The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.—1 Timothy 3:1–7

 

Introduction

This is sermon number four on divorce and remarriage. Let us do a quick recap so we are all on the same page.

Sermon #1 focused on Mark 10:1–12. Here Jesus addressed the Pharisees and the “no-fault” culture of divorce in his day. Jesus refused to follow the Pharisees into their trap about what view of divorce he had compared to other rabbis in his day. He did not start with divorce and what Moses said—he went all the way back to the meaning of marriage as God designed it in the beginning. The meaning of marriage needs to be recovered before someone can understand divorce. If marriage is God joining the two into one, then divorce (without biblical grounds) takes what God has done and tears it apart. Jesus refuses to see divorce and remarriage as simply a legal reality to do and undo. He sees the divine reality that superintends marriage and makes one accountable to God for the undoing of what He has done. 

Sermon #2 considered at Matthew 19:9 and the meaning of the phrase “except for sexual immorality.” We painstakingly walked through the three different views on that verse because our leaders land in different places on how to read the verse. We not only made it our aspiration to understand each view but to appreciate each view and what each one tries to uphold.

Sermon #3 examined 1 Corinthians 7 and Paul’s instructions to the unmarried, those who are married to believers, and those who are married to unbelievers. Once again, we surveyed how different leaders land different places in terms of biblical grounds for divorce.

The vast majority of the elders take the third view on divorce and remarriage—that divorce/and remarriage are permissible upon the grounds of sexual immorality, or abandoning the relationship in a spatial or abusive way. But other elders land in different places. As a third-tier issue, we do not want to eliminate or silence any of the views or those who hold them. That has been one of the positive responses to this series: “I thought we were a church that held view #1 and now we were changing to a church that holds view #3. But I see now that we have been a church that has always held each of the three views and we will continue to do so.” 

So that raises the question: What exactly are you proposing should change in the wording of our Relational Commitments? I am glad you asked. This sermon aims to answer that question. This sermon has three parts: (1) interpreting “the husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2, (2) discussing the recommended changes to the Relational Commitments, and (3) answering some frequently asked questions that keep coming up in this series. 

Part One: Two Views on How to Interpret 1 Timothy 3:2

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife. 

This verse refers to an “overseer.” It should be noted at the outset that “elder,” “overseer,” or “pastor” are all synonymous terms for the same office. We want to avoid the idea that our staff elders are pastors and our non-staff elders are just elders. The term “pastor” is true for both of them. That is why we updated the language in our constitution and by-laws to talk about two types of pastors: staff elders and non-staff elders. The text that governs this distinction is 1 Timothy 5:17–18.

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.  For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Now that we have briefly unpacked the meaning of the term “elder,” let us look together at the main point of this passage. 1 Timothy 3:1 says that aspiring to eldership is a good – “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task” (1 Timothy 3:1). Now look at how verse two begins with the word “Therefore.” Because the aspiration for eldership is a desire for a noble task, “therefore an overseer must be above reproach.” 

This noble task is a high calling with high qualifications. The overarching qualification is stated first: “an overseer must be above reproach.” Why is that qualification stated first? Answer: Because being above reproach is the overarching qualification or the umbrella point. The rest of the qualifications spell out what it means to be above reproach.

In other words, the next phrase in the list is “the husband of one wife” and it is the first to begin to spell out or unpack what “being above reproach” looks like or involves. This same qualification appears in the character requirements for deacons, and so what I say here would also apply to the office of deacon. 

A strict word for word rendering of the verse would be “a one-woman man.” The elders read this verse in two different ways.

Majority View	Minority View
“The husband of one wife” means that a man is “faithful to his wife” (NIV, NLT).	“The husband of one wife” means that a man (1) has never divorced his wife and (2) has not married someone who has been divorced.

We have governed ourselves as a church according to the second view that “the husband of one wife” means that a man has never divorced his wife and remarried or “has not married someone who has been divorced.” The Relational Commitments currently read as follows:

Persons remarried after divorce will forego positions of official leadership at Bethlehem called elder/pastor and deacon (1 Timothy 3:2, 12).

This introduces a quandary because the vast majority of the elders do not read the text this way. Furthermore, the vast majority of biblical commentators do not read the text this way. In fact, depending on what translation you use, you may not even see a translation that fits the second view, because they are so sure Paul intends the first reading that they have translated it accordingly. For example, the NIV renders the phrase: “faithful to his wife.”

Why do the majority of elders adopt view #1? I will limit myself to three main reasons.

First, Paul could have easily and explicitly said “never been divorced” or “never remarried after divorce.” He does speak this explicitly about divorce and remarriage in his instructions found in 1 Corinthians 7. We have to ask why he uses this particular phrase: “a one-woman man.” 

Second, it seems significant that this phrase is in the present tense. He “is the husband of one wife.” This probably suggests that the present life of the elder is the issue, not the past. The present tense also seems intentional because Paul switches his usage to the past tense in 1 Timothy 5:9 for widows:

Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband [lit. “having been a one-man woman”].

Third, the biggest reason that so many believe that “the husband of one wife” means “faithful to his wife” is that all of the other qualifications describe what someone is at present, not necessarily in the past. In other words, we should read this qualification in the light of the other ones in the list. When we read them together, they have a common denominator. The qualifications describe a man’s life and character at a certain point in his life. They are not a reference to anything that a man has ever done at other points in his life. 

