Above Reproach - Leaders, Divorce & Remarriage

I was reminded not everyone has Facebook. So this transcript is from a FB Note for those without access: Ask a dozen people about about divorce and remarriage in the Bible and you are likely to get a dozen answers. Ask a dozen people about it among church leaders and you might get twenty answers. It sounds funny, but because of the confusion, when you begin raising scripture verses, there will be some equivocation and back-pedaling. The confusion has been compounded over the years by way of less than stellar translations of a particular phrase found in 1 Timothy 3 (and Titus chapter 1). Add to this the fact that you can go back in time to a few historians to see what early churches believed and practiced, and you will again find churches not always in agreement, like today.

Lastly, it is a simple thing to open any number of commentaries from great men of God over the centuries and it is guaranteed you can find someone with who will agree with you. So is there a way to un-muddy the waters? We hope to do that here. One sure way to clear the water is with the clear spring water of the Word of God, just as will happen upon Christ's return when he sets his foot upon the Mount of Olives and it splits and spills forth purifying water that flows into the Dead Sea. There are those who advocate for “Bible Only” study... that and prayer.

And that is fine on the face of it, but we are also instructed in the pastoral epistles and Proverbs for instance, the wisdom of listening to white-headed older men; men of wisdom and experience. This is exactly what good Commentaries can provide. Unfortunately, some tend to use excellent commentaries as sort of proof texts in and of themselves through which to view Scripture. Commentaries are best viewed as sage advice, in a few cases, and a means of looking at a text in a fresh way and it is true knowledge is gained in the exposition and examination of the original languages upon which they expound. Nonetheless, men are men and the only infallible text, we all agree, is found within the Bible itself. I enjoy commentaries for wise insights and will quote gifted men who have a way of phrasing things better than me.

Within the Bible it is paramount to have at least some basic knowledge of hermeneutics, the science of Biblical Interpretation. Basic to that, it is Best Practice is to interpret literally. Now, Literally does not mean we never read a text as word pictures, but that when we do, it is clear that we should. We look for the words “as” and “like” for example. His hair was as wool and His eyes were like fire. Poetry and visions are word pictures we read in a normal way. “He covereth thee with His feathers and under His wings shalt thou rest” does not mean God is Big Bird.

We read it in a straightforward and Normal way and understand this as the Psalmist's way of telling us God protects us like an eagle will protect her young. Other conditions that inform the way we read the Bible are the Audience, the Era can be important and so too who is doing the writing or speaking, as well as the surrounding texts, the Context, if you will. These are all factors to consider. One often over-looked factor is something we call Synthesis. It sounds like a strange word, but all it means is that all scripture will agree with one another, not only within the same book of the Bible, but from one book to another. The reason is simple. The same Holy Spirit is ultimately the same sovereign Author of all. Though He used men and their vocabulary to speak, our Bible is God-breathed and will not by any means be contradictory. That is why we cross-reference to clarify our understanding. If there appears to be a problem between two texts, we dig and add more to unmuddy the waters.

The gospels are a great example in that the four are written from four perspectives and with four different emphases. Matthew was written by and to, Jews predominantly. It is a long gospel so when we compare the same event to Mark, written from the Roman perspective, the emphasis will not be as much on how events inform Old Testament law and prophecies. Luke is written meticulously by a doctor but still from a different perspective than the other two and then there is beloved John who presents Christ to us as the Son of God in all his miracles. Someone once illustrated in this way: Imagine a 4-way intersection and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are each standing on their own corners.

Now imagine some folks on the sidewalk, a couple bicycles and then a fender-bender in the intersection. Now, depending upon whom you ask, John may say, “There was a yellow cab coming from the right and it hit the car coming from the left.” Matthew may say, “The cab was coming from the left and the car on the right did not signal but turned in front of him on the cab's green light, so the cab came from the left and hit him.” Then from Luke and Mark's perspectives they see and observe events their own way. All four saw the same thing and do not disagree. They are all four witnesses of the same events with differing perspectives. So as long as we can resolve a cohesive understanding of a text we are examining without intentionally not calling a witness to the proverbial stand, we are more likely to fare well in our interpretation.

