109: Study On Divorce -2

We are no longer in a sinless environment. Many scriptures deal with death and handicaps. Neither death nor eating meat were a part of God's original intent for man. Though God did not intend for us to die or have handicaps does not mean that they are a sin. Though a baby is born handicapped does not mean that his handicap resulted from sin. Though a child dies during it's birth, it does not mean that it sinned. Such cases are only evidences that show that we are no longer in the Garden of Eden.

However, since we are not in Eden, someone can maliciously inflict tragedies as death or permanent injury upon us. Likewise, divorce, though not originally intended for man, can sometimes have an innocent party. If the scripture teaches that some divorces are forced upon an innocent party or are used as a disciplinary measure, then we should not hold the non-offending party as guilty. The innocent party would then not be sinning, though divorce was not originally God's pattern for a sinless world. (Those who argue that all divorce and remarriage is a sin because it was not originally intended by God for man, would do well in giving up their prime rib steaks since God's original intent for man was to be a herbivore.)

Many offenses, such as adultery, invoke the death penalty. However, you would be hard pressed to find a state in this nation that will execute capital punishment upon adulterers (Adultery is a two person crime. You cannot render a punishment on only one person of the two. See John 8:1-11). When the civil government will not carry out capital punishment, divorce has historically been a remedy for the innocent party of adultery. The fact that divorce may be an act of discipline, a means of ruling one's household with biblical judgment, is a fact overlooked by many conservative preachers.

i. CLEAVE: IN THE HEBREW

Cleaving is an essential element in the covenant language of the Old Testament. Israel is commanded to cleave to the Lord with intensity, to have a love that will not let go. Certainly the idea of cleaving is a wholehearted commitment to another in an inseparable union. It is inherent in this definition of cleaving in relationships that the intent is for the duration of a lifetime. However, it is unbiblical to believe the idea that since the fall of Adam, the bond has no possibility of dissolution.

In Hebrew, the word for "cleave" is dabag. Dabag means “to adhere, be glued firmly, keep, be joined, follow close, abide fast; to impinge, cling; to repair breaches." This sampling clearly shows that the term implies a tight connection of the cleaving parts. Nothing here implies, however, that permanence is an essential or inherent ingredient in the "glue" of marriage. It is fair to say that there is no convincing support to the idea that the word "cleave" (dåbag) mandates permanence. If dabag mandated permanence, then the study on marriage and divorce could end in this verse. If dabag mandated permanence, then to break the bond would unequivocally be sin. Studying the usage of the word in the Old Testament does not help show permanence, yet the advocates of permanence seek to make their case by appealing to use. They do so to their chagrin. Notice the following examples where cleave, dabag, is used:

	It is used of dirt clods which stick together after the rain. Job 38:38 38 "When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?"
	It is used by Joshua of a alliance. Joshua 23:12 "Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you". Anyone familiar with the history of Israel will recall that on many occasions Israelites clave to the heathen nations. In light of this, the question arises, "Did God see this cleaving as requiring permanence?" The answer is no. Time and again, the prophets called the people of Israel to break off such cleaving and to return to the God of Israel.
	The word is also used of the leprosy that would cling forever to dishonest and greedy Gehazi (2 Kings 5:7).
	Jeremiah 13:11 "For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear." Yet you find God divorcing Israel.

ii. CLEAVE IN THE GREEK

Kallo is the Greek root of proskallao. Vine reports that it means "to join fast together, to glue, cement."

Kallo is never used explicitly of joining in marriage. It is used of the "one-flesh" relation of a man to a prostitute in I Corinthians 6:16, " What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." Since our passage involves a quote of the Genesis 2:24 "one-flesh" wording, it is worthy of our consideration. In these verses, Paul is admonishing his readers to put away immoral practices, specifically, the visiting of temple prostitutes as a vent for sexual desire. The fact that our kallao relationship to the Lord is permanent should not mislead us into thinking that our relationship to the prostitute is also permanent. By the same token, the lack of permanence of the relation to the prostitute should not be taken to imply a lack of permanence in the relationship to Christ. Therefore, duration is not determined by the word kallao alone. Kallao, "one-flesh" relationships can be non-permanent if the context does not include permanence established upon God's part of the relationship.

Among covenants, only God can control or overcome all the variables. Therefore, the only unconditional covenants are those in which God is responsible for fulfilling all of the terms. Thankfully, our salvation is based upon an unconditional covenant. No matter where we go, and regardless of the condition of our body or mental faculties, God will carryout the terms of the new covenant that we entered in with Him. Covenants between humans are not of the same quality. You can't control all the factors. It will be pretty hard for a man to provide for his wife when she has run off and disappeared, because he can't override all the negative variables in such a scenario. Albeit, it does not necessarily prohibit him from resuming fulfillment of the covenant, should she return. We understand God is the judge over us for breach of covenants, but his watchful eye doesn't make those covenants unconditional.

iii. Examples of Pre-Mosiac Treatment in Covenant Breaking:

Abraham and Sarah (Genesis Chapter 20)

In this passage, Abraham fails to maintain his side of the covenant. In fact, his failure is horrible. He fails to maintain physical presence and he certainly fails to protect her and her reputation. Sarah's response shows that divorce, though perhaps a possibility, is not mandated. She had a choice and chose to reaffirm her covenant with the spouse who had utterly failed in keeping his portion of the covenant. Her attitude is laudable and exemplifies her New Testament counterparts in how they should adhere to their husbands (1 Peter 3:6 "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement").

Abraham and Hagar (Genesis 21:8-14)

The story of Abraham and the release of Hagar is noteworthy. According to the story, the mockery of the child of promise, Isaac, by the child of the slave woman, Ishamel, led Sarah to insist on the putting away of Hagar. Abraham was reluctant to put her away. When God gives Abraham permission to release the pair, He is clear to say that it is all right to do so in this situation, and that He will provide for their welfare. This provision is then set forth in the rest of the story.

God's words most likely promote the conclusion that Abraham was concerned about fulfilling his obligation to provide for Hagar and Ishamel. God affirmed that the obligation of Abraham to care for Hagar was relaxed insofar as God himself would be a husband and father to them. This story implies that divorce, because it entails a failure to fulfill an implied vow to provide, is therefore wrong and only permissible where God Himself releases the husband from the vow. Man should not put asunder what God has joined, but he should also not insist for something to stay together when God has said it can be separated. Groundless putting away is a radical failure to live up to marital duties, a breach of covenant, and is not in keeping with godly living.

