Divorce and church leadership, part 2...

Divorce is an unfortunate reality in today's world. The divorce rate among evangelical Christians is no lower than that among the general population as a whole.

For obvious reasons, divorce is also a highly emotional issue. Anyone who has ever had an argument with a spouse can attest to the deep emotional rifts that can build. Imagine how much more these become when a couple decides to end what was once a promising future together. For that reason, divorce does tend to divide people more than most other issues facing the church today.

With so much emotional turmoil at stake, why would the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to include divorce in his conditions for disqualifying an Elder candidate? After all, with roughly 50% of marriages failing, including Christian marriages, could God really be that exclusive? What about pastor candidates who are otherwise fully qualified for the role? Did God really mean to exclude them on one technicality? It's a complex issue, and deserves a detailed answer. Let's look at the reference itself and Scripture in detail.

Elder condition 2: one woman's husband

There are many misunderstandings about Paul's second condition (it is the second item in both his letters), that of being the "husband of but one wife." There is probably more controversy about this than any other single passage in Scripture.

This is the second item in both lists, and doesn't come with a descriptive explanation. Thus, we have to assume that his audiences of first-century Christians didn't have any trouble understanding what he meant by this.

Let's take a closer look at both the passage itself and the greater context.

The Greek phrase mias gunaikos is known in Greek grammar as an attributive genitive, something very much like an adjective in English. Adjectives are words that modify nouns, describing them more clearly. Thus, the phrase could be more accurately translated into English as "only one woman's husband" or "only one wife's husband."

It does not mean he must be married. Paul often talked about how it was better for those serving Christ to be unmarried. It simply means that the man, if married, had only one living wife. It also does not mean a man whose wife had died could not remarry. More on widowers here.

Common misconception

There is a common misconception today that this phrase could be interpreted to mean "one of" a number of things. People say things like "it means faithfulness" or "it means he isn't a polygamist." This simply isn't the case. While it is true that the phrase can mean several different things, it means all of them at the same time, not just one or another! It would be absurd to say that an Elder candidate couldn't be someone who goes after the ladies, but that if he were a polygamist it would be fine! All of the possible meanings are included in Paul's single reference. Let's explore each one.

Could it refer only to faithfulness?

There are some who say the passage only means that the candidate for Elder or Pastor can't be unfaithful to his wife. This is an act so opposite to Christian conduct that it goes without saying. This would be an act of adultery, considered even in the secular world as unacceptable. This is one of the meanings, but not the only meaning.

Could it refer only to flirting?

There are some who claim the passage only refers to flirtatious behavior by a married man -- someone who likes to flirt with women. This is also not possible because of the wording used. The tests listed in these passages are all ones that can be measured. You cannot measure flirtatiousness without more specific qualities to look for. Paul never deals in such abstract terms when setting out guidelines, and especially here, where he takes for granted that the audience knows what he means. This kind of interpretation could only be made by someone who has not studied Paul's letters. This condition is much more concrete than winking at the ladies. The English translation "a husband of but one wife" is accurate. Again, the passage includes an aspect of this -- no man who makes googoo eyes at the ladies is suitable to be a pastor -- but not to the exclusion of other sins.

Could it refer to polygamy?

There are some who say that the passage refers only to a prohibition against polygamy; that it simply means you can't be married to more than one woman at the same time. While this is a secondary meaning to the passage, polygamy is not the only thing Paul is talking about. To understand this more clearly we must look at the context of who Paul was writing to.

First, Roman law forbid polygamy. Since Paul was writing to Timothy who was in charge of Roman congregations, it makes no sense to include a condition that involved illegal behavior. To include it would be like a modern church saying in its constitution, "Pastors must not be married to more than one woman at a time." We would never do that today because it would be ridiculous, since polygamy is illegal here just as it was in the Roman culture. Why would Paul throw in one absurdly illegal condition, when none of his other conditions were of this magnitude of sin? Not one of the other conditions listed involved illegal behavior! Clearly this was not his primary meaning.

Second, not only was polygamy illegal, it was detested by Romans. They would never have read polygamy into the passage! The Romans respected marriage and conducted several types of marriage ceremonies. However, they abhorred polygamy and considered it an act of barbarian cultures. You might feel these arguments are not directly from Scripture and thus not relevant. Yet as Dr. Earl Radmacher has repeatedly taught, it is vital that we understand who the message was originally written for, so cultural context is scripturally relevant when interpreting the Bible.

Polygamy in the eyes of God

There is a point here that can easily be missed, especially if we don't look at the whole issue in the context of all of God's Word.

A closer study reveals that in the eyes of God, the passage does indeed mean that the candidate for Elder must not be married to more than one woman at the same time. But in the eyes of God this meaning may be different from our human understanding of polygamy.

Let's explore this in detail by going directly to Scripture.