In this analogy, the Commentaries are second-hand witnesses at best. Often they serve as expert witnesses, as with helping us understand the original languages or culture. You might get some excellent insights, but although their testimony could comment upon the facts of the case, they can and should never take the stand as anything more than expert witnesses and offer informed opinion. Look at the confidence we have from 2 Timothy 3:16, 17: 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1 tells us: 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

And we can go on and on about the power and effectiveness of scripture. But what I want to do is take, in some ways, a different tack than others and take a bird's eye view of some key texts and sort of shift our perspective. Anyone examining these texts have probably heard many of the arguments for, against and non-committal, so I thought it would be good to look at these same texts under a different light, comparing scripture with scripture. Synthesis. But before I do I think it is of utmost importance to recognize that in many churches today there has become popular, in the name of Relevance or Emergence, to be more accepting. More “open.” As though man can somehow improve upon God's model. You know, “You missed a spot there, Lord. Let me help You out.”

There is pervasive today, vast compromise in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only should we allow men of perhaps a little rougher character to take to the pulpit, but women too. And not only so, but you know so-called “alternative lifestyle” which is code for gay, should be permitted too.

And from there the dominoes fall and the compromise cascades and the church with it. On that other end of the spectrum are, now fewer and fewer churches, but still those that are like the Judaizers who insisted that the Law was still in play and, sure there is Grace, but that is just enough to get you saved. If you exhibit behavior to the Law, you can keep your Grace. In the past this has been broadly termed Legalisim.

Some might say ultra conservative and there is that, but growing in popularity are the Sacred Name and Hebrew Roots movements that pretend at Christianity pressed into a mold of Judaism, just as the Judaisers were influential in the early church, telling the Christians that in order for them to serve their God correctly (after all, they are the experts) they must be circumcised. They must pronounce God's very name a certain way (that few of them can agree upon). Not only that, but there are the Sabbaths and the feasts and the this and the that...

All the while ignoring how Paul pointed out in Romans that the Law was put in place to show us our failings and our need for the Savior. It was never intended for the Law to be obeyed as a means of salvation... to find mercy and grace with God, but condemnation only. Has that changed? And so in 1 Timothy we come to what has become a point of division and controversy in the church, the body of Christ. As noted, you will only find it here and mentioned once more with respect to qualifications for church leaders in Titus 1. You don't find it in any of the other epistles. Peter doesn't mention it, nor James. Only Paul.

Let's take a look at that phrase that is so much the focus within this passage. In chapter one, Paul is telling young pastor and protege Timothy just this fact in his exhortation to watch for false teachers coming into the church:

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, -1 Timothy 1:8-10

So we see legalism was as common then as now. Paul goes on in chapter one to tell Timothy:

12 I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service,13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. -1 Timothy 1:12-14

Thus, Paul sets a tone of humility. There is no pride here, as a Pastor, Apostle, Deacon and Elder. Paul acknowledges where he came from and how he now resides in and benefits from God's mercy and grace. He now lives in faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. So in the first chapter Paul blows the legalism of Judaizers out the door and establishes how we all serve from a place in God's mercy and grace in humility and love.

He goes on to conclude the chapter with further commentary about his conversion, but then goes on to charge Timothy with holding fast to this faith, unlike some. In chapter 2 Paul settles Timothy into a state of mind in prayer and supplication, praying for others to live godly lives as well. He reminds Timothy that he too was appointed a preacher and how he should oversee prayer and worship in his congregation.

Controversial too is this passage in 1 Timothy 2:

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 1 Timothy 2:11-14

This passage is what it is and Paul either writes under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or we dismiss the Holy Spirit as out-of-step with the times. Verses 13 and 14 tell us why this is so, for Adam did indeed willfully sin and so the accounting for sin is imputed to him, but because Eve fell under deception, she transgressed as well.

