The Divorcee:

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I feel you. I'm a divorcee. I know that there are cases wherein a divorcee might be able to be found "blameless" and be more than qualified. What I'm saying is that the Scriptures appear to be clear...

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

Since polygamy wasn't legal in Rome, and was even denounced by Jewish authorities by the time of Christ, I don't see how this would have been a shot at polygamy. There were "concubines" during this time. It might be a denunciation of married men who had concubines (or what we might call mistresses today). But that isn't explicitly stated. However, there was a rather big problem beyond concubines in 1st Century Rome and Judaism. Divorce and remarriage. It was even a hot button issue brought before Christ.

Regarding divorce and remarriage, Jesus stated:

Mark 10:11-12
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.

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.

Based on these texts, remarriage after divorce is adultery. These texts provide no wiggle room or exception whatsoever. The marriage bond appears to be indissoluble. But some believe that there is an "exception clause" in Matthew's Gospel:

Matthew 5:32
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.

Matthew 19:9
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.

Now, what I'm about to say might seem harsh. But up front, I want to try to explain that I'm not condemning anyone, and I know there are other interpretations of this. But my studies have led me to see what I'm about to explain. Understanding my position on this might help you understand my position on I Timothy 3:2, even if we disagree on the best interpretation of the text.

My issue with these "exception clauses" is that they don't read, "except it be for adultery". It reads "fornication". Which is a sin that is classically understood as being a sin committed by the unmarried. When the married sleep around, it is "adultery".

So why did Jesus use the term "fornication"? In ancient Judaism the betrothal was just as legally binding as a marriage. In fact, a betrothed woman was called a "wife" and the betrothed man a "husband". In addition, if one of them were unfaithful, it required a divorce decree to terminate the betrothal. However, if one was unfaithful during the time of betrothal, it was not called "adultery"... it was called "fornication". Why? Because the marriage wasn't official yet. We see this in the story of Mary and Joseph. When Joseph discovers that Mary is with child during their betrothal, he desires to "put her away" (meaning divorce her):


Mmm, actually, the Greek word for "fornication" used by Jesus is Porneia which means......"adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc." So any unlawful sex is fornication, including adultery.

Matthew 1:18-20 King James Version (KJV)
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Notice, Joseph would have had to get a divorce decree to end the betrothal. And had Joseph put Mary away for "fornication" (because the marriage wasn't official yet), he would have been able to marry another without committing adultery.

Matthew's Gospel took this Jewish custom into consideration. The other Gospels, written to more general audiences among the Gentiles, don't. And so this is why the texts from Mark and Luke don't contain the exception clause. It only applies during betrothal, as was in accordance to Jewish custom. However, once a marriage is official, to divorce and remarry is adultery.

That's my take on it. I could be wrong. But that's the most consistent interpretation of the issue I've studied out and so it is the one I've chosen to embrace. With that in mind, I hope you can see why my take is what it is regarding I Timothy 3:2. With divorce and remarriage running rampant through their culture, I feel Paul's admonition regarding bishops/pastors/elders as relating to divorce and remarriage.

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

So, I believe that men who are divorced and remarried are disqualified from the office. I don't condemn anyone to Hell over this. And I'm a big boy, I can accept disagreement! LOL And a divorcee is a pastor and they are "blameless" and "above reproach", I don't begrudge them their ministry. I will celebrate it with them. Because the entire premise is to prevent reproach and bringing shame to Christ's name and His body. But, this is what I believe the Scriptures to teach based on my studies.