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
--Mark 10:2-4

Consider how Jesus answers the test brought to Him by the Pharisees in Mark 10:2. They have just asked Him about the legality of divorce by practically dangling the legal paper in front of Him. If He says no (that divorce isn't legal), then He would be claiming that the Jews have been following an illegal procedure. Such an answer would quickly stir up the masses against Him, and would bring the wrath of Herod upon Christ. It was the continued attacks on Herod's marital issues by John the Baptist that caused Herod to imprison John. No doubt the Pharisees were hoping a similar fate for Jesus. On the other hand, if Jesus says yes (that divorce is legal), then He would be claiming that divorce was designed by God, thus stripping Him of religious authority and putting him at odds with John the Baptist's well-known teaching on the divorce issue.

How does Jesus respond to this test?

First, He asks the Pharisees to consider who issued the piece of paper. Was it man or God? He gets the Pharisees to confirm Moses as the author of divorce, distancing it from God.

Next, He drives home the point that Moses created the process as a direct response to sinful hearts.

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
--Mark 10:5-9

Jesus quotes Scripture to prove that divorce was never part of God's plan. He proves from the Bible that marriage was designed by God Himself, something not to be broken by man's will.

Divorce granted to solve a more terrible wrong

According to Jesus, God allowed Moses to grant divorce only because men were practicing something far worse. Some interpreted "uncleanness" to mean practically anything that made her husband unhappy, sending her away on absurd grounds (it really referred to unfaithfulness). They were abandoning their wives in a state of limbo for such benign reasons as overcooking the dinner, with no document of any kind to protect them. In these acts, men were brutally unloving. The poor lady would be left with no home, no family, and not even a way to prove she wasn't married anymore. In short, she would be left a homeless derelict, free to be abused by any man who came along or sold into slavery for a handsome profit. Moses had to do something because the sinful, hard hearts of men created an untenable situation! But that didn't make divorce part of God's plan.

Please note that there are some conditions in which divorce is acceptable. It is not always desired by both parties and it is not always the result of two people's sinfulness. However, it is always hated by God.

Divorce and multiple marriage

After the test by the Pharisees, the disciples were intrigued. Curious for more information, they later asked Jesus for more details about divorce. Now, in the company of his closest friends, Jesus could be more open in His response. 

And again in the house His disciples asked Him about the same (the legality of divorce). And He said to them, "Whoever puts away his wife [except for marital unfaithfulness], and shall marry another commits adultery against her. And if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
--Mark 10:10-12

The word for adultery used in this passage is the Greek word moichao (moy-khah’-o). It literally refers to the commandment against adultery found in the Old Testament.

I added the condition "[except for marital unfaithfulness]" in the quote above because Matthew included it in his more detailed record of this conversation. It was said by Jesus, but Mark didn't bother recording the condition.

Why does Jesus take such a hard stand here? After all, the certificate of divorce is proof that a marriage is over, so how can it be considered adultery? The answer may not be popular in today's world, but it is very clear. In the eyes of God, the divorce certificate -- except for divorce caused by adultery -- is meaningless. In His eyes, the first marriage is still intact.

Applying this Scriptural understanding to 1 Timothy, we can better see Paul's meaning of "one-woman's husband." Say what we will about divorce being the end of a marriage, God does not see it that way. In the eyes of God, a divorced man is not just one woman's husband but the husband of his previous wives. At the same time. According to Jesus, the divorce certificate is not recognized by God. Thus, divorce and remarriage makes one disqualified for the role of leading God's church. Not unworthy. Just disqualified. There is a difference. Paul does not include "conditions" such as the wife's own unfaithfulness. He also does not include time limits on when this took place, such as divorce prior to conversion.

Could this really be true? Does other Scripture support this view? Yes, it does. There are two cases where the same statement is recorded:

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 5:32

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
--Luke 16:18

Notice here that Jesus applies the same standards discussed in Mark's Gospel to someone who marries a divorced person, even if that is his first marriage. How in the world can it be considered adultery if it is the man's first and only marriage? The only possible reason is that God has not officially recognized the woman's divorce from her first husband. In His view, she is still married to the earlier husband, despite the piece of paper saying otherwise. Therefore, when her new husband takes her into his bed he is messing with another man's wife. There can be no other interpretation of these passages.

Matthew's account does include a condition. We must assume that the exemption applies equally to men and women -- that unfaithfulness is a valid scriptural reason for divorce in the eyes of God. However, it does not protect the man who marries a divorced woman unless she was the victim of an unfaithful husband. Also, it should be noted that adultery is not an automatic requirement to get a divorce, as we so often see it. God would prefer that we allow grace to rule, seeking reconciliation when there has been marital unfaithfulness. That was His model with us. Even when Israel sinned against Him -- which God compared to an unfaithful bride -- God continued to show grace until her unfaithfulness became so outrageous that He had to act. God hates divorce.

