Originally Posted by scott

From the Websters 1828 dictionary:
FORNICA'TION, n. L. fornicatio.

1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.

Just my opinion, but we're kind of getting off topic. According to your definition, the term fornication, used in the KJV 32 times, would be unnecessary, because, according to your definition, they are officially married, so they couldn't commit fornication....and how could anyone commit adultery according to your definition because now they are officially married again [and divorced]??

I find that we are better off defining words in the Bible using the Bible, rather than using a dictionary. The dictionary is wrong. Yes, even Webster was wrong sometimes. The only thing that is never wrong is the King James Bible, and it defines fornication as any sexual acting out.

Two people having sex without wanting to commit in marriage, although married technically, are still fornicators. A man who commits adultery is a fornicator. Homosexuality is fornication.

[Brother Tim]

Though we have covered this elsewhere, I will repeat, because of the above reference to Scripture defining Scripture. Count the number of times fornication and adultery appear in the same list within a verse or passage. The Scriptures distinguish between the two.

As to the Biblical defining of marriage as the initial sexual union, then what do you do with this?

Mat 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Though we have covered this elsewhere, I will repeat, because of the above reference to Scripture defining Scripture. Count the number of times fornication and adultery appear in the same list within a verse or passage. The Scriptures distinguish between the two.

As to the Biblical defining of marriage as the initial sexual union, then what do you do with this?

Culturally, they were man and wife at the betrothal. That many times occurred a ear in advance of the wedding feast and subsequent consummation. Also, Mary and Joseph are a slightly different circumstance from the run-o'-the-mill couple.

In Scripture, fornication is any sexual impropriety, from pre-marital or extra-marital sex to sodomy and bestiality. Adultery is used to speak specifically of extra-marital sexual relationships. Yes, Webster's is a great tool, but God's definitions are better.

[scott]

Originally Posted by aussiemama

I find that we are better off defining words in the Bible using the Bible, rather than using a dictionary. The dictionary is wrong. Yes, even Webster was wrong sometimes. The only thing that is never wrong is the King James Bible, and it defines fornication as any sexual acting out.

So, the King James Bible defines fornication as "any sexual acting out"......Chapter and verse, please....

Originally Posted by aussiemama

Two people having sex without wanting to commit in marriage, although married technically, are still fornicators. A man who commits adultery is a fornicator. Homosexuality is fornication.

I don't want to press this any further, because this has nothing to do with the thread [just my opinion], but the above comments are based upon what?? So if they are still fornicators [although technically married] when do they graduate to being adulterers?? ......Just having fun....God bless....Scott

[Here Am I]

Originally Posted by Here Am I

So, then does 'husband of one wife' mean the bishop (pastor) could not remarry if he were widowed?

Or if he did remarry, he'd have to give up his church?

I'm not being facetious, really, just wondering about the semantics being used...and on what this 'doctrine' is based upon...

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Good question and answered both by Scripture and marital vows: and I believe that the reverse would apply here

and the vow:
"till death do us part" (or similar words)

Brother, I do not see where you have answered my question. Perhaps I did not make it clear for you. Perhaps it’s just not clear to me.

Let’s try this again:

The Scripture you quoted doesn’t say anything about a bishop/pastor, only if a person is widowed, they are free to marry again.

I repeat, if a pastor is married, and then widowed, and then decides to marry again, is he the husband of one wife? He had one before, did he not?

And if a pastor is divorced, and decides to marry again, is she the husband of one wife or two?

If there is a difference, could you show me, and do so from Scripture?

Thank you.

“Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.” (1 Corinthians 7:27,28)

[Here Am I]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Where? Yes, He separated Himself from her uncleanness, but there was no divorce.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

The LORD was asking for proof a a divorce, which they could not produce.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

The LORD is seeking reconciliation, which is what we should counsel as much as is earthly possible, and not divorce.

Brother, I am going to disagree with you here (I'm not sure who you are debating with).

God did divorce Israel, and there are other verses that back the idea:

“Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;”

“And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.”

”And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.
I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD.” (Hosea 2:2,7,19-20)

In each of these verses, it is indicated that God divorced Israel as His wife: He is not her husband, she is not His wife, she (Israel) refers to God as her 'first husband' (not just 'husband') and after she is received back, God says He will 'betroth' her unto Him, or get married (remarried).

I believe the Scripture posted here is fairly clear that God did divorce Israel.

[JaeByrd]

I know this is a side thing to the remarriage, but I'm curious.

Originally Posted by aussiemama

Two people having sex without wanting to commit in marriage, although married technically, are still fornicators.

Sex = marriage?
No (public/private?) commitment = fornication?

So what about the woman at the well?

John 4:16-18 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

There seems to be bit more to it than just sharing flesh.

Isaac and Rebekah isn't a good example because they had their marriage all arranged before she left her home and family to travel with the servant who went there to bring a wife back...and then once she got there upon seeing her he took her to his tent and to wife.

