1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Judge and Jury?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by dfwmia, Oct 29, 2009.

  1. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,423
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Faith:
    Baptist
    More from RJPrince:

    The question by the Pharisees was an attempt to force Jesus into one of the two camps, either that of Shammai or Hillel. It would seem that Jesus chose middle ground after reminding them that God’s original plan and current desire was one man, one woman, for one lifetime. The concession to divorce was God’s concession because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt 19:8). Then Jesus says, “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.” Again, this must be understood on the basis of the foundation laid in Deut 24.

    In Jesus’ day, the whole debate revolved around what was meant by “some uncleanness” (Deut 24:1). The only other place the same two words are used in Scripture is in Deut 23:14 – “And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.” (Vss 13-14). The word “uncleanness” (Heb. ervah) is used 54 times and is translated as nakedness (51), shame, unclean, and uncleanness (once each). In the Deut 24 passage it seems apparent that something less than adultery or premarital sexual activity is indicated since the Mosaic Law generally required stoning in both of those cases.

    In my judgement, Jesus’ choice of the word “porneia” is broader than the “adultery only” position of Shammai but much narrower than the “almost anything” position of Hillel. The strong reaction of the disciples, “If that is the case it is better to never get married” has been taken by some to mean that Jesus’ words were more restrictive than either Shammai or Hillel. It is also possible to understand their reaction as an indication that they may have leaned more toward Hillel’s position on the issue and Jesus’ words placed greater restriction on divorce and remarriage.

    We should also note that the exception clause is applied to both the matter of the legitimacy of the divorce and the possibility of remarriage. Again, in the Deut 24 passage, the fact of a divorce allowed for remarriage. God regulated this, but did not forbid it. In Jesus words, “if you divorce, except for sexual sin, and remarry, you have committed adultery.” The exception applies to both the divorce and the remarriage according to the grammatical structure of the sentence. The other passages in the Gospels that do not discuss the issue in as much detail must be understood and interpreted in light of the Matt 19 passage.

    When Paul says, “Do not divorce your spouse, and if you already have, seek reconciliation” he is quoting the divine standard given in Genesis and reiterated by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 19. The fact that Paul does not mention the exception clause does not lessen the validity of the exception given by Jesus. Paul simply chose not to repeat what was already well understood.

    As Paul moves onto new ground in verse 12, as an apostle, he adds to the teaching of the Lord Jesus as he does in many other areas as well. This is not a disclaimer that makes the following instruction optional as being simply his opinion. Not at all, it is still the law and the testimony, it is just that this was something new that had not been addressed yet.

    Again, bear in mind that Paul is addressing the questions that they had sent to him (v. 1). It is likely they had asked, “What about those of us, who by virtue of our new faith in Christ, now find ourselves married to unbelievers?” Paul answers, “do not divorce them simply because they are unbelievers!” “One believer in the home is a sanctifying influence upon the unbelieving spouse and the children.” “If the unbeliever wants a divorce, let them go. You are not bound to continue in such a relationship. Do you think you should stay married in hopes of seeing them come to Christ? You do not know if they will ever become a believer! If they want out, let them go, you are free in such a case as this.” (My own paraphrase)

    So, Moses did not limit the reasons for divorce too narrowly. God only forbade a return to the first husband. Jesus allows for divorce only in the case of sexual sin, some would argue persistent sexual sin. Paul now allows divorce if an unbeliever wants to be divorced from a believer. It seems clear that it is the unbeliever who must initiate the request for a divorce. The believer is not free to seek a divorce, but must remain in the marriage so long as the unbeliever is willing to stay married. I would further suggest that the believer has a much greater obligation to demonstrate the love of Christ in such a situation.

    This leads to the question of whether or not the believer can then be remarried. I understand the words “not under bondage” and “called to peace” as being equal to the words “at liberty to be married” (vss. 15, 39). If the unbeliever requests the divorce, the believer is free to grant the divorce and to seek remarriage, but again, “only in the Lord”, or to another believer (v. 39).

    What about people who have come from a mixed up, scrambled, broken past and then accepted the Lord Jesus? I believe the context indicates that they should seek reconciliation with their former spouse if possible, but if not they may be free to remarry as well. Why? I refer back to verses 8 and 9 – “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” Remember that the word “unmarried” (agamos) refers to those who are divorced. Why would Paul grant this concession? In order to avoid “fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (v. 2). Jesus clearly recognizes that most men cannot handle singleness (Matt 19:11-12).