Tamar and Judah (Genesis Chapter 38)

When Onan failed to live up to his part of the marriage covenant, namely providing a chance for Tamar to bear a child, God took his life.

iv. DIVORCE UNDER THE LAW/TORAH

a. Freedom from an Abusive Husband (Exodus 21:7-11)

“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”

The chief concern in the day of Jesus was to find a passage giving the husband a right to divorce the wife. In this text, however, the right of the wife to force a divorce from her husband and the protection of her interests are the main concerns. If the husband did not keep his side of the covenant, she could leave him without alimony but would no longer be a slave (Yes, some wives were really slaves to their husbands). This passage also addresses what protection the woman had if her rich husband took another wife; therefore, even in polygamy, God is concerned with protecting women.

b. Freedom of the Divorced Woman (Numbers 30:9-16)

Some preachers contend that the Christian woman divorced by her non-believing husband in First Corinthians 7:15 was not free to marry, though divorced by her husband. They reach their conclusion by simplistically grasping Luke 16:18, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery," and applying it without deeper reflection upon its context or setting. Their ending argument is that the woman is now free from her husband, but must live out her life as a single woman.

Other texts specifically written to Christian couples, are often misapplied to all situations, including this one. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." Though the verses are good advice for anyone, they are written specifically to church members. When two church members divorce, either one or both, depending on the situation, will immediately be subject to church discipline - including expulsion in the belief that they may not be saved at all. However, the situation between two church members is not the same as between an unequally yoked couple, but spiritual laziness, biblical ignorance, and cowardice towards church discipline will blur them together.

The authority of a widow and a divorced woman are contrasted against that of a married woman in Numbers 30:9-16:

"But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her. Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity. These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father's house."

Both the widow and the divorced woman are treated equally and are allowed to do the following:

1. Vows: Both are allowed to make vows upon their own authority.

2. Covenants: Both are allowed to make covenants upon their own authority.

3. Remarry: Both are allowed to remarry via marriage covenant.

While under the authority of a father or husband, the woman's vow could be nullified by his authority. In the case of widows and divorced women, they are not considered under a man's authority any longer and thus, their vows stand by their own volition. From this passage, we can derive that the idea of a man's authority over a woman does not continue after divorce. For re-clarification, these women are divorced not because they were self-willed and rebellious against God and husband, but rather women victimized by a treacherous or abusive husband.

c. Freedom from unjust divorce (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) 100 months

After marrying a woman, if a man hated her and brought accusations against her saying, "She was not a virgin when he married her," the woman had an avenue to protect her honor. If she was found innocent of his accusation, he had to fork over 100 months wages to his father-in-law and he couldn't divorce her. If she was guilty, she was to be stoned to death. God puts a high price for a woman who loses her virginity through immorality and upon a man that brings dishonor to a righteous woman's reputation.

d. Freedom from desertion (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) 50 months

If a man and a single woman are caught fornicating, he must marry her, pay 50 months wages, and he could not put her away because he had humbled her.

e. Freedom from an unfaithful wife (Exodus 20:14)

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

The law provided a means of putting away an unfaithful wife... traditionally stoning. Later, divorce was an accepted alternative when under foreign rule.

f. Freedom from a despised wife (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

Without a doubt, the most erroneously celebrated text on the subject of the husband's right to divorce his wife is Deut 24:1-4. By the time of Jesus, it was nearly the only passage being discussed in this connection, which makes it another simplistic approach. Actually, the passage is of little value if used to that end, for its aim was to protect the woman from an abusive and hard-hearted husband. It provides no moral "right" to divorce, but only a legal provision within divorce to protect the interests of the wife. The basic laws that God gave concerning this situation are as follows:

1. Some undesirable condition arises in the wife.

2. The condition comes to the notice of the first husband.

3. The first husband divorces her because of the condition.

4. The wife marries a second husband.

5. The second husband either dies or divorces the wife.

6. She cannot go back to the first husband and get married.

a. She was defiled by the second marriage.

b. A woman can be defiled by giving birth to a child. The defilement is symbolic and concerns cerimonial purposes. The action is not sin.

7. She can marry another man (but not the first husband).

During the personal ministry of Jesus, there were two major schools of thought concerning divorce. Both were based upon a misunderstanding of why the rules were given to Moses. The school of Shammai taught that sexual adultery was the only scriptural reason for a justified divorce. The other school of thought, Hillel's school, taught that anything that the husband found undesirable in the woman was a valid ground for a legitimate divorce.

v. DIVORCE IN THE PROPHETS

a. Righteous Divorce

By the time of Jesus, the death penalty was seldom if ever used for the offense of adultery. This is clear not only from a consideration of the Shammia-Hillel debate, wherein both schools presumed that adultery would be grounds for divorce, not death, but from a consideration of the fact that Israel was a dependent nation and had to function under the laws of the overlords. Rome, at least according to the Julian laws, did not recognize adultery as a capital crime, except under the rarest circumstances (Another example of why justice by committee or democratic morality fails in comparison with God’s law).

To expound upon the recognition that divorce was a viable alternative to death, several passages in scripture can be cited.

1. Divorce as a step to Restoration from Adultery (Hosea 1 & 2)

God placed his stamp of approval upon this marriage by leading Hosea to marry her. One commentary says this about the marriage, "Gomer, at the time of her marriage was not a woman of loose morals. Archer concludes his discussion by saying: 'If Hosea delivered his message in later years, he may well have looked back upon his own domestic tragedy and seen it in the guiding hand of God. Hence the Lord's encouragement to marry her in the first place, though her future infidelity was foreknown to God, would have been tantamount to a command.'" The point that needs to be driven is that a marriage that ends in divorce does not necessarily mean that the marriage itself was not the will of God, nor does it necessarily mean the man married in response to a hormonal overload.

A large percentage of independent Baptist preachers treat others, especially other preachers, like Job was treated. As in the book of Job, men could have pointed to Hosea and said, "This has happened because of your sin or because you violated a principle of good marriage or you failed morally in the marriage." Elihu, the observer to Job, noted that some tragedy happens for our purification and for the ultimate glory of God. Regrettably, upright and conscientious men have been shunned from the ministry though they had not sinned. This is not to say that every man is blameless in divorce and still qualified to pastor, only that spiritual laziness finds it easier to ostracize or gossip instead of expending the effort to rightly judge the situation. We should judge rightly and accept the consequences.

Several things are outlined that Hosea will do to Gomer as a form of discipline. Among them is divorce (Hosea 1:1-11). In keeping with the spirit of believers, Hosea exercised the means to reconcile the marriage when the opportunity availed itself. Gomer never returned to Hosea, but Hosea was later able to buy her as a slave girl. Not many believers have been afforded the same avenue of reconciliation that Hosea was allowed, but all should hope to have the same attitude regarding reconciliation.

2. Divorce as the ultimate Solution for Spiritual Adultery (Ezra Chapter 9 and Chapter 10)

Ezra's advice to put away the strange (non-Jewish) wives is an example that men of God did view divorce as a means to dissolve an illegitimate marriage between Jews and the ungodly nations surrounding them. The men divorced their wives, gave up their children, if they had any, and having done so, also made an animal sacrifice because of their previous disobedience. Some authors have proposed that this method is required in repentance for a believer who, in rebellion to the church's prohibition, marries an unbeliever. In other words, they suggest if a person rebels against the teaching of the church and marries a non-believer, then to be able to be received back into fellowship, they would have to put away the non-believer as proof of their repentance. Hard core? Well, I wouldn't let the former member just waltz back into church after flaunting their disobedience to Scripture.