Is divorce a condemnation?

On a personal level, divorce is no worse than any other sin. If you are divorced, please do not feel condemned by it. The above Scripture doesn't mean that you are sinning every time you go to bed. That would be a gross misuse of any biblical passage about divorce.

Even the strongest Christian continues to sin daily. Since we are commanded to "pray continuously," every time we aren't praying in our heart, we sin. We are all worthy of condemnation at all times, yet God has forgiven all our sins. That's what grace is all about.

But in His infinite wisdom, the Lord can forgive the divorce yet still choose to turn His face away from the divorce papers at the same time.

Here's why: Marriage is a symbol of the unbreakable relationship between Christ and the church. Paul knew this, as did other New Testament writers. Scripture refers frequently to the church as the "bride of Christ."

The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete.
--John 3:29 (John the Baptist speaking)

Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.
--Revelation 19:7

Paul himself used the marriage metaphor when he wrote to the church at Corinth:

I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.
--2 Corinthians 11:2

The Old Testament also uses this metaphor as a symbol of God's unbreakable covenant with Israel:

Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem: "I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me and followed me through the desert, through a land not sown."
--Jeremiah 2:2 (God speaking of Israel as His bride)

You adulterous wife! You prefer strangers to your own husband!
--Ezekiel 16:32 (God speaking of Israel's idolatry)

I will make you my wife forever, showing you righteousness and justice, unfailing love and compassion.
--Hosea 2:19 NLT (God speaking of Israel's ultimate destiny)

In this context, the relationship between Christ and the church is an unbreakable marriage covenant. The institution of marriage was expressly designed to represent this relationship between us and God, as a permanent reminder. It is consistent with Paul's character to extend this symbolism as a qualification for Elder or Pastor.

The marriage relationship is an earthly reflection of the unbreakable covenant between Christ and the church, taken into the home. If the man broke this symbol of an unbreakable covenant, then he would be disqualified to lead a church. It doesn't mean God didn't forgive the sin. It doesn't mean the leader can't serve in countless other leadership areas within the church. But divorce breaks the symbol of the covenant. In that sense it becomes the only one of Paul's 16 conditions that cannot be "undone" over time by enough godly behavior.

Old Testament set the precedent for divorce condition

The New Testament letters of Paul are not the first time divorce is mentioned as a prohibition for top ministry positions. Old Testament rules for priests also prohibited them from marrying a divorced woman:

They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God.
--Leviticus 21:7

God associates the rule about marrying a divorced woman with holiness. There is a clear relationship between the breaking of the marriage covenant and purity before God. What is especially interesting is that in this case it is not the priest who broke the covenant. Merely by marrying a woman who was married before he was becoming unholy. This is consistent with the view that in God's eyes, the woman was still bonded to her former husband, thereby causing the priest to sin by marrying someone who was already married, divorce paper notwithstanding.

Some divorce conditions appear scripturally acceptable

If you set aside the "breaking of the covenant" issue, Scripture does seem to allow a divorced person to serve in these Elder and Pastor positions if he is not remarried, provided that he remains unmarried throughout his leadership role. Because of the covenant metaphor, it would likely require a serious look at the issues behind the divorce, in order to consider someone who was divorced but not remarried.

It is more complex for someone who is divorced and remarried. While Paul does not include any allowable conditions for remarriage in his rules to Timothy and Titus, Matthew does mention a condition in which divorce is acceptable. Therefore a church could conceivably permit a divorced man who remarried to serve under two other conditions:

1. If his divorce was the direct result of his wife's continued and unrepentant unfaithfulness, and he himself was faithful throughout his marriage, and
   
   
2. He did not marry another divorced woman, unless her divorce was the direct result of her husband's continued and unrepentant marital unfaithfulness and she remained faithful.*

* Please note that the Bible tells women that they are to pray for a wayward husband, not initiate divorce. Husbands also are to forgive and show love, not immediately use unfaithfulness as an excuse for divorce. There are, of course, very real issues related to unfaithfulness, such as the risk of disease. Jesus did mention unfaithfulness as the only allowable basis for divorce, but that doesn't mean it is the only option available to us. Many of the problems in Christian marriages today are due to a lack of patience and forgiveness in the marriage when one of the partners makes an error in judgement or fails to live up to perfect Biblical standards.

In fairness, there are no doubt other acceptable conditions, such as a woman abandoning her husband, attempted murder of her husband, or similar instances in which divorce would not reflect negatively on the husband's attempts to maintain his marriage covenant. No-fault divorce is never biblically acceptable. The problem is that a church would have to get extremely personal to investigate all the divorce conditions in detail, so churches may choose to not even go there.