    NOW. To specifically address the abuse issue. AND I do realize that some may feel I am stretching a bit here. The matter of applying principles to specific issues that are beyond the scope of the NT is never a simple task, but I will give my best shot.

    In an instance where serious abuse is continuing, the unbeliever may not say he wants a divorce with his mouth, but he is SCREAMING it with his actions! For a believer to initiate and complete the divorce is not a violation of the principles of the Word of God IMHO. And as specifically addressed above, if the divorce is allowed, I understand the Scripture to teach that remarriage is allowed as well.

    Re the divorced pastor issue, here is my study on that one....


    An Elder (Bishop) must be “the husband of one wife” (KJV). The word anar appears 215 times in the Greek NT and is translated as man (156 times), husband (50 times), sir (6), fellow (1), not translated (2). The Greek word guna appears 221 times and is translated woman (129) and wife (92). Either of these words for husband or wife could be understood as referring to any adult man or woman without reference to their marital status (Matt 1:16,19; 7:24,26; 1:20,24; 5:28). In the original Greek manuscripts (apographs), the word translated wife appears before husband. Literally the phrase is “a one-woman man”. Because of the fact that gunaikon (wife/woman) is in the emphatic position and is an attributive genitive indicating quality, the phrase would be best translated as “a one-woman kind of man” (Ed Glasscock, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 140 #559, Jul 1983, p. 252).
    There are four common views concerning this phrase:
    1. A Bishop must be married.
    2. A Bishop must only have had one wife in his lifetime.
    3. A Bishop may not have been divorced.
    4. A Bishop must be a one-woman kind of man.
    Before looking at these views in order, we should perhaps recall that God often does establish higher standards for his leaders than for the rest of the people. For instance, Ezekiel 44:22 forbids a priest to marry a divorced woman or a widow, unless the widow had been married to a priest before. Every where else in Scripture, the right to marry a widow or a widower is clearly established. Yet here, the priest is not allowed to marry a widow. Under the Mosaic Law, God set a higher standard for His priests than for the general populace. It is God’s prerogative to do whatever he chooses to do. However, the fact that God established this standard for the priests of Ezekiel’s day, does not mean that the same standard applies to elders in a New Testament church today. The Jews were also under the Sabbath Law (Exod 31:12-18). This was a covenant sign between God and Israel; the church is not part of this same covenant and is not obligated to keep the seventh day (1Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10). We must determine what God has said to New Testament Christians in this regard. It is not appropriate to insist that certain portions of the Old Testament should apply to the church – unless there is a clear link established in the New Testament (Acts 15:1,13,19-21; Col 2:14-17).
     
  2. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,423
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The rest:

    Keeping these principles in mind, we will look at the different views concerning the phrase “one-woman man” in the order listed:
    The first view states that a Bishop/Elder must be married. If the man does not have a wife, how can he be a one-woman man? Some who hold this position also insist that Elders must have children (v. 4) to demonstrate their ability to manage a household and by application the church of God. Some would even go so far as to suggest that the children must be nearly grown so that the parenting skills could be observed in the final outcome. This is a “taste the fruit, to know the tree” kind of mentality. While these ideas may have some advantages and could be argued logically from some standpoints, the real issue is, “Does the word of God clearly say that Bishops/Elders must be married?” If this is the meaning of the phrase, it is in direct conflict with Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church (1Cor 7:7-9, 25-33). Further, if church leaders must be married, what are we to do with the fact that Paul was not married? It may be argued that Paul is not specifically called an elder. John MacArthur convincingly argues that Paul was an elder based on Acts 13:1 and 1Tim 4:14 w/ 2Tim 1:6. Also, since Paul’s position as an Apostle was above elders, any standard that applied to elders would most certainly have applied to higher levels of leadership, though it is not necessarily true that the same standards would have been required of lower leadership positions. The qualification of being “apt to teach,” did not apply downward to the deacons, but it most certainly fit the leaders of the church who were above the elders (Eph 4:11). It would be inconsistent with the rest of Scripture to insist that God requires Elders to be married while allowing an Apostle to remain single. Based on Paul’s singleness, his admonition to remain single for the sake of the ministry, and the fact that the Greek construction and case form suggests a quality of character rather than simply marital status, it is best to discount this first view as inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament. Any specific interpretation must fit the rest of Scripture as well.
    The second view of this phrase allows Elders to have only one wife in a lifetime. The rationale from this view comes from the fact that the text says “one woman” and from establishing a parallel between the Elder and his wife and Christ and the church. Since Christ only has one bride, the church, it is argued that His Elders are only entitled to one bride. Against this position we find the whole of Scripture. The right of a widow or widower to remarry is established without question throughout the entire Bible and confirmed by the Apostle Paul (Rom 7:2). Paul even commands Timothy to encourage the younger widows to remarry (1Tim 5:11,14) rather than remain as widows. Even though there were some limitations and stipulations, the Priests were allowed to remarry in the Old Testament (Ezek 44:22). It is certainly a far stretch to argue for this on the basis of typology between Christ and the Church and an elder and his wife. This view has no basis in the Word of God.
    The third view alleges that a divorced man may not serve as an elder. Some would narrow this to a man who has been divorced and remarried. Some attempt to expand it to include the wife of the elder as well. In this case not only would the Elder have to be a one-woman man, but his wife would have to be a one-man woman, with the assumption that neither could have been divorced and remarried. This is clearly going beyond the words of the text, yet, such forced interpretation is common among many conservative groups.
    Prior to dealing with this third view in detail, perhaps we should note that Paul does not say, “not a divorced man.” The concept of divorce nowhere appears in 1Tim 3 or Titus 1. Those who hold this position must infer that it is assumed by mention of the “one-woman” relationship. Yet, we must remember that it is not good practice to assume something that cannot be clearly established in the immediate text or by comparing with other passages.
    Is it possible that a divorced man could be allowed to serve as an Elder? Or, an Apostle? If Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 8:1; 22:20) it is likely that he was a divorced man. Members of the Sanhedrin were required to be married and we know that Paul was not married at the time he wrote First Corinthians (1Cor 7:8; 9:5). Yet, this cannot be insisted upon for nowhere is it clearly stated, or even implied, that Paul was divorced. The silence of Scripture cannot be offered as support for either position. All we know from scripture is that Paul was single at the time First Corinthians was written.
    Concerning the issue of divorce and remarriage:
    1. God’s original plan was - one man, one woman, one lifetime (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6).
    2. Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage on the basis of “immorality” (Matt 19:3-12; Matt 1:19).
    3. Paul allowed divorce and remarriage on the basis of desertion by an unbeliever (1Cor 7:8-9, 12-15, 39).
    Two further issues must be considered here:
    1. Was the divorce justified, or allowed, according to Biblical teachings on the matter; and,
    2. Was the divorce prior to salvation and has repentance taken place and reconciliation sought? One could also ask, if the divorce was after salvation, is the forgiveness of God less available for the saint than for the sinner? (Rom 5:8-10)
    Some have also argued that the issue of polygamy (having more than one wife) is the subject of this phrase. Though polygamy was not legal under Roman law, there is ample evidence that is was practiced, at least in the outlying provinces of the empire. It is possible that this issue is addressed in the phrase, but not likely, because of the parallel phrase used in 1Tim 5:9 referring to widows.
    The fourth, and most likely the correct view, is that Paul is stating that for a man to be an elder, his moral conduct and attitude must be above reproach. He must not be a womanizer and he must be “utterly single minded in his devotion to his wife. If he is not married, he is not the type who is flirtatious.” (MacArthur, Answering Key Questions About Elders, p. 14).

    In Roman culture it was not only common, but considered socially acceptable for a man to have a wife for bearing legitimate children and “mistresses” for personal pleasure. Immorality was a part of pagan worship and was rampant throughout the culture. Both James and Paul charged the Gentiles to avoid moral misconduct (Acts 15:20; 1Cor 6:16-18). This understanding of the phrase avoids the two extremes of making divorce an unpardonable sin for church leaders and of lightly excusing moral lapses of leaders. A single, married, or divorced man must be considered on the basis of where he is in his relationship with God and his wife. The institution of marriage is still held high, yet it is kept in balance with the grace and forgiveness of God.
     
  3. donnA

    donnA Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess we don't really need scripture if we're going to make it up ourselves to suit our individual lives. It's only wrong for some, not all, that kind of thing.
     
  4. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Honestly Benjamin do you expect me to read all of that? I'm marginally interested in the subject matter as it is. Do you have a cliff notes version of it?
     