And so, women are not permitted to teach in church. Can women be ministers? “Minster” is a broad term that simply speaks to serving out our spiritual giftedness of the Holy Spirit within the church, the body of Christ. We read of many instances of women in very important roles within the church. This is not a condescension but a statement of truth, for all have roles to play in the body of Christ. We read too that women are to indeed teach other women and bear the responsibility of teaching and upbringing that next generation.

There is much we can say on the subject but will at another time. We must mention it here because it is in the text, but the subject of gender roles is not directly why we are here today in our attempt to clear muddy waters on the topic of divorce, remarriage and leadership. As there are no chapter breaks in the original languages we see Paul continuing with Timothy in this same context of church government in Chapter Three, verse one:

1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. -1 Timothy 3:1

An overseer is really the same: pastor, bishop, elder... and this is a similar structure we see from the Old Testament with the elders of good reputation in a place of leadership in Israel. Paul eventually looks at qualifications fore deacons, but really they are the same qualifications, the primary distinction being that it is the elders who do the teaching. So let us look at verses 2 through 5 in this flow of context:

2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

-1 Timothy 3:2-5

So we see a sort of shopping list, if we may put it so crudely, really a list of qualifications Paul tells Timothy he ought to be looking for among his flock for leaders. One thing that is interesting as we note Paul does not say he should put an ad in the paper or send a messenger off to places unknown to look for the right men. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with that. I just think it is interesting. I mean, who is more vested in that flock and as well vetted among the flock than one there who can be examined.

But, if none there are qualified or called and the Lord has not directed someone there, we are left with few options. Anyway, the phrase in question is in verse two, “husband of one wife.” To those for whom it matters, it is the Greek phrase, 'mias gunaikos' and is agreed among Greek experts to be better translated, “one-woman man.” This we get from everyone from Robertson in his Word Pictures to Kenneth Wuest, FB Meyer, Dr. John MacArthur and many, many more. While “one-woman man” may better inform our understanding, the waters up till this point we yet find murky. Maybe no longer muddy, but still murky. What we can tell are a couple things.

One, it must be a man, as we have read in the previous chapter (in addition to other passages in the New Testament). Two, from the context we can see these as character traits. You say, “What do you mean, Dave?” Paul here describes moral character, not marital status. Stick that in your hip pocket for now because we will be back to make that point.

Before we do, however, let's back it up a bit in verse two to the phrase “above reproach.” And this really is the umbrella under which we might argue all the other characteristics reside. Note that, as is particularly clear from the Greek, this is all in the present tense. “Above Reproach” is in verse two and is repeated twice in Titus 1. Whatever it means to be above reproach, it is not only for elders or church leaders. Colossians 3 teaches that the great hope and comfort of every Christian is that God himself will one day “present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him” (Colossians 1:22). Every Christian is to be and to live above reproach as our Lord's ideal lifestyle for the believer.

John MacArthur says, “The reason [this qualification] is called for at the pastoral level is because we are the example which you are all to follow. And if [being above reproach] is part of that example, then guess what is required of you? The same [trait].”

1 See, now we march out our Expert Witnesses. On the Tim Challies website we read:

“What does it mean to be above reproach? What the ESV translates as “above reproach” is first a legal word that indicates a kind of innocence in the eyes of the law. It means that no one can legitimately rebuke you or make any charges against you that will stick. They may accuse, but your conduct will eventually acquit you by proving you blameless (“blameless” being a far more common translation than “above reproach”). Your life is so consistent that your reputation is credible, you are an example worth following, and you do not make the gospel look fake by teaching one thing while doing another.”