Jeremiah 3:8 "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." God, the divorcer, and Israel the divorcee. It is evident that God recognizes divorce, under proper conditions, as a form of disciplinary action.

b. Unrighteous Divorce

1. As a method of Treachery or selfishness (Malachi 2:16)

“For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”

Many preachers say, "God hates divorce." However, the Scripture didn't say it in such a blanket format. Malachi 2:16 qualifies the type of divorce by providing a specific scenario in which God hates divorce: for one covereth violence with his garment. It did not place God hating divorce in every situation. If divorce per se is treachery, then God is treacherous and Hosea is treacherous since they divorced their "wives." It is not that God hates divorce because it is treacherous but that he hates treacherous divorce. A treacherous divorce is a divorce grounded upon nothing more than the desire to be monogamously or otherwise devoted to another person in stead of their spouse.

In his book, Myth, Laney suggests that the oracular statement that such men "covereth violence with their garments" may be a colorful way of underscoring the treachery of these divorces. He points out that in Ruth 3:9 and in Ezek 16:8, the prospective husband spreads his garment over the woman to symbolically show his intention to protect her. Violence is chamac in the Hebrew tongue. Chamac means a wrong, a cruelty, an injustice, violence. Great hypocrisy can be found in the man that covers violence with his garment. He performs a grievous wrong to unjustly cast aside a woman that he had publicly pledged to protect. A man who casts aside his espoused wife to monogamously wed himself to another woman is indeed cruel. Many men marry with the attitude that if it doesn't work out, they will find someone else - a total shirking of their responsibility in their marriage covenant. It is against this mindset that God rails His hatred.

The divorce that God hates is a treacherous, self willed, unfounded divorce. To allow a man to cover violence with his garment would be allowing a form of legal rape to exist. To compound the matter, the woman put away would be deemed as having been put away because of some wickedness. Thus, the innocent woman could be falsely branded an adulterer. It is in this vain of thought we find men committing adultery to marry another, and the divorced woman being thought of as an adulterer, though her former husband was the cause of her plight. The bottom line: God hates unjust divorces.

Romans 7: 1-3 “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 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. 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.”

Note that the author of Romans indicates that the understanding of the above passage resides with those who understand the Torah, Jewish law. With such indication, it stands to reason that all the diminutive points of the law would not be spelled out here by the writer. The author does not go into all the details about portions of the law that describe how a woman may be put from her husband in divorce. We have already seen that it does speak on this subject, and readers knowing the Law would be cognizant of them. It suffices to say that as long as the husband lives, the Law has rules concerning his marriage. The Law also dictates circumstances where the woman is able to loose herself from her husband. Yet here in Romans 7:1, the emphasis is how she should not be made loose from her husband. The focal point in this passage is not what other ways a woman can become freed, besides the death of the husband, but rather that she cannot simply rebel to go marry another without being branded an adulterer under the Law. Since she left her husband without authority under the Law to marry another, the law convicts her of adultery. However, if her husband was dead and she married another, the adultery issue is moot.

III. The Teachings of Jesus and Paul

A. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS ON DIVORCE

Matthew 5:31-32 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

By the time of Christ, the Deuteronomic provision (Deut 24:1-4) for the wife of a hard-hearted husband protecting her from his treacherous intentions had been turned upside down to favor the husband. Pharisaical schools argued back and forth over what had to be wrong with the wife before the husband could exercise his "right" to put her away. The liberal school of Hillel thought that a man had the right to end his marriage if his wife did something he found distasteful. The conservative school of Shammai thought the man's right to divorce was limited to the case of a wife who had committed adultery. Both schools were concerned for the rights of the man and had little concern for the woman, thus reversing the concern of Scripture.

During the days of Christ's majority, the son of Herod the Great, Antipas, had an affair with his half-brother Philip's wife, Herodias. Herod and Herodias divorced their covenant partners in order to devote themselves to each other. They cared little for the rights of either men or women who were in the way of their lust. Members of the religious establishment were too satisfied with their economic and political position to raise much objection to this transgression of the Law. Only the backwoods prophet, John the Baptist, dared to rebuke the erring house of Herod with Holy Scripture.

In Christ's answer to the Pharisees, we must remember the nearby context: "Think not that I come to destroy the law." The principles Christ lay down did not negate the laws regarding divorce and remarriage. However, some commentators have Christ refuting all divorce thereby making Christ a destroyer of the law.

The near context: "You have heard..." opens a window to the twisted, misunderstanding of the law by the Pharisees. There are six distinct sayings of "ye have heard" (5:21,27,33,38,43). They relate to the last six points of the Ten commandments, man's duty to man. Murder, 21-26; adultery, 27-30; theft, 31-32; false witness, 33-37; coveting and defrauding, 38-42; and parents, 43-48. While realigning the misapplication of the scripture by the Pharisees, the hidden refrain within Jesus' six-part response is, "You think you are innocent, but you are guilty."

i. The Exception Clause

Only the book of Matthew, written to Jews under the Law, records the exception clause. Upon this clause, there have arisen several interpretations.

1. Inclusivist interpretation: The idea here is that all divorce is rejected by Jesus, even divorce that is grounded upon unchastity.

2. Preteritive view: This school of thought associated with Augustine in ancient times and with Bruce Vawter in our own, is sometimes called the "no comment" view. It holds that Jesus skirted the Shammai-Hillel debated by refusing to comment upon what the offense in Deuteronomy 24:1 could be.

3. Separation view: This view allows the separation of the couple, but not the divorce.

4. Offense-Clarification view: This argues that the purpose of the exception clause is to clarify when adultery has taken place. Divorces based upon porneia are not adulterous, for the adultery was already present in the porneia. The divorced woman will not then be "made to be an adulteress" by subsequent remarriage, because the fornication has already rendered her an adulteress. However, when divorces are based without porneia, this view begs the question, “When or does adultery take place?”

5. Permissible view: Jesus hereby signifies an exception to the general rule of no divorce. This interpretation is by far the one preferred by scholars, but there the agreement ends, for they differ widely over the meaning of the crucial offense-term: porneia. The views on what porneia means range from:

a. Preconsummational breach of chastity. The marriage can only be broken before the man's consummation with a bride that has been found to be sexually impure. This is known at the "Betrothal View." Isaksson holds this view.

b. Incestuous or illegal marriages. Only marriages that are shown to be incestuous are able to be broken. Some include interfaith marriages. This is known as the "Consanguinity View." Laney, Steele, and Charles Ryrie hold this view.

c. Physical Adultery. Adultery after marriage is the only grounds for a divorce. This range is broadened by some proponents to include such things as incest, bestiality, and other perversions. This view is known as the Patristic (early father's) view. Heth, Wenham, and Matthew Henry hold this view.

d. Adultery or some other sexual offense. Sexual immorality in general is grounds for divorce. This view broadens the scope of adultery into unfaithfulness. It is known as the Erasmian View. Murray and Guy Duty hold this view.

e. The Preteritive view says that porneia means whatever the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 meant. Vawter holds this view.