  5. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,423
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, I just sat and read it again...and for me to cliff note it would take me days of study and probably end up being longer than the original.

    Bottom line which I think RJ's argument supports well:

    BTW, if someone was holding divorce against me while playing 'Judge and Jury' trying to make it an end-all for leadership or missionary work I would as soon as possible be so in-depth on the subject that it would be SCARY for them to even think about pulling out that card! :tonofbricks:
     
    #25 Benjamin, Oct 29, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 29, 2009
  6. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    That seemed a good summery. I personally don't hold anything against anyone unless they do something to affect me personally. However, I think its wrong to be divorsed and remarried save for the exception of Adultry. If my wife were to divorce me I would not re-marry (even if she had committed adultery). I think I would only consider re-marriage if I became a widower. Thats how I understand the scripture and I think its pretty clear. So for me I would ask this question. If a person is living with his girlfriend would it be wrong for them to be a leader in the church? I think a 2nd marriage save for two exceptions would fall into this question. Now I wouldn't go looking in someones background either. Now I have many friends who are divorced and on their 2nd Marriage and they are good people as far as that goes, But I think in modern Christianity we so often overlook what it means to carry our cross. But I don't hold this over the heads of those who disagree with me. Also I have a low opinion of common law marriages as well. So sorry. I hope I haven't offended anyone. Just my position and unless someone can show me with scripture and not requiring a lot of tap dancing I'll take a second look.
     
  7. Shortandy

    Shortandy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the goal should be to speak where the bible speaks and be silent where it is silent.

    Divorce as a disqualification only seems to apply to pastors and deacons.

    Not one place in the 1 Timothy 3 passage is missionary or evangelist, Sunday Schoot teacher, etc even mentioned.

    That is a top-of-my-head response. I wil come back to this a little later.
     
  8. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Are they not examples of how we are to live our lives? Jesus was clear in the passages I spoke about. He didn't say it was the requirement of just the pastors or deacons. Read Matthew. Clear easy read.
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, if we did that, the bb would be a lot smaller. :smilewinkgrin:
    Divorce doesn't appear to be a disqualification at all, at least not if it's a scripturally permissible divorce.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Timothy says "the husband of one wife".

    If that is the case, are you all saying that a many MUST be married to be a pastor - which would exclude all Single men. And to take a step further, the next passage talks about managing his children. So does that me a man cannot be a pastor if he and his wife are childless?
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A one-woman man is a far more accurate translation.

    Not a two-woman or a multiple women man.

    Nothing about "divorce" in this. A simple and oft-used phrase on the common custom have having more than one woman (either more wives, slaves, concubines or, in the case of the ifbX pastors often lauded, a bunch of adulterous affairs with secretary/organist/church women, etc)
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    If one applies the passage without its intended context, you'd be correct. Of course, stripping any passage from its context will typically result in misapplication and misinterpretation.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Any time you apply a passage in a way that negates repented and forgiven sins you are in error. Nothing in the pastoral qualifications says or implies divorce. That is quite eisegetical.
     
  14. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To put a woman away and "marry" another is adultery, regardless of whether it's before or after conversion. A woman to whom a man is so "married" does not become his wife simply because he became a Christian and now sees the error of his past.

    To repent of the sin he needs to leave the woman with which he is living and be reconciled (if possible) to his first wife.
     
  15. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you suggesting he divorce a second wife and go back to the first?
     
  16. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How can he divorce her to whom he was never legitimately married?
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong. To put a woman away and marry another when done for unscriptural reasons is adultery. To put a woman away and marry another when done for scripturally permissible reasons is not.
     
  18. Shortandy

    Shortandy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see what you are trying to say...but Jesus didn't mention this in the context of qualifications for mission work or anyother ministry for that matter.

    In Paul's writing to Timothy only pastors and deacons are mentioned. Therefore to place this requirement on anyother place of service is an extra-biblical rule. That is all Im saying. And we need to be careful with extra-biblical rules don't we?
     
  19. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    What did Ezra require of the priest and the lay men who had taken foriegn wives along with Children from those relationships?
     
  20. Peggy

    Peggy New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only makes the problem worse. Exacerbates the hurt.

    What an ignorant and hard-hearted thing to say. Do you really think that is even possible? This is the kind of self-righteous, ridiculous thinking that gives Baptists a bad name.
     
Loading...