2 FB Meyer says:

“One of Timothy’s most urgent duties was to take care that those who held office in the churches were beyond reproach. The tone of a Christian community is largely that of its leaders. As the margin suggests, the bishop of the early Church was an overseer or presbyter. See Act_20:28, R.V. God’s minister must not only be irreproachable as far as the outside world is concerned, but exemplary in his domestic relations. Such was the facility of divorce among the Jews that it was a common thing for a man to have more than one woman living who had been his wife: but by Paul’s ruling this would debar him from holding office, unless his divorce be for cause as provided in Mat_19:9.”

We will get to that passage in Matthew, shortly. This really was the condition of the newly Christianized pagan world at the time as well, particularly among the wealthy elites where Timothy found himself pastor. It was a simple thing to marry, divorce and remarry at will with little effort whatsoever. This was a problematic carry-over from paganism. Well aware are we all of how the church at Corinth in particular carried their former paganism into the church with debauchery of every flavor.

John Gill states:

“The husband of one wife; which is not to be understood in a mystical and allegorical sense of his being the pastor of one church, since the apostle afterwards speaks of his house and children, that are to be ruled and kept in good order by him, in distinction from the church of God; but in a literal sense of his conjugal estate; though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife; or that he should not marry, or not have married a second wife, after the death of the first; only if he marries or is married, that he should have but one wife at a time; so that this rule excludes all such persons from being elders, or pastors, or overseers of churches, that were "polygamists"; who had more wives than one at a time, or had divorced their wives, and not for adultery, and had married others.

"Now polygamy and divorces had very much obtained among the Jews; nor could the believing Jews be easily and at once brought off of them. And though they were not lawful nor to be allowed of in any; yet they were especially unbecoming and scandalous in officers of churches.

"So the high priest among the Jews, even when polygamy was in use, might not marry, or have two wives, at once; if he did, he could not minister in his office until he divorced one of them (u). For it is written, Lev_21:13, "he shall take a wife", אחת ולא שתים, "one, and not two" (w). And the same that is said of the high priest, is said of all other priests; see Eze_44:22, likewise the Egyptian priests might not marry more wives than one, though others might have as many as they pleased (x): and so the Flamines among the Romans (y).”

So Paul is simply bringing his Jewish upbringing and education to bear upon the matter as an answer to the abuses of the time, for it was very common to swap out wives at will. It is a sad thing that, statistically, the church is dead-even with the rest of the U.S. with respect to the divorce rate. Apparently, it was worse in the early years of the church.Still under Roman rule, historically, this was also a simpler matter under the Romans than we find today. Roman divorce was as simple as marriage. Just as marriage was only a declaration of intent to live together, divorce was just a declaration of a couple’s intent not to live together. All that the law required was that they declare their wish to divorce before seven witnesses.

Because marriages could be ended so easily, divorce was common, particularly in the upper classes. When she divorced, a wife could expect to receive her dowry back in full and would then return to patria potestas – the protection of her father. If she had been independent before her wedding, she would regain her independence upon divorce.

Under the lex Julia, a wife found guilty of adultery in a special court – known as the “quaestio” – might sacrifice the return of half her dowry.

However, the law did not recognize adultery by husbands. Roman society was very much a man’s world. That accounting may even be found in Wikipedia. So we have looked at the passage in context and the phrase from the original Greek text and some of the history, the setting, if you will, for the text. This has all been by way of Introduction, but not all of it. Let's look a little deeper at the context and use that part of hermeneutics we discussed called synthesis and further eliminate, if we can, what the text does not mean and why. “Must be a one-woman man” can mean he must not be one with plural wives—he cannot be a bigamist.

Obviously he is not a one-woman type of man if he has multiple wives. In pagan Rome this could have somewhat been a problem, but for Roman citizens there were laws in at least some of the provinces against such. But a bigger question is: Does this mean that leader must be married? There are those who interpret it so. But here is where synthesis is applied. We know Paul is the author writing to Timothy and that according to Acts, Paul had been pastor at Ephesus for three years. Whether Timothy was married has fallen under some dispute, but not Paul.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 finds himself having to address the issue of marriage because of their rampant abuses:

1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. So here is the set-up. We get the sense that there were issues here. He continues: 6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So anyone who is single and cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. Better to marry than burn with passion. But notice the end of verse eight. Paul says he is single! So using synthesis we can safely conclude that marriage is not a requirement for a church leader.

