Posted on 01/28/2013 10:46:27 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
This may seem like a round about way of dealing with this topic, and it does get your attention, but the scriptures are clear on this (adultery/marital unfaithfulness):
Jesus said that a man would leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two would be one flesh.
Jesus also said (Matthew chapter 5) that a man (or woman) may put away their mate for marital unfaithfulness and remarry.
In light of this, since Jesus sanctioned the remarriage, and would not consider the former mate to be the man's wife any longer, this man can be a bishop/overseer (1 Tim Chapter 3), as he would not be the husband of more than one wife, as Jesus sanctioned the remarriage, and would not then consider him to be the husband of two wives.
I was just wondering how the Assemblies of God, Baptists, etc, came to their current teaching on this.
Any input appreciated...
Thanks.
Jesus also said (Matthew chapter 5) that a man (or woman) may put away their mate for marital unfaithfulness and remarry.
Actually, it doesn’t say that. It says that for any reason other than that he makes her an adulterer. That is because in that case she has already made herself one.
BTW, my first wife, after 20 years, divorced me because she was just tired of being married. I remarried. The woman had been divorced. That was 15 years ago and I’m in marital bliss the likes of which I didn’t know was possible.
But where does that leave me, scripturally? Do you know how many “non divorced” 40 something women there are? And by marrying, we prevented “burning”.
Most modern Baptists and Pentecostals, etc, are descended from austere and pious sects that emerged before and during the Reformation. There were the Waldenses, and the Anabaptists, which we still have with us today.
During the reformation, they at first had the same understanding as you express. However, after some of them were executed for bigamy, since the authorities at the time did not recognize divorce, they decided that they should eschew divorce for the sake of their testimony. Consequently, they would never allow any divorce-remarried to occupy leadership positions in the church, where they were highly visible.
To this day, the Anabaptists will consider you as lost and going to Hell if you are divorce-remarried, unless you and your current spouse separate and reconciliation with the former spouse is actively pursued, regardless of how little chance there is for same.
31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Matthew 5 (NIV)
It seems to be a twist from what Jesus actually said.
The actual term from the Greek is porneia - which is not semantically equivalent to "marital unfaithfulness.
I know some people don’t recognize that verse from Matthew, saying ...except for unfaithfulness.....is license to remarry. And if you do remarry (the innocent spouse who has not committed adultery), those same ppl now tell you, you are now guilty of adultery. Of course they reason, since you can only have one wife.
Well that is just foolishness imho. If you were under the law, in the days before Christ, you would be widow/widower if your spouse cheated on you. Both Deuteronomy 22:22 and Leviticus 20:1 specify death as the punishment for adultery. Just because Jesus spared the life of the adulteress woman (and thus she is not executed and her husband freed from the marriage vow in that manner), is it not a big assumption to state that he would also forbid her husband from divorcing her and remarrying...especially in light of specific passages in the Old Testament allowing such a thing?
Even if that was not the case, and your wife was simply divorced, if she remarried (or if you are) you can not take her back. Deuteronomy 24:4 states that would be DETESTABLE to God. So to the folks who say ditch the new wife, reconcile with the old.....I say ignore them. You clearly shouldn’t do what is detestable to God.
In our Catholic bible it is understood as “unlawfull” not unfaithful. Unfaithfull to Jews at the time would have been a marriage in the same family.
Marriage is a covenant with God. Divorce will never be good, no matter what the circumstances. Obviously people prefer to do whatever they feel like, as opposed to what God wants.
King Henry the 8th, separated from the Catholic church and formed the Anglican church so he could remarry. Maybe that is where the wording changed.
I personally see divorce as sin. But I will help one with that spec in their eye right after I get this log out of mine.
I’m not saying divorce isn’t a sin. I’m saying it isn’t always a sin. You know, when the spouse cheats.
What about your/her children. If we were the only ones that mattered I doubt Jesus would have been so adament in his gospels.
There are four New Testament passages that talk about divorce:
Matthew 5:31-32
Matthew 19:7-9
Mark 10:2-12
Luke 16:18
There are four New Testament passages that talk about divorce: Matthew 5:31-32 Matthew 19:7-9 Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 Mark and Luke make no exceptions.