There are some camps which define fornication as being sex before marriage, and adultery as sex with someone other than your spouse. That definition, though true, is simplistic in a tunnel vision sort of way. They are clueless that fornication or its Greek root pornea have any other dimensions. As such, they state divorce can only occur during the engagement period, if the prospective bride commits sexual immorality prior to the consummation of the marriage. The view makes for some mighty bold, albeit erroneous, preaching in Baptist pulpits.

Acts 15:20 “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

Porneia is translated fornication in Matthew 19:9 and Acts 15:20. We can note several things about porneia. Porneia is not the normal word for "adultery." The normal Greek word is moicheia, which is much narrower in scope. The two terms should not be equated. Porneia and moicheia are found within the same verses in Matt 15:19; Mark 7:21; ICor 6:9; Gal 5:19; Heb 13:4 thereby showing that the two are not synonyms. Porneia can include moicheia, as in Acts 15:20 listed above, but porneia does not necessitate that moicheia be present. Within the text, it can also be seen that porneia is not limited to sexual infidelity. Although porneia carries the connotation of sexual overtones, to not allow porneia to encompass some broader points of fleshly actions would be to negate the provisions of divorce in the law, a law Jesus said he came to fulfill, not destroy. The standard definition of porneia to be "immorality in general" and not only adultery holds true to the Hebrew parallel term zanah and the use of porneia in the Septuagint. Therefore, even after marriage, you can commit fornication without committing adultery.

ii. "Causes her to commit adultery"

In 1949, R.C. Lenski argued the following points:

1. The woman of 5:32 is innocent of wrong. It is her husband who has destroyed the marriage via divorce, thus rendering her unable to fulfill her marital commitments. Contrary to the commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, it is improper grammatically to find the second husband as the causal agent of adultery.

2. The "adultery" relating to the wife occurs at the time of the divorce, not in some subsequent marriage; 5:32a and 5:32b are independent clauses not dependent clauses.

3. The meaning of the word moikeuthanai, translated as commit, is an infinitive passive not active, and no one has shown that it should be translated actively. Therefore the phrase, "causes her to commit" is not an expression of action but of implication. She does not perform adultery, but she is branded [at the time of the divorce] as an adulteress because she was put away.

Other writers, such as Murray, want to show that the word in this passage is being used in the active case. If it were active, then the woman would be the actor in the adultery. They argue from the Septuagint in Leviticus 20:10 and from the text in John chapter eight. However, none of the scholars can prove in a grammatical study that the passage in Matthew 5:32 should be viewed as active. The usage in John chapter eight demands an active tense because of the charges brought against the woman. The active tense depended upon the text; whereas the text of Matthew 5:32 does not provide any support to change the usage from passive to a middle or active sense.

The whole question in Matthew 5:32 asks, "is she an adulteress or a stigmatized woman?" The answer is a stigmatized woman. This answer is in harmony with Paul's dealing with a woman put away from an unbeliever. At the time of Paul's response, he did not view her marriage as having continued. It is to be remembered that the Old Testament was concerned about the stigmatizing of a pure woman. Twice the Law spoke to such issues (Num 5:31 by allusion, if she was innocent he will bear guilt; Deut 22:17-19, if she was innocent he had to pay 100 shekels of silver--100 months wages). If a disciple is to divorce his wife only on the grounds of porneia, but then divorces her without these grounds, what does the divorce imply about the woman? The watching world will see the divorce and assume that the woman is guilty of some great sin such as adultery. This in effect puts the sin of the husband upon the head of the woman! He broke the vow of provision by divorcing her (treacherously) and framed her with gross sin. Thus the woman is treated like a piece of property that has received the stamp of defective, when, in fact, it is the man that is morally defective. In effect, the husband rendered her as an adulterated woman.

B. THE SOCRATIC RESPONSE OF JESUS

Mark 10:2-9 “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Matthew 19:3-9 “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 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.”

When the religious leaders approached Jesus, they wished to entrap him within the framework of divorce and remarriage. Not only did Jesus have to contend with the school of Hillel and Shimmia, he also had Herod and Herodios to battle. Jesus' response took the form of a Socratic response. Since Christ took this response form, it is wise to not only see what he said but what he did not say.

Jesus posed the question, "What did Moses command you?" Starting from their answer, Jesus clarified several points derived from their response:

1. They had been concerned with "when the man may walk away from his wife." Jesus pointed out that the design of marriage is not to see it end.

2. The covenant cannot be dissolved without challenging the One who oversees the covenant, God.

3. Jesus does not say, "Since what God joins together is permanent, you can't get a divorce." To do so would have been exactly what the Pharisees wanted to trap him with. It would have shown him to be contrary to the Old Testament and place Him at odds with the Roman magistrates.

Jesus affirmed that He came not to destroy the law. Jesus affirmed as strongly as possible, without abrogating any teaching of the Law, the obligation of marriage partners is to stay married. He does not say that it is impossible to sever a marriage bond, nor that you can never have a divorce. He doesn't even use the normal and technical term for divorce here, but instead uses the word chorizo, which is well translated "sunder." In all the other uses of this word in the N.T., it is never used as a synonym for divorce.

Unless God allows severance of the bond, either through death, thereby placing the partner outside of the law, or through God's provisions under the law, a severance of the covenant would be wrong. In a treacherous sundering, it is man, not God, that allowed divorce. It was the treacherous attitude that Christ attacked while not destroying the law. The law, like Christ, stood as a testimony against the hardness of men's hearts. The Torah limited men in the scope that divorce could take place. This limitation was needed because men sought to sunder relationships under their own volition. Divorce, per se, was not sinful. Treacherous divorce, based upon the hardness of a man's heart, was sinful. The function of the law, when used correctly, protected wives from wrongful divorce. Christ's teaching also limited men by pointing out that the purpose of marriage is to seek to be joined together not to put asunder. He taught that marriage was not created with the hope that it may end.

