primitive root (highly-fed and therefore wanton); to commit adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively, to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah):--(cause to) commit fornication, X continually, X great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be, play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish.

BBob,

 

Perhaps the better question is: Why do we in our society treat "other sins" so lightly? Why have we become so seared against sin that it doesn't bother us any more? It still bothers God no matter what it is.

In 1Cor.5, a man was disciplined right out of the church and delivered unto Satan for committing incest.
I believe Paul would have advised the same treatment for any kind of sexual immorality--adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc. Is there any difference? No.
And one can include divorce and remarriage in that list as well.
We have become hardened to sin.

 

The woman was married, I don't know about the man, the scripture is silent on that.

BBob,

 

First I believe the KJV did a good job in translating the Bible.
Second, I believe the context warrants that definition in almost every case.
Third those are accepted English definitions.

Fornication:
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fornication

 

But what you are describing is unrepentant sin. Once someone has sought forgiveness from God, why hold that sin over someone's head for years and years, which seems to often be the case with divorce.

 

But I gave you Greek and Hebrew from Strongs, and they say different than the english dictionary!!

Also,

Jhn 19:11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

BBob,

 

Not true.
There are churches that would readily put into ministry a man, or woman, who have had one or multiple divorces, but would not readily trust one who have had a stint in prison for child molestation even if that happened many years ago and the man had clearly repented. I know of at least two churches (not Baptist) here in the East.

There are churches that would not completely trust someone who have had a history of theft, or anything dealing with money or property. But, again, would allow into the ministry one who has had one or multiple divorces.

I think the fact that the Savior Himself said "what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" should be more than enough to put this question to rest among believers with an attitude of "Even so, Lord, for it seemeth good in thy sight".

But for the sake of discussion, consider also Titus 1:6 -

Years ago in many churches, not just Baptist churches, a divorced man seeking or being nominated for the office of Elder would not be considered blameless. In the majority of churches, divorce was frowned upon. Consider also that the verse includes not only the man, but the character and conduct of his children.
Unavoidably when one is an Elder or pastor or deacon in the church, he is under scrutiny even by those outside the church, and the pastor or elder or deacon is judged in the quality of his leadership by the quality of his family.
Many years ago, the Baptist church I pastored in the Philippines wanted to ordain me, and they tried to convene an ordaining board, and tasked me to look for the pastor who would lead the ordination, and possibly give the charge.
The pastor I contacted, a missionary who graduated from Bob Jones University, not only refused, but advised me not to seek ordination until my wife is back from the States because until then I will not be "blameless".
People's imaginations wander, and I may cause some to wonder how I, a healthy 48 year old then, could make do for years without a wife. Gossipmongers and fault finders, both in the church and outside can create an issue out of it. That makes me not blameless.
Divorce is such a touchy subject today because whether we like it or not, there are just too many brethren today who have gone through it thinking that God is in favor of it in the case of adultery or fornication.
Unfortunate.

 

Even if they have membership, we will not ordain them or use them in the stand.

BBob,

 

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
The Scripture is clear.

One should have HIS FATHER's WIFE. That is incest.
The son was having immoral relations with either his mother or the wife of his father (step mother). It is still incest.

 

We are going in circles here. I have given you a correct answer but you don't want to accept it. Every sin has a consequence. Divorce and remarriage has a particular consequence in relation to the ministry.

 

I agree with that, I just said the woman was married and the scripture is silent about the man whether he was married or not. I know it was incest. It would be incest if a man had sex with his daughter-in-law, as far as that goes.

BBob,

 

I am not really talking about those seeking the ministry.