What of the case of Dinah? It was a forced joining, but no one considered it a marriage on either side just because he lay with her.

Originally Posted by MC1171611

Vendetta Ride: I don't want to discuss you personally; I simply want to make a point.

You being divorced, have how many wives?

Are you therefore the husband of one wife?

Thank you sir.

Excuse the delay, brother: I answered this question earlier, but I must have hit "Preview" instead of "Submit," because I don't see the post.

I don't have any wives, as a matter of fact; I was divorced, against my will, by my second wife 16 years ago. I seriously doubt that I'll be getting married again; the idea terrifies me! But, as the Jews say, "Do you want to make God laugh? Tell Him your plans!"



To answer your real question: After my first divorce, I remarried (obviously), and was married for a number of years. During the time of my second marriage, I did not committ adultery or bigamy; I was faithful to my lawful wedded spouse, and so I had one living wife. I was indeed "the husband of one wife."

I believe the pertinent verse applies to bigamy, not remarriage. You can make the case against divorce/remarriage, or divorced men serving in the ministry, without using that verse.

As I said in an earlier reply, I think the notion of "ruling one's house well" is applicable; but, it's quite possible for a remarried man to do that.

Is it ever God's will for a divorced/remarried man to be a pastor? Yes, I think it is. "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

In my own case, I do not think that my marital history would be an asset in counselling, or in preaching on the subject of marriage, and I do not intend to return to the pastoral ministry. But it's not because I think I'm "disqualified;" it's because, in my own personal judgment, it wouldn't be prudent.

And, although I am specifically not referring to you, I think that this subject engenders more hypocrisy and self-righteousness among ministers than nearly any other.

And, by the way, I agree with Here Am I: God most certainly did divorce Israel in the Old Testament. The book of Hosea is pretty clear on the matter!

[MC1171611]

Thank you brother.

To be honest, Dr. Ruckman is the last person I'd ask for marital counseling. Or child rearing counseling, for that matter. He's been called to pastor a church and defend the King James Bible and sound doctrine, but when it comes to counseling and things of that nature, he has Bro. Donovan to take care of that.

In reality, the only person I'd ever talk to about marital issues would be my parents. They've been married for almost 23 years now, and I cannot remember one single time where they fought or argued. I'm sure they disagreed behind closed doors, but my parents' marriage is an incredible testimony to the mercy and grace of God, and I wish to pattern my marriage after their pattern.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

When the Scripture says, "husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6), how is it that some read this as "husband of one wife at a time"?

This is not a standard set for all believers, but for those who will be in leadership positions within the local church. The two chapters shown above clearly indicate that a much higher standard is set for the bishop (pastor) of a church.

Even in today's middle eastern culture, they allow multiple wives. I believe this is what the Apostle Paul was addressing. The Muslims of today allow multiple wives, and they even maintain them when they come to America (as long as they never become a citizen it is possible...). Many of the Native American tribes allowed multiple wives; many African tribes allowed multiple wives, and do not condemn adultery or fornication. The bible-believing Missionary has to teach them these biblical truths, and has to fight that battle constantly in his work. Even in the OT, we saw this same problem - Jacob, David, and Solomon are the glaring culprits in my view.
The NT teaching reaffirms the OT teaching of Genesis - One man, one woman for a lifetime. God allowed the Israelites to have the option of divorce "for the hardness of their hearts." This could mean many things:
1. Two people who are not serving the Lord marry. So they are already out of the will of God. Let's say one of them gets right, wants to serve God, and the other doesn't. Enter I Cor. 7 - the unbelieving is NOT bound. The Christian is commanded to let them depart. I Cor. 7 does not differentiate between pastor or church member. Therefore, it would be adding to the word to say that it ONLY applies to the church member.
2. Two married people can't get along so they want a divorce. THere is no NT teaching to allow for this behavior, and therefore, I believe this is wrong.
3. One person cruelly beats his wife and children. His heart is hardened. THe woman can and should report him to the police, and remain faithful IF POSSIBLE. It may be that the only possible protection for her is divorce.

There are many other reasons that could fall under the definition of "for the hardness of your heart." I am only attempting to demonstrate that it is not so cut and dried as many make it to be.

Further, if a man has a problem with dumping his spouse for any old reason, committing adultery, fornication, etc., and has multiple wives, there is reason to wonder.
If a man does everything he is suppossed to do to love his wife and provide for her, and she runs off, then what? If this same man continually promotes ONE marriage, is anti-divorce, counsels AGAINST divorce, and demonstrates openly and publicly his love, support, protection, provision, and care for his current wife, then I don't see the need to throw stones at that particular man, especially in the circumstance where the first marriage started when they were both lost or backslidden.

These are two different scenarios, and in my view demand two different responses.

The pharisaical attitude of many fundamentalists reek on this one: Many fundamentalists who have a high profile will condemn one man for not "being the husband of one wife" (ie divorced and remarried), but they allow wanton fornication and adultery in their churches, even amongst staff members.

In Christ,