C. THE DISCIPLES QUESTIONING

Mark 10:10-12 “And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

Continuing with the premise that marriage covenants are not created with the hope of breaking them, Christ again deals with treacherous divorce. Jesus affirms that a man that divorces his wife in view of becoming monogamously tied to another woman is guilty of committing adultery against his first wife. The adultery did not lie within the physical union, since polygamy was permitted though not proscribed by the law, but by the man forsaking his pledge to provide for his first wife. Christ then includes the reversal clause, "if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Of course Christ was not going against the law, which has already been shown to allow a woman to divorce her husband under certain conditions. One thing that may mislead people is reading the verse as if the man puts away his wife, then at some later time, as if an afterthought, decides to marry another woman. Though such a divorce is bad, it doesn't sink to the level of treachery as one who divorces with an unencumbered marriage to someone else in the making.

i. Eunuch Saying

Matthew 19:10-12 “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

The response of the disciples to Christ' teaching is a sober one, but their response does not carry a deep astonishment as some commentators would like to portray. If Jesus was teaching against all divorce, then the disciples should have been astonished. We are only justified in saying that the disciples were sobered by Jesus' teaching that divorce is not a right to be exercised by the man but an exceptional disciplinary action to be taken only if the spouse has already broken the covenant, and that any attempt to divorce a wife simply out of a desire to devote oneself to another woman is the sin of adultery. Such teaching was not held by any rabbi during Jesus' ministry. Even Shammai, who permitted a man to divorce his wife if she had committed an act tantamount to adultery does not go on to call a divorce without such a ground the "sin of adultery." In effect, the Pharisees knew nothing such as Matthew records Jesus teaching: that adultery need not involve sex, that it may be constituted simply by a man breaking his vow of continuing provision for his spouse (even if the breaking is done with legal sanction).

There are several different views to this passage which are worthy to be listed:

A. The Renunciation of Marriage View. Jesus is promoting celibacy for the sake of the kingdom.

B. The Celibacy of the Divorced View: These verses refer to the husband whose wife has been put away, requiring him to consecrate himself to a celibate life (at the least, until his former wife dies).

1. This view believes the men that "cannot receive this saying" are the Pharisees and "those to whom is has been given" are the disciples of the kingdom. (For years I used to hold this view, out of my own ignorance and laziness to study, merely because I thought it was the gung-ho thing to do. Hard core, gung-ho, straighter than straight is not always the Scriptural way. Just because it makes good preaching, doesn't mean it will stand up to a really detailed Bible study. As noted earlier, such self-imposed sacrifices have a show of wisdom in will worship, but only a show.)

C. Intended for the Married View. These verses are Jesus informing his disciples that his teaching of marriage is directed to married folks. The disciples were suggesting that celibacy should be the norm, but Jesus points out that celibates are the exceptions, not the rule.

ii. Synopsis of the Gospel Accounts Matthew 19 / Mark 10

a. Matthew alone contains the exception clause and the eunuch saying.

b. Mark alone contains the reciprocal clause.

c. Matthew has the Pharisees make Moses command divorce, whereas Mark has them note that Moses permitted divorce.

D. THE TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLE PAUL ON DIVORCE

i. I Corinthians 7:1-24 (Listed earlier)

The culture of the city of Corinth was drenched in pornographic indulgences. Sexual promiscuity was the norm in the city. Their church had become permissive when it came to major matters (incest) but harsh when it came to small matters. It was in this church that a church member married his father's wife - a capital offense in Jewish eyes.

a. To Christian Couples: Groundless Divorce Denied

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

Paul squarely settles that Christian couples are not permitted any avenue of divorce that could be called rightful. Christians are to exemplify the consummation of marriage, not its dissolution. In Christian couples, a partner that rebelled against God and caused a divorce would also be dealt with under church disciplinary rules. Without repentance and reestablishment of the marriage covenant, the offending partner(s) would be excluded and treated as though he was not saved. If churches in America would cast aside their cowardice and act upon this one point alone, adult church membership would be cut in half overnight and we might regain some moral credibility.

b. The Implied Exception

Critics stress that Paul does not speak of an exception to a no-divorce teaching of Jesus, but rather absolutely rejects divorce and remarriage. Although this is technically true on the surface, evidence points in the direction of an implied exception. First, note that Paul refers to the teachings of Jesus, which did include the exception clause. We cannot assume that Paul was unfamiliar with the exception. At least, given the exception clause in the teachings of Jesus, the burden of proof lies with the person who would affirm that Paul, reflecting upon the teachings of Jesus, would hold a spouse divorcing on the grounds of porneia as guilty of sin.

c. The Pauline Limitations on Divorce

The Apostle Paul did give perimeters concerning divorce. The following is an outline of those boundaries:

1. If you went through with a groundless divorce, don't run out and get remarried to a more desirable partner. Instead be reconciled to your wronged former spouse.

2. If the unbelieving one leaves... (I Cor 7:12-24)

a) Do not initiate separation if he be pleased to dwell with you.

b) In such cases... no longer bound...

1) Some commentators believe that Paul is saying that the woman is free from marital obligations to the unbelieving spouse when he divorces her, but not free to remarry. They see the freedom to remarry as contrary to the "hope of conversion" in verse 16. Siding with early Church Fathers, they connect verse 16 with verse 13; they reject the modern commentators who connect 16 with 15. (Siding with the church fathers may not be wise when you consider that they gave rise to an unmarried priesthood and often praised ascetical views. One might say their ideals on marriage were not ideal.) Critics to this view that she is not free to remarry can raise the question, "If the submissive spiritual condition of the convert led to the ending of the marriage, is it reasonable to suppose that acting as though still married will lead to the salvation of the lost?" Another objection that could be raised is the Old Testament teaching that divorced women and widows may both contract covenants without ratification by a husband.

2) Other commentators, including myself, believe that once the Christian has tried to lead a harmonious life with the unbeliever, has tried to make reconciliation, has carried herself/himself in the spirit of reconciliation and yet is still thrust aside by the unbeliever, then the innocent party is free to remarry, though they need not rush out and exercise their freedom.

a) A church member initiating a divorce against another believer would fall under the rules of church discipline. The unrepentant member would eventually be expelled and viewed as one that is an unbeliever (granted that there is no godly repentance after the expulsion.) If both parties are guilty, both would fall under discipline.

I Corinthians 5:1-6:20 “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. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.”

IV. Miscellaneous Teachings of the Apostles

A. ASSORTED

Ephesians 5:22-23 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Some churches mistakenly take this passage to infer that there cannot be a divorce for any cause. They teach that marriage is an unconditional covenant. Such a position is faulty in that it fails to recognize that the covenant dealt in 5:22-33 is between God and His bride. Only God can make an unconditional covenant. Men and women cannot make an unconditional covenant between each other. It would be error to believe that God turns our conditional covenants of man and wife into unconditional covenants. In all covenants, God is the overseer. Only covenants that have men as one party and God as the second party have the potential of being unconditional.

i. 1Peter 3:1-7 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

ii. 1Timothy 3:1-2 “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”

iii. Titus 1:6 “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.”

iv. 1 Peter 3:1-7 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

v. 1 Timothy 5:9 “Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.”

B. BISHOP/DEACON QUALIFICATIONS

Much debate has been centered upon the qualifications of bishops and deacons in regard to their marital status. Out of those debates, several major views have arisen. Regarding the King James Bible's "husband of one wife" clauses:

Alternative Views:

a. Exclusion of married men from church offices: This refers to the Roman Institution's idea that priests should be celibate, since such person should be "married" only to Christ and His church.