Let us examine the next few phrases with this consideration in mind. Look at the rest of verses 2 and 3.

An overseer must be “sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.”

In other words, Paul is focusing on the present pattern of someone’s life. At this time, they fit the character profile of being someone who is sober-minded, self-controlled, etc. He does not focus on whether this man ever lacked self-control or was a drunkard or a violent, quarrelsome brawler in his past. 

It would not be hard to imagine a man that was a brawler or a drunkard before conversion, but then the Lord intervened in his life and he has lived a pattern of faithfulness—others see him as gentle and sober-minded and self-controlled now, but his drinking buddies would have never described him that way then.

Here is the point. If all of these other character qualifications are a snapshot of someone’s present life of faithfulness, then why would divorce be the only exception? The vast majority of the elders would say that treating divorce as the only exception misses the point of the context. They would agree with the assessment of many biblical scholars on this point. The following quote is a good summary of the majority position. 

The real issue is not so much where he has come from but who he is now by God’s grace. If a man is currently faithful to his wife, being above reproach, and has proven himself in that relationship, then it is possible for him to become an elder (Ben Merkle, 40 Questions on Elders and Deacons, p. 128).

Let us carry this argument a step further. The elder qualifications say that an elder should not be violent. Obviously this would preclude a murderer. But the apostle Paul was once a murderer before his conversion and it did not preclude him from being an apostle—let alone an elder. Are we really willing to conclude that someone who has murder in his past before conversion could be an elder, but not someone who had divorce in his past? 

This first description of being above reproach shines a spotlight on a man’s marriage (if he is married) and is asking, “At this point in his life, has God so changed his life that people in his community think of him as a faithful spouse, above reproach in his character in marriage?”

In other words, the real issue is a credibility issue. People would lose credibility if they went through a divorce and it revealed character flaws that raise all kinds of questions about how they would manage a church if they couldn’t manage their marriage or home. They would lose credibility and thus not be “above reproach.”

Instead of reading this as a blanket prohibition, many of the elders read this to say that a divorced and remarried man could be an elder (though not necessarily should be an elder). Whether or not a divorced and remarried man should be an elder (or deacon) would be depend upon many other factors: How long ago the divorce happened, the circumstances of the divorce (was he the innocent or guilty party), the steps of repentance taken, etc.

If the divorce was a sin, then it should be treated the same as other serious sins such as if the man has theft or murder in his past. Therefore, let us summarize the majority understanding of this verse: Committing the sin of divorce (if it was sin) should not forever disqualify someone from eldership any more than any other serious sin in someone’s past would not disqualify one from eldership. It does raise more questions that warrant further investigation and scrutiny, but divorce should not be taken as the unforgivable sin that forever bars someone from leadership in the church.

This discussion leads us to Part Two of the sermon. We need to apply this divorce and remarriage series in terms of our corporate life together. We are proposing two changes to our governing documents, specifically our Relational Commitments. We will outline these changes at the Quarterly Strategy Meeting on October 21 and vote at the Annual Meeting on December 16. We are trying to love you well by giving you plenty of processing time up front.

Part Two: Two Proposed Changes to Our Relational Commitments

The first proposed change is the easiest to explain. Recall the sentence I quoted earlier from our current Relational Commitments: “Persons remarried after divorce will forego positions of official leadership at Bethlehem called elder/pastor and deacon (1 Timothy 3:2, 12).” Based on the arguments we have already covered, we are recommending that we remove that sentence from the Relational Commitments.

The other proposed change is trying to bring our statements in line with what we actually believe about biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. All three views on divorce and remarriage are referenced in the Relational Commitments, but one of the views (View 3) is not represented in a way that fits the actual view. Remember that view number three states that divorce is permissible upon the grounds of sexual immorality, or abandoning the relationship in a spatial or abusive way.

The way that our current statement reads is not in accord with that belief because it adds further qualifiers. 

Divorce may be permitted when a spouse decisively and physically deserts the relationship; commits repeated, unrepentant adultery; or is guilty of protracted, unrepentant life-endangerment (1 Corinthians 7:15; Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:11).

The elders as a collective whole do not support the way this is worded because it does not accurately reflect the view of many of the elders who hold View #3. 

For example, the vast majority of the elders do not limit divorce to decisive physical desertion and protracted unrepentant life-endangerment. Many of the elders would say that Exodus 21 and 1 Corinthians 7 would go beyond physical desertion or life-threatening physical abuse.

Let us take only one case in point in terms of these additional qualifiers. Notice that the statement says that adultery that is “repeated” is a ground for divorce. This word “repeated” is simply not found in Matthew 19:9. Views Two and Three read it to say that sexual immorality is a ground for divorce, but Jesus did not mandate that only multiple acts of sexual immorality qualify as a biblical ground. Therefore, the word “repeated” is not warranted from that text. We also do not believe that only protracted life-endangerment is the only kind of abuse that functionally breaks the marriage covenant.

Proposed change: “Divorce may be permitted when a spouse breaks the marriage covenant by committing sexual immorality or abandoning the other spouse (Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:11, 15; Exodus 21:10–11).”

Now, let me hasten to say up front that I am not here to throw stones at whoever wrote the original statement. I know the intent behind its authorship was good and right. The desired intent or motive was to take a strong stand for marriage and to have guardrails that would make divorce less prevalent by fighting for marriage in a more stringent way (e.g., don’t just say “adultery,” say “repeated” adultery). The