Yer still married to wifey number one.
While it may be true in some cases, I don’t see this passage addressing that issue.
Wideawake is correct—there is a distinction between the Greek moichatai (which more or less equals adultery—not fornication) and the Greek porneia—which would include adultery, fornication, and a whole lot more. Matthew 19:9 has both—the only grounds for putting away a putative life is for porneia, and one who marries a divorce woman is guilty of moichatai.
Under Jewish law, one couldn’t marry anyone one felt like—beginning with close relatives (or a woman that was already married). The best explanation I have heard is that if one has attempted marriage with someone that one couldn’t marry—even if done in good faith by both parties—the resulting state would not be marriage but porenia.
To put it in Catholic terms, if one discovers that there was something present from the beginning that made the marriage impossible, the marriage attempt was nul, and thus the union is capable of being declared nul—thus annulments.
The children? Good question. In the case of my wife’s children, their father died of leukemia when they were very young (she remarried after that).
Regarding my children, it was hard on them. But I take this position: I take responsibility for some of the problems in my first marriage, but not for the divorce. The reason? I didn’t do it. I had no choice. This is what no-fault divorce brings us to.
But once I was single I needed to marry, for the reasons Paul describes. I actually put together a band with two of my daughters and I councelled and tutored my third in my line of work. She is now a VERY successful business analyst. The other two went to college. One is now an accountant and the other a civil engineer. The divorce was hard on them but I was a lot better equipped to deal with it married than single. Single I was pretty worthless.
And my current wife took one of my daughters from the remedial math stage to becoming a math whiz in high school to the point that it became her favorite subject and her “remedial” teache said she was one of two students in his entire career teachin remedial math that successfully climbed out of that “group”. She is the one that is now a civil engineer who graduated with honors.
Meanwhile their mother burns through boyfriends and fights with each one incessantly (so say my girls, anyway).
But even after all that JBQ, none of them are Christian as adults. You don’t become a Christian because of who your parents are. That is between them and God. All I could do was teach them through His word and example - and pray for them. And their hostility to the faith is waning.
Does that go for on-line cheating, or just for physically cheating?
Matthew 5
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Yer still married to wifey number one.
Well, the bible does say that if the non-believer leaves, you are to let them leave...
I believe he would just have to qualify on the verses below,
But when two people marrys it is supposed to be for life and that takes a lot of forgiveness even under the best of circumstances, and how many times does jesus tell us to forgive?
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
sure, if you converted prior to her leaving.
sure, if you converted prior to her leaving.
“Does that go for on-line cheating, or just for physically cheating?”
There’s a difference between fantasy and real life. In time, it will either progress to a full fledged physical romance or it won’t.
well, you’re not going to like this - but since it’s a Christian marriage you’re still married to her.
Then how do you reconcile Paul’s statement, “it is good to be unmarried as I am. An unmarried man can be devoted to God while a married man desires to please his wife.”
Clearly, marriage isn’t a requirment. If you are married - you must have one wife.
Also notice - you must be married before becoming a bishop. You can’t marry after.
It’s not whether I like it or not. She divorced me. She is the equivalent of an ex-girlfriend at this point. I’m not aware of any scripture that makes us “still married”. This was a subject of much discussion between me and my church leaders both during the time I was using them to reconcile the relationship as well as afterward.
I confess that before I was divorced I saw divorced people as second class citizens. My eyes were opened when it was done to me. I was terribly judgemental in those days. Not that I’m perfect now, but I do tend to see even those who wrong me as “disobedient children on the playground”, which is what we all are.
According to #19, adultery has already been committed, even if the two people have never met!
What’s up with that?
Having stuff happen to you personally, can really open one’s eyes.
Well that is just foolishness imho.
Having stuff happen to you personally, can really open one’s eyes.
Yep. I’m 59. I can now see how as people mature they become less judgemental. ;-)
BTW, not all “old” people are mature.
What is there to reconcile? I can see no conflict.