Retort: Peter was married! Paul stated that they had the right to lead about wives.

b. Exclusion of unmarried men from such offices: Only men who are married are qualified to counsel and lead the Church.

Retort: Consistency of this interpretation would mean that if the elder must be married, then he must also have children in his house, as Titus 1:6 states, yet no expositor that I have read is willing to push the issue that far. There is no evidence that Timothy was married; and history records that the apostle John was likewise wifeless and childless. Would one wifeless leader write to another wifeless leader requiring other leaders to have wives or children?

c. Exclusion of Polygamist: Married to more than one partner at the same time.

Retort: Roman and Greek law forbade polygamy. It is unlikely that Paul would write to correct something that was not being practiced. If he were, then the Church built upon the prophets (Ephesians 2:20) and blessed in Abraham (Galatians 3:29) would then not allow David or Abraham to function in the position of a deacon.

Two subsequent arguments arise over the area of counseling. One side contends that a man with two wives could not preach fidelity to a man with one wife. The other side contends that the fact still prevails that the man with two wives did not go into infidelity but rather made a legitimate covenant. The man with two wives could still preach the sanctity of marriage covenants and uphold fidelity to those covenants. Regardless of the arguments, the qualifications for Bishop were not likely written to forbid a practice that was already outlawed. (Joke: There is the remote and weak chance the Scripture was written with future converts from such groups as Muslims in mind - though Muslims weren't invented yet.) Again, you have to go back to what would the original reader understand from the text. Don’t misunderstand, polygamy should not be, but you should consider that trying to plant a church in a land where polygamy is the norm could raise some interesting discussion. Again, let me stress, Paul wouldn’t be writing against a practice that didn’t exist in the culture of his intended reader; therefore, we can dismiss polygamy as his intended target of prohibition.

d. Exclusion of Digamist: Married two or more times legally. This falls into three categories:

i. Exclusion of remarried widowers.

Retort: Some point back to the Old Testament for support, citing that a priest could not be a widower. However, only the High Priest was prohibited from marrying a widow, and a priest who was a widower was not prohibited from marrying a second wife. Since only the High Priest was excluded from marrying a widow, anyone arguing that a widower priest would be ceremonially defiled by remarrying bears the burden of proof. We may at this time object to the procedure of using the Old Testament Levitical system as a precedent for a New Testament church office. The Old Testament system also excluded handicapped priest, whereas the New Testament presents us all as priest (I Pet 2:5-10). Do you know a pastor or church leader that is handicapped? If you carried this argument to its completion, they would also be disqualified.

ii. Exclusion of those who marry a woman that was divorced.

Some people would not allow to the pulpit, a man who married a woman that was divorced from an abusive husband or whose unsaved husband had divorced her due to her faith in Christ.

Retort: Similar to that for widowers. Her demarcation would stand upon whether or not the woman had been wrongfully divorced and are options of reconciliation now closed to her.

iii. Exclusion of all remarried divorcees.

Retort A, Decency: The first theological camp, which we have dealt with, places this prohibition because they believe that all divorce and remarriage is adulterous. The second theological camp contends that a divorcee is guilty of not managing his household. The man would therefore be a poor bishop because he couldn't rule his house. Such an analysis would imply that both God (who divorced Israel, Jer 3:8) and Hosea (who divorced Gomer, Hos 1-2) were poor managers. If divorce can be a rebuke, then, far from revealing poor management, it may show control and a proper response. Divorce can be a sign of decency and order on the part of the man. Would not Eli have been exonerated by God had he rebuked his sons? Wasn't God showing forth His righteousness in divorcing Israel?

Rules house well: The clause, "rules his house well," does not refer to his marital status. The clause refers to how the man manages the finances and discipline. Not that disaster or rebellion never strike; but does the man allow or permit such things to continue like Eli the priest (See First Samuel Chapter Two)? If he is weak in ruling his household affairs, he would not have the moral fortitude to stand as a bishop should.

Retort B, Dual standards: Some commentators say that only when the adultery or fornication takes place before salvation are they allowed to the office of bishop by reason of repentance and forgiveness. This creates duplicity of rules. Such hypocritical rules will allow men who were fornicators before marriage to pastor yet bar men who were moral before and after marriage, but whose wife left as an unbeliever, from holding the same office. In this same vein, I have seen preachers leave Bible college or their church and rebel: literally raising hell by smoking, drinking, whoremongering, going neck deep into sin. I've seen those same preacher boys repent, clean up their act, and be heartily and speedily welcomed into pulpits. Then I've seen preachers who didn't neglect their wives, but the wife decided she wasn't really saved or such, and then ran off. Granted, these men shouldn't be walking into a pulpit the next day, but I've seen such men remain faithful to God and act honorably under their plight for years only to be shunned or relegated to minimal service or stripped of titles in independent Baptist circles. Where is the righteous judgment in such duplicity of standards?

The Epistles of Paul were written by a person who had complicities in the sin of murder. Yet Paul is a leader of the church. Would Paul, a leader of the Church, being guilty by his own accord in murder, write to Timothy to exclude persons from church leadership who had been divorced by an adulterous spouse?

iv. Contextual Conclusions

In the Greek, two elements are significant. First, the phrase reads, "husband of one wife." Lenski translates it "one wife's husband" Saucy prefers the less marital translation of the terms: a "one woman man." Upon first hearing such rendering, I scoffed at the notion as a weak attempt to skirt an issue. However, it later dawned upon me that every view, including the most conservative of conservatives, regarding the bishop/deacon qualifications recognizes the standards as being focused upon judging the man's ethical lifestyle. However, most views don't apply an ethical point to the "husband of one wife" clause: they abruptly treat it differently from the other qualifications.

E. 1st Timothy Chapter Three: The Husband of One Wife

This is a true saying, If a man desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. "A bishop then must be blameless," not perfect, but judged to be blameless in the way he carries himself and the way he responds to trials. The mere questioning about his background or actions is not enough. If there is a question, then it should be pursued, answered, and judged. A man who lives for God will always have someone who didn't like what he has done. If he is judged to have not been at fault in the questioned matter, then he is blameless. "Vigilant" typifies that in his work ethic, he is not slothful. "Sober" his state of mind, showing his decisions are sound, ethical, and not whimsical. "Given to hospitality" shows his ethics regarding interpersonal relationships - a team player who plays well with others. "Apt to teach" is needful because there are those who desire to be in the limelight, but don't have the ethical fortitude to admit they don't have what it takes to be a teacher. "Not given to wine" -- what untold ethical dilemmas drug addition would bring to the pulpit? "Not greedy of filthy lucre" -- can we say "conflict of interest"? Greed for money is definitely an ethical pitfall. "But patient, not a brawler, not covetous" all speak about the ethical make up of any leader, but especially a man wishing to pastor. "One that ruleth well his house," speaks about his financial ethics and impartiality of discipline regarding those under him. He doesn't go out and run up a huge credit card debt or default on loans, and he doesn’t let his kids get away with things he condemns others for doing.

