Divorce and remarriage

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Also, any discussion that fails to take notice of the Scriptural differences between "put away" and "divorcement" will fail to hit on the truth.

And finally, just to be clear, divorce was NEVER allowed for adultery. Instead the adulterer and adulteress (BOTH parties) were stoned to death.

I look forward to hearing feedback. Thanks for two excellent posts on this topic!!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. If the exception clause only relates to betrothal/engagement, then a married couple who later discover they are actually siblings are not allowed to end the incestuous and forbidden marriage.

Meant to add "and remarry someone else."

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Meant to add "and remarry someone else."

I am anxious for James to deal with all of these points.

[coksiw]

According to the different points of view expressed here, what do you think Paul was saying in this verse?

1 Timothy 3:2 (NKJV)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by coksiw

According to the different points of view expressed here, what do you think Paul was saying in this verse?

1 Timothy 3:2 (NKJV)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

Most safe and conservative view is the literal interpretation: one wife for one life.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Most safe and conservative view is the literal interpretation: one wife for one life.

Literally then, one cannot be an overseer of a church unless and only for as long as one is married. And that only to one woman.

So widowers and the never-married and the divorced-but-not-remarried are excluded from the office.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

According to the different points of view expressed here, what do you think Paul was saying in this verse?

1 Timothy 3:2 (NKJV)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

Christian authors have been divided on the subject for as long as post-apostolic Christian writings on the subject have existed.

The primary views commonly held seem to be:

1. Must be married, and must be married only once in his life, and must resign the office upon the cessation of the marriage (Orthodox interpretation).

2. Must not be a polygamist.

3. Must not have successive marriages due to divorce.

Judging from the context, which enumerates required qualities of an overseer dealing primarily with the idea of self control, restraint, and soberness, and which identifies ruling one's house well as a pattern and requirement for overseeing a congregation, I am inclined to believe Paul is saying the never married and polygamists are excluded, as are serial divorced-and-remarried.

The first class have never managed a family household, the second class are overly sensual and given to opulence (common in the ancient East in that time), and the third class clearly can't run a household well.

Could there be exceptions to that rule? Possibly, but there would have to be extraordinarily strong reasons for such an EXCEPTIONal candidate, and another who met the requirements would be the preferred choice.

I also don't think any of this applies to most denominational institutional churches as found today, since those aren't organized Biblically and apostolically anyway to begin with. The apostle is establishing ordinances for apostolic and theocratic "house churches", not 501c3 corporations and quasi-catholic religious temples.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Christian authors have been divided on the subject for as long as post-apostolic Christian writings on the subject have existed.

The primary views commonly held seem to be:

1. Must be married, and must be married only once in his life, and must resign the office upon the cessation of the marriage (Orthodox interpretation).

2. Must not be a polygamist.

3. Must not have successive marriages due to divorce.

Judging from the context, which enumerates required qualities of an overseer dealing primarily with the idea of self control, restraint, and soberness, and which identifies ruling one's house well as a pattern and requirement for overseeing a congregation, I am inclined to believe Paul is saying the never married and polygamists are excluded, as are serial divorced-and-remarried.

The first class have never managed a family household, the second class are overly sensual and given to opulence (common in the ancient East in that time), and the third class clearly can't run a household well.

Could there be exceptions to that rule? Possibly, but there would have to be extraordinarily strong reasons for such an EXCEPTIONal candidate, and another who met the requirements would be the preferred choice.

I also don't think any of this applies to most denominational institutional churches as found today, since those aren't organized Biblically and apostolically anyway to begin with. The apostle is establishing ordinances for apostolic and theocratic "house churches", not 501c3 corporations and quasi-catholic religious temples.

1 Corinthians 7:32-33
32......But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33......But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

Scriptures like this make me doubtful of “the rule” against the unmarried. Paul commends people who are giving their life wholly to God, but then disqualifies them from specific ministries in the church?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Most safe and conservative view is the literal interpretation: one wife for one life.

"one wife for one life": that's a very straight forward and simple interpretation. I like it. Yet, I wish it were that straight forward and simple.

"Most safe and conservative view": I honestly don't care much about having a hard line position on a topic to draw acceptance and praises from some group. That means nothing to me.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Christian authors have been divided on the subject for as long as post-apostolic Christian writings on the subject have existed.

The primary views commonly held seem to be:

1. Must be married, and must be married only once in his life, and must resign the office upon the cessation of the marriage (Orthodox interpretation).

2. Must not be a polygamist.

3. Must not have successive marriages due to divorce.

Judging from the context, which enumerates required qualities of an overseer dealing primarily with the idea of self control, restraint, and soberness, and which identifies ruling one's house well as a pattern and requirement for overseeing a congregation, I am inclined to believe Paul is saying the never married and polygamists are excluded, as are serial divorced-and-remarried.

The first class have never managed a family household, the second class are overly sensual and given to opulence (common in the ancient East in that time), and the third class clearly can't run a household well.

Could there be exceptions to that rule? Possibly, but there would have to be extraordinarily strong reasons for such an EXCEPTIONal candidate, and another who met the requirements would be the preferred choice.

I also don't think any of this applies to most denominational institutional churches as found today, since those aren't organized Biblically and apostolically anyway to begin with. The apostle is establishing ordinances for apostolic and theocratic "house churches", not 501c3 corporations and quasi-catholic religious temples.

2. Regarding "polygamist", wasn't that already prohibited in the Roman empire at the time Paul wrote that letter?

3. That becomes a little bit subjective especially for those that divorced being already Christian. It could be actually that way, depending on the result of other bishops judging the reason for divorce. Think of someone that came to Christ, and the spouse divorced them as result. Or someone that was in Christ and the spouse, being initially converted, then departed back to the world.