Churches may also feel that it is wiser not to include all the issues related to remarriage. That's because this can become quite a thorny problem. A divorced pastor and his church would feel trapped by the knowledge that should he remarry he would have to resign. Imagine the complexities of asking a pastor to resign because he is getting married, and the strain this would put on his ongoing relationship with the church. His congregation would be on pins and needles every time he was seen having dinner with a lady! For these reasons, churches might wisely choose to exclude all divorced people from these roles. It's possible that this is why Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit, doesn't leave room for any conditions.

What about widowers?

Paul does not include widowed men in this statement "the husband of but one wife." He is referring to a wife who is still living. It is clear from other Scripture that God allowed widows (which includes widowers) to remarry. In ancient Israel, He even required family members of a woman's late husband to take over his role by marrying her to carry on the family name.

Obviously when a woman dies her husband is no longer obligated to the marriage in God's view and thus he can remarry without considerations of adultery. Paul wrote about this in his letter to the Romans when he said that a woman whose husband dies is released from the legal commitment:

For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.
--Romans 7:2-3

Even Jesus hints at this when He says "what God has brought together let not man separate." If the spouse has died, then it is God -- not man -- who has ended the covenant relationship between them.

What about issues of the heart?

Many people argue that Paul's commands were not meant to be taken literally, because God looks at the heart. They claim that love and grace should be put ahead of these instructions from Scripture. They claim that each issue should be considered on its own merits. In essence, they say that these are general guidelines to follow rather than hard rules.

There is some scriptural basis for this argument. Ahimelech the priest gave David and his men the holy "showbread" which was by law reserved only for priests (see 1 Samuel 22). Jesus blesses him for this technically illegal act of compassion!

He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.
--Matthew 12:3-4

There is nothing wrong with allowing the heart, by prayerfully seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit, to guide individual acts of compassion as Ahimelech did. But there is a big difference between individual acts of compassion and church policies!

The problem with using heart issues as guidelines for church operation is that they quickly create anarchy. No church can stand on this slippery slope and survive. Churches need constitutions and policies based solidly on Scripture to maintain order and integrity. Once you allow heart issues to guide major decisions you move rapidly away from Scripture.

Paul knew of heart issues when he wrote to Timothy. Compassion issues in those times were probably even more serious than ours when you consider the deplorable human rights conditions they lived in. Yet, despite the lack of modern "human rights" understanding, the culture wasn't much different. We tend to think of Bible times as being primitive. They weren't as primitive as we usually think. The Roman culture was very much like ours in many ways. Both men and women could initiate divorce, which involved a court of law and property distribution as we have today. Women were esteemed in the culture and could testify in court. They held roles as lawyers, business tycoons and political leaders much as they do now (though with less educational opportunities). Society was governed by a democratic and legal process that we still follow today. Surely Paul considered matters of the heart, yet he still gave Timothy very clear rules.

Another problem with the argument against a literal interpretation is that it assumes Paul gave 15 conditions for Elder which were to be taken literally, and one that wasn't, all placed together in a single passage. This is an absurd proposition! While one might argue that some of Paul's other commands to churches in his many letters were not meant for all churches at all times, this entire passage must be taken literally as a group to apply to all churches at all times because of its context.

When Jesus gave His admittedly harsh statements about divorce, He didn't include heart-issue conditions (i.e. "follow this commandment unless your heart tells you otherwise"). There is no place in Scripture where this happens, though grace is evident everywhere. I have always found Scripture to be a safe place. Just follow what it says rather than what you would like it to mean and your heart is automatically in the right place.

Why does Paul take this stand on divorce?

We already know that these conditions for Elder and Pastor have nothing to do with God's forgiveness of sin. The forgiveness is total. They have everything to do with His desire to ensure unbroken trust in the supreme leaders of the church.

God does not want someone in supreme authority over His church to be a person who generates doubt and division. That's the reason why Paul's first condition is to be "above reproach," someone whose past as well as present reputation is unblemished.

And He doesn't want someone at the head of the church to be a person who has broken the primary symbol of God's unbreakable covenant with the church. How could He? That symbol pervades all of Scripture and life itself! God wants us to take that symbol very seriously.

God has the right to set as many conditions for leadership as He wants. He set many rules for priests. It isn't a right, regardless of how much we may want to serve as an Elder or Pastor. It's a privilege reserved for those who meet stringent conditions. It would seem that divorce is one such condition. Whether it took place before or after the person's conversion to Christ, divorce causes them to fail the test for the highest position of leadership of God's church.

In light of this command, all the other conditions fall into place. Some men don't qualify as Elders or Pastors. They can serve in many other places in the church. God wants His church to be unstained, ruled by men of such positive reputations we can follow them without question. That is the purpose behind every item in Paul's list to Timothy.

top of page

return to part 1

back to seeing the truth index