Unlike Eli the priest, ethical fiber for a bishop will not let his kids roam free, but would rather keep "his children in subjection with all gravity." Now, I haven't seen a church demand a pastor to resign, simply because his 27 year old son recently chose the path of sin. Nor have I seen many churches refusing to call a man to pastor based upon him not having any kids in his house. Why? Perhaps because they realize that the passage deals with his ethical practice regarding those under his direct authority.

(For if a man knows not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) This verse is a direct commentary on why a pastor must have high ethical standards in regards to discipline with both self and family. If he plays favorites or is lax in his personal discipline and conduct of running a house, then he lacks the moral and practical ethics required of a bishop. Sadly, this verse is often plucked from its position and used out of this context.

"Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." This verse is common sense. The man must have a track record that is settled. His beliefs and practice of piety should have some depth to them, not something acquired in the recent past.

All the above verses deal with how the church sees the potential pastor, not the world. Our standard of lifestyle is not the world's standard - or at least it should not be. Yet, Paul goes a step further and acknowledges the world's viewpoint: "Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." On this, there is some wisdom to impart. Some things may not be worthy of keeping a man out of the pulpit, as far as the Scripture is concerned, but they may be important enough to have him take leave of the pastorate or not offer the pastorate so long as he remains a distraction to the world from the gospel.

As shown above, the standards of ethics for a candidate of church bishop touch upon the entire main points that commonly afflict and tempt preachers in their ministry. Partiality between what they preach against and how he lets his family live. The greed for money - many have chased it. The solicitation of alcohol - some have succumbed to it. The sensual allure of women - many have become their prey. Wait a minute! There wasn't anything about womanizing in the list. Oh, I skipped that part.

If you don't allow the following, then there is no warning against the unethical character of a womanizer in the list (one of the two biggest things that ruin a preacher's ministry - money & women):

It appears Paul's primary concern is the prohibition of known fornicators and womanizers (sexually immoral men) from leadership in the church. In this Greek phrase, the word "one" is put forward, showing emphasis but is also anarthrous (without the definite article the). The net result of this structure is to stress the singleness of devotion rather than the number of wives. This is a one-woman type of man, a man who is not looking at every toga that crosses his path. Standing out against the background of sexual promiscuity in the Greek and Roman world, he is a man who does not have "eyes of adultery" (2Pet 2:14), who does not go to the prostitutes (1Cor 6:13-7:2).

Not only does this interpretation fit the cultural background, but it also explains how Paul, who is usually explicit about sexual immorality in list of sins (ICor 6:9; Rom 1:21;Gal 5:19), misses sexual permissiveness completely when mentioning qualifications for church offices. If "husband of one wife" is idiomatic for "not sexually promiscuous," the gap is filled - Paul then indeed addressed fornication in his list of qualifications for offices! Thus, whether we translate the clause "one-woman man" or "one wife's husband" or "husband of one wife," we are to understand that it is directed against fornication, not to a believing man who had a wicked or perverse wife. With this understanding, the husband of one wife clause also addresses the ethics of a pastoral candidate.

The most common cry heard when “husband of one wife” is placed into its proper context, as explained above, is the typical “but is specifically says husband of one wife in the English, King James Bible.” Such unskilled folly is what created groups like Alexander Campbell’s Disciplines of Christ, Church of Christ movement. Campbell preached under the Baptist banner, but he saw verses such as Acts 22:16 and took them at face value, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Though you may place such verses in their proper context and then explain that a person is saved before they pass through a baptistery pool, the average Campbellite doesn’t have the willingness to do the mental gymnastics required to properly understand those passages. Instead, they try to interpret a verse written to a select group of people living a specific culture two-thousand years ago through the cultural bias and understanding of a 21^st century American. They then justify their understanding by reading the verse as it was translated into English. Ignoring idiom, culture, and the original reader’s background is not proper to rightly interpreting Scripture, but Church of Christ preachers and many independent Baptists indulge in this folly every day.

A little understanding of what the text meant to the original hearers is sometimes intuitive. At other times such understanding requires more study. Unless you are a Mormon, you probably don’t believe someone came to the Americas two thousand years ago to preach Christ to the Indians, even though the plain English says the gospel came to the Colossians as in all the world and was preached to every creature which was under heaven (Colossians 1:6, 23).

Churches are usually inconsistent when they do not hold to the "husband of one wife" as described above. For example, I can count hundreds of examples of single Baptist men who are revered by Baptist as being great preachers and pastors in our history. They did not have a wife, or they lost a wife trying to reach the early frontier with the gospel. However, they were not girl crazy nor into sexual immorality, and thus fulfilled the "husband of one wife" requirement for a bishop. Ironically, the same people who hold to the husband of one wife being a man married only once also hold the non-married Baptist pastors as heroes of the faith - without any qualification for their discrepancy. If their pastor's wife died, making him a widow, would they expect him to resign for not being the husband of one wife?

Since the issue of consistency is being raised, the requirements for church sponsored charity should be used in cross-examination. In First Timothy, the Apostle Paul placed the following stipulations on recipients of financial charity support from the church:

· Known to be given to much prayer and supplications (5:5).

· They must be at least 60 years old. (5:9) (Pretty old for back then).

· They must be without any family or descendants (nephew in old English meant grandchild).

· Totally disabled and unable to work; totally dependent upon God (5:4-5).

· Recognized by the community as having a godly testimony full of good works (5:10).

· Having lived in conjugal fidelity with their spouse (5:9).

First Timothy 5:9 is a requirement to fulfill prior to being considered for a position of honor. In the King James Bible, the verse is written similar to the requirement for a bishop: “wife of one man.” Regarding the Timothy passage, Adam Clarke’s commentary correctly points out:

“Having been the wife of one man. Having lived in conjugal fidelity with her husband … is the opinion of some of the most eminent of the Greek fathers, and appears to be that most consistent with the scope of the place and with truth.“

Understanding the passage of caring for a widow in a manner consistent with the passage of office of a bishop will yield three reciprocal views, each depending on how the bishop’s passage is understood. If you require the bishop to be married by interpretation, then regardless of how godly and industrious a saint the old woman has been throughout her life for the church, she would also be shunned if never married. If you interpret the bishop to not have had any type of divorce, though biblical in nature, then if the old woman had been divorced when she was eighteen years old by an unsaved man who went whoring after other women and she later remarried, continuing to live a godly life well into her seventies, she would also be shunned though she fulfilled the other requirements of the passage. However, this view doesn’t bode well against Paul’s proclamation that a woman in such a case is no longer bound to her divorcing husband. Finally, if you understand both the husband of one wife and the wife of one-husband clauses to be speaking to sexual purity and conjugal fidelity, you will not have difficulty in consistently putting the charity principle for widows and the selection of pastors into practice. To their embarrassment for being inconsistent, many Baptists apply the widow qualification correctly yet change gears and apply the bishop qualification in an entirely unfounded and different mode of interpretation.