As we have noted from Acts, Paul described himself at one point as a deacon, and we know he also was the pastor at Ephesus for three years.

Now you can take that first note about character quality and not marital status from your hip pocket and look at it again, because Paul himself was not even married.

When he says a leader must be a one-woman kind of man, he means in character. If it mattered whether or not one was married, divorced or remarried (at least within Biblical parameters) Paul would be talking about marital status and leaders must be a one-woman man. But he is not. He is not married himself. But as to character, Paul is a one-woman man with respect to his moral character. Just because a man has one wife does not mean he is a one-woman type of a man with respect to morality and purity, right? So now we are narrowed down to the great controversy of D-I-V-O-R-C-E. When is divorce okay? Let us tackle that one first. Before we jump ship on Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, we continue:

10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? As you look at this passage, notice verse 10 “(not I, but the Lord)” and verse 12 “(I, not the Lord).”

Paul is not saying he is offering his opinion. Verse 10 is by command from the Lord. What Paul is doing is offering new inspiration and putting his words in verse 12 on equal par with the Lord's!

So what are these conditions? Simply, if you are married, please stay married. Don't separate. See if you might reconcile. Also, if you are married to an unbeliever and they want to leave, let them go. If that unbeliever is content to stay in the marriage with a right-wing wacko Christian, stay with them! Especially if there are children involved! But again, if that unbeliever insists upon leaving, you are not bound in such cases. Let them go. It's not God's ideal of course, but it happens, sadly, But God has called you to peace! Did you catch that? However, don't go looking for a divorce from your unbelieving spouse because you never know. Your steadfast testimony may win them for Christ.

Obviously, this passage does not directly answer other mitigating circumstances such as abuse and nor will we. There is a place and time to address that, but again, here we are attempting to clear the murky waters, not muddy them further. But speaking of the spirit of Paul's writing here and keeping with context, as we noted from verse 15, we are called to peace. That is the aim. That is the goal. He continues:

17 Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

Paul continues and appears to offer circumcision and bondservice as illustrations of how we are to continue in life. He offers these as examples and has not changed the subject, we know, because he resumes on the topic of marriage in verse 25. But before he get's there, in closing his illustrations of freedom from law and bondage he says:

22 For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. 24 So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.

Now, this still does not directly address Leadership, but somewhat informs the overall subject so that we may walk in informed. Now the rest of Paul's instruction, as he closes “I too think I have the Spirit of God,” meaning he is writing under inspiration, let us read fully:

25 Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. 29 This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, 30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, 31 and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. 32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. 36 If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

Much in there, but we see a tone of freedom in Christ and service to the Lord as our focus, either way, especially considering the time. What time? Well, Jesus said they would hate us because they hated him first. It is no easy thing in this world to keep our eyes set on Jesus, let alone start a family and try to keep a spouse happy.

Mark this; one of Paul's guiding principles here is, as we have see and thus he reiterates, if self-control is an issue, then by all means, marry! It is not a sin if you do so! Only marry someone in the Lord. It will be best, but better if you can keep from marrying for the reasons he stated. It is easier to focus on and serve the Lord while single. This too runs against the notion that “one-woman man” means you must be married as a leader. Here Paul says best not, though it is not a sin for you to marry. Again, guiding principle being, better to marry than burn with passion. Does Paul answer marriage elsewhere? Indeed he does! Romans 7: 7

Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage

So we see straightforward enough that death of the spouse is release from the law of marriage. But recall our earlier principle. If she or he are now single due to death, what if self-control control is an issue at some later point in time? Might we not remarry rather than burn with passion? Paul mentions having passions under control, not wanting us to be constrained, if self-control is an issue we should be married, freed “from anxieties.” Nothing here says one may not. Notice the following verses about freedom from the law, we serve in a new way in the Spirit:

3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. 4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. “Great, Dave! Are you not opening a door—an excuse for people to divorce and remarry at will!?” That is much like the question that follows about our Eternal Security. That somehow in telling people their salvation is eternally secure they will run out and party like it's 1999! Frankly, this is absurd and anyone who lives like that should genuinely question their love of Christ and their salvation! 7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

For me, this brings to mind Paul's anticipatory question about freedom in Christ in the previous chapter of Romans six:

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Okay, so now on to how Jesus Christ addresses these in the gospels. In Luke 16 we find Jesus nailing the self-righteous Pharisees:

18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

Is that it? Again, we look to the other gospels, as before, to complete the full narrative. Along these lines, Matthew 5 says: 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. That's a lot like say, “He that is without sin, cast the first stone.” (John 8:7). A little later Jesus says this about divorce and remarriage:

31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So now we have three clear grounds for legitimate divorce from which we are legitimately free from a marriage according to Paul and Jesus: Death of a spouse, an Unbeliever who leaves and Adultery.

Some churches will contend that remarriage in such cases is forbidden and disqualifies men from becoming deacons, elders and pastors while the text does not say so. How may we be so certain? There is one passage that just about every commentary I have ever read skips entirely.

Turn to Jeremiah chapter 3:

“If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? declares the Lord.

God is expressing His outrage to Israel for going after other gods. To God, this is adultery.

8 She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce.

20 Surely, as a treacherous wife leaves her husband, so have you been treacherous to me, O house of Israel, declares the Lord.’”

Go back and read verse 8 again. And then again. God wrote Israel a Bill of Divorce!

Let me ask: Is God qualified for leadership? We have to ask ourselves in this case whether or not we are guilty of over-stepping, for we would not ever wish to be in the position of claiming our standards are higher than God's own. God wrote Israel a Decree of Divorce. Folks, nothing lends greater credibility to a thing than that. Let's also take a look, as promised, to Matthew 19.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.

”Not everyone is cut out for being single. As Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians, it's better to be single if you can. Sometimes the passions and temptations are just too much. If your unbelieving spouse has left, pray about whether you might remain single. You never know.

They might come to know the Lord and you might be able to get back together. Every circumstance is different and it may be that you divorce. If your spouse had died you are free and as well, if you divorce over an adulteress relationship. But grace is always there, just as God's grace to us is there, ready to forgive. We acknowledge each circumstance is different. But as Paul told us, we are called to peace and not bondage, so we are not bound in such cases. With all that context and back-drop, let's return to our passage in 1 Timothy 3:2-7

2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, a [one-woman man], sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

In Conclusion, we have a responsibility to the sheep as over-seers, to care for them and not, as Peter said, “Lord over them.” Sometimes we put standards on those who desire to serve that we ourselves cannot meet, or we pick and choose what we ourselves think are important when the text does not make a distinction.

This entire passage is in the Present Tense. It speaks to a candidate's current status, if you will. Does this mean the past never matters? Of course it can. But let me ask you, O man who forbids a divorced man of some years ago, has your life always been above reproach? Have you always been sober-minded and always exhibited self-control? You say, “Yeah, but that's different!” Really? Based upon what? There is no distinction in the text.

Are your standard's higher than what God Himself exhibited in Jeremiah 3? Be careful. Have you always been respectable? Are you always hospitable? How about through your entire past? Were you in your past drunk or violent? Quarrelsome (argumentative)? Have you at some time in the past pursued money in your career? Do you manage your household well? Are your kids always under submission? Were they always? Have you always been well thought of by outsiders? Again, as Jesus said in John 8, let you who are without sin cast the first stone. Don't get me wrong; discernment is called for.