In 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 (from which you quoted an excerpt), Paul is not speaking to married people:
“But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn.”
Verses 32 and following give an explanation of his point. And verses 26-27 sheds some light on the circumstances of the times:
“I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress - that it is good for a man to remain as he is: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.”
“According to #19, adultery has already been committed, even if the two people have never met!
What’s up with that?”
I don’t think our definition of lust is what Jesus was talking about. I can look at a pretty woman walking down the street and have an impure thought pop into my head. I don’t think that is what Jesus means. I think we should judge actions. Now if I do not push those thoughts out of my mind, but dwell on them and revel in those thoughts, then that is an action in itself. I have chosen to fantasize about a woman in an impure way.
In the online dating scenario, if you choose to abstain from physical sex, it shows that you are trying, even if its just a little, to honor your marriage vows. Maybe you are 90% sure you want to divorce your wife, but a small part of you is unsure and hence you don’t get physical. I would say that is a good thing to separate thought from action. Otherwise, you could just say the hell with it, we are past the point of no return (because Jesus said we already committed adultery because we thought about it).
I guess what I am doing is separating sinful thoughts from sinful actions. The consequences are much worse when you act on your sinful thoughts than if you did not.
I’m a few years older than you, but I haven’t fully matured in some ways...which I’m thankful for.
Old age and personal crisis can certainly change one’s thinking.
They probably didn’t have much on-line porn back then.
Sounds relative to me.
I’m a few years older than you, but I haven’t fully matured in some ways...which I’m thankful for.
In that vein, I play bass and sing vocals in classic rock bands. ;-)
Easy solution: marry an 18 year old.
Easy solution: marry an 18 year old.
:-)
Actually, I did date, VERY briefly, a girl in her mid-20’s. I felt like she was a child. As it is, I met my wife at my 25th high school reunion. I love being married to my contemporary. She is my best friend.
Perhaps we could rephrase the question as “How close can I get to the sin without being guilty?” Or maybe “How far can I get from my wife without it being actual adultery?”
Seems to me that’s the very point Jesus was addressing - that the problem is found in the question.
Sounds like she was in a program that was run by a feminist, where they indoctrinate the women in the idea that they "can do better" than their current relationship. Then the women (particularly after 40) discover that they can't, and then themselves become bitter feminists.
Did your wife find a new husband?
Did your wife find a new husband?
Learning to live, Learning to love is not a bad program in the way a hammer is not bad at pounding in nails. Problem is that when you try to use it as a saw, a screwdriver or sander, it kinda sucks. It can do more harm than good (obviously). The program should ONLY be used with relationships that are physically abusive.
It was also taught by lay-people. After one session, the leader took me in the hall and told me he was very concerned about me supressing memories about certain events in my childhood (spanking, parental arguments, etc.). He had me very concerned as well - until I talked to my mother and got the full skinny. There was nothing to supress. She remembered, independently, the same single event I remembered.
Ah, but I am getting us into the weeds. It’s old news. Like WWII. I moved on and love my current relationship more than I ever thought it was possible.
Chick films are NOT science fiction. That stuff actually happens. It did with my wife and me.
So how do you get ‘marriage is a requirement for bishops’? Out of that. It’s not and never has been.
Simple - it ought not to have been done to you because that’s contrary to what Christian marriage ought to be. The same ban that would prevent you from remarrying would be the same ban that would prevent her from divorcing you in the first place.
That’s where the problem arises. Sure, the pastor can provide you small comforts by offering you remarriage, but they are also the ones sanctioning divorce in the first place.
“I think we should judge actions.”
Are you Jesus? Like the Rock says, “It doesn’t matter what you think”.
Jesus is very clear - the man who looks upon a woman in lust has committed adultery with her in his heart.
The requirements for bishops can be found in 1 Timothy 3.
Yet Paul himself was unmarried. So bishops can be unmarried too.
I’m saying that you’ve incorrectly interpreted his instructions as barring unmarried men from becoming bishops. Paul himself was unmarried, ergo, unmarried men could no more be barred from becoming Bishops than if Paul were to step down himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.