Sadly, when given the choice between a bible college trained divorced man who has lived uprightly though his wife left him years ago for a lesbian, and a man who also went to bible college, subsequently going into drugs or alcohol addiction, and later repenting of his reprobate lifestyle, most independent Baptist preachers will find a place of pastoral ministry for the one who rejected his bible training for dope, booze, or sex while rejecting the man who has stood the test of time and retained his integrity. Such hypocrisy is often viewed as proper because it provides a false show of wisdom or righteousness in our independent Baptist circles. Such things ought not to be. They would not be, if more people studied deeply in the Scripture on this subject and applied the lessons consistently.

F. Common Sense

i. 1 Timothy 3:11 “Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.”

Though written concerning deacons, it would be appropriate to expect a pastor's wife to exhibit the same qualities. For this reason, if a pastor's wife rebelled, he would not be qualified at that time to hold office. If the wife were to return, that does not mean the man can immediately go back or candidate for the office of a bishop -- or deacon. Whether the problem traces back to the woman only, to the man only, or both parties causing discord in the marriage, the underlying problems must first be resolved. After resolution, appropriate time, not distance, should be given (though relocating may be wise, relocation alone is not acceptable). Deacons must first be proved; this includes their wife. If the wife goes awry and subsequently returns, the process of proving the couple begins afresh after the underlying problems are rectified. If the wife does not return, church jurisprudence and discipline will determine the courses of actions - being case specific in regards to Scripture. Regardless of the outcome, the bishop should not return or candidate for a church office until a church recognized resolution or condition occurs. This fluidity is often uncomfortable for those making decisions in the church, and many take a simplistic, hard rule approach to shirk the task of rendering case specific judgments.

ii. 1 Corinthians 7:33 “But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.”

All too often, pastors and their staff are expected to be superman to the church: the one who is always there at every opportunity, putting self and family aside to serve the Lord. However, if the pastor is married, he should not be placed into such a stereotype. Those men and women who are not married are able to care for the things of the Lord undistracted, according to Scripture. It should be they who carry the torches in the midnight hours - let the preacher stay in bed with his wife. Pastors who try to live up to unscriptural demands upon their life, being caught up in false expectations of themselves or the zeal of the ministry can bring their own woes upon them. I must remind you that the man has obligations under the marriage covenant, and putting the wife second to his church endeavors is not in compliance with those obligations.

If the preacher's wife separates from him due to his own neglect, he has faltered in keeping his marriage covenant and is not blameless. As a believer, scorned though she may feel, divorce is not an option in this situation. He can be called into question regarding his decisions (sober thinking) regarding his companion. As such, he is disqualified from holding church office. Trying to get to the bottom of the reasons of her separation will doubtless be uncomfortable and difficult, but the church must do right and risk the consequences.

When the pastor is not blameless, being found as the causal agent either by action, such as spouse abuse, or by neglect of his covenantal obligations to his wife, he is disqualified from pursuing any office of the church so long as the marital rift remains unhealed. In such times, his ministry should be solely focused upon ministering to the needs of his wife. If his wife rebels against the church and leaves completely, and the pastor still desires to do something for God, his best immediate service to the church would be to warn others of the mistakes he made in his marriage and to continue to seek reconciliation for as long as possible. He is not blameless in this scenario and does not have the moral or marital integrity to withstand the accusations and scrutiny of the unbelieving world - though they themselves may be guilty of gross sins.

V. CLOSING COMMENT

A. Thoughtful Advice

If you are a man not yet married, I give you my humble and simple advice: It is better to marry a loving woman than to marry a woman in love with you. Hollywood has romanticized the thought of love to the extent that even sincere and responsible young people cannot discern between steadfast biblical love and spurious emotional love. A woman in love with you can lose that love when it proves fleshly in nature; but a woman with a loving spirit will learn to love you naturally and thoroughly because it is her nature to do so.

B. Meditate and Ponder

I hope this outline has caused you to think! There are so many other avenues that needed to be addressed or detailed more fully. I hope that you are not tempted to make quick comments about this subject without looking into the matter more deeply.

During a phone interview with a preacher, I asked him about the subject of marriage and divorce. Although he felt that men who were divorced because of an unfaithful wife could still serve in a church leadership position, he preferred not to give them a title that included the word "pastor" (i.e. assistant pastor). Another prominent pastor would not marry a person that was wrongfully divorced, but he theologically acknowledged the person's freedom to remarry. The pastor did not want the church to accept the responsibility of having to discern whether a person is free to remarry or not. These two are only a sample of the many positions proliferated by spiritual laziness, biblical ignorance, cowardice toward church discipline, or simply not standing for righteousness. We should judge rightly and accept the outcome.

I hope that in the future you will have the determination to stand publicly for what you believe is biblical, and the integrity to alter some points of your beliefs if they prove faulty. The church is charged with the task to determine if a person is living contrary to God's Word. If he or she is living contrary, then have the courage to carry out discipline when the offender is unrepentant. If they are not living contrary to God's Word, then have the conviction to grant them the liberties and recognition that is afforded to God's faithful servants.

C. Thought Provoking Questions:

1. If a believer from the Middle East came to join your church and you found out that he had two wives, would you allow him to become a member?

2. If you had a candidate for Pastor acknowledge that he had a wife that he divorced, would you investigate why he was divorced or would you not even consider him?

3. If you had a candidate for Pastor that was single, would you consider him?

4. If a church member rebelled against the church and married a non-believer, what would you be willing to accept as works meet for repentance?

5. If a church member left a non-believing spouse, without biblical cause, would you rebuke that member?

6. If two church members from another church had divorced their spouses to marry each other, and now they want to become members of your church, what would you do?

7. If a man exposed himself during adultery to the possibility of the so-called aids virus, and practically every adulterer does expose himself to such, what biblical options are open to the wife he as been unfaithful towards? (It can take up to ten years before an infected person begins to test positive for the disease)

Malachi 2:13-17 “And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?)”

My loose paraphrase of Malachi 2:13-17 And this has America done: going to church with crocodile tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that God doesn't want to hear from you anymore. Yet you ask, Why? Because the LORD hath been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have stabbed in the back, though she is suppose to be your companion, and the wife of your marriage vows. And didn't God make you two into one flesh? Why one? That he might get godly children from your marriage. Therefore, make sure you are on the up and up, and let nobody deal treacherously against his spouse. Why? Because the LORD has said that he hates your stabbing in the back the woman you vowed to love, honor, and protect. Therefore you had better straighten up your act, and don't deal treacherously. You have made God sick with all your religious talk. Yet you ask, How have we made God sick? When you say, Every no fault divorce is good in the sight of the LORD, and God isn't upset with what I do; or, Nobody has a right to judge me!