There is a vetting process, but we cannot pick and choose which qualifications we are going to hang someone on. And if God has called them and given them a burning desire to serve, you don't want to be the one to stand in the way. You don't want to be the one to quench the Holy Spirit. You don't want to be like the man in debtor's prison forgiven a $10,000 debt getting caught beating up a man who owes you $10. There is only one who perfectly exemplified these character traits for his entire life. Right?

And it is not you or me. Of all places, there must be found in the church a little mercy and grace. Discernment and holiness, absolutely. We far too often strain at that gnat and swallow the whole camel.

1 http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/56-7/the-qualifications-for-a-pastor-part-1-noble-character-part-1

2 http://www.challies.com/articles/the-character-of-the-christian-above-reproach

Rocommended Reading: https://bible.org/series/divorce-and-re-marriage-recovering-biblical-view

Comments

Larry Kinsler Wow Dave. Great article! Hey folks, you have got to read this man's articles. He's great!

Dave Reynolds Thank you, brother. I'm humbled.

Riley B. Franklin ·

It was thoroughly Biblical, Dave. We don't properly teach people how to treat the Word of God, directly or indirectly, when we merely acquiesce to answers that come from a consensus. Popular answers do not, necessarily, please God. We have to be careful not to duplicate Eve's error by saying what God [did not] say and mean (Gen.3.3:"neither shall you touch it."cf.2.16,17).

Dave Reynolds Also, Paul in his letter to Timothy identified forbidding to marry as a doctrine of demons.

Riley B. Franklin ·

Dave, by the way, have you seen, "The Husband of One Wife- Qualification for Elder," by Dr.Robert L.Saucy ? It was published in the July 1974 Bibliotheca Sacra. Grace Community Church sent it to me years ago.It can be Googled, now. It's about 12 pages.

Dave Reynolds Thank you! I have not, but I will look it up. Thanks again!

Riley B. Franklin ·

Hey, brother. I enjoyed your "labor of love" for the truth.

Dave Reynolds I like this interesting note in Saucy's paper: "But there is evidence that the divorce which was granted in the OT on lesser ground also permitted remarriage. In other words, divorce was considered to be the dissolution of the marriage. Deut. 24:2 ins...See more

Riley B. Franklin · Friends with John Peters

I did as well re Deut.24.

Dave Reynolds And this from the original language: ..."The very words used for divorce in the Old and New Testaments signifies the thought of dissolution. The OT word is kerithuth meaning a cutting off so that a bill of divorce was a bill of cutting off. In the NT the word is apoluo whose primary meaning is to set ...See more

Riley B. Franklin ·

As like you are working on a future revision.

Dave Reynolds Professor Saucy also adds: "I think that it is clear that legally such a remarried person is the husband of only one wife. He is not considered to have two wives. If this is true then technically, he meets the requirements of the language of 1 Tim 3;2....See more

Dave Reynolds One could write an entire book.

Dave Reynolds ...and some have. ;-)

Riley B. Franklin ·

It is God glorifying when we see ourselves accountable unto the Lord, first and foremost, in declaring what God is saying and meaning.

Dave Reynolds We know this, but it bears repeating. After all, Paul was a murderer: "One Can be a Former Adulterer....See more

Dave Reynolds "In one of our classes last year Dr. Earl Radmacher of Western Baptist Theological Seminary was questioned as to his interpretation that we have presented and then added words to this effect: "This is not a lowering but a raising of this qualification...See more

Dave Reynolds And, again, I find it interesting how the commentaries come up that do NOT mention Jeremiah 3.

Riley B. Franklin ·

Brother, since sins of various types are what we, as Christians, struggling with, even, scholars, sound ones, at that, are more concerned with the potential consequences of offending their jobs (seminary, church) or denominations, rather than being exegetically and Biblically true re " controversial" issues.

Dave Reynolds Reminds me of Fiddler on the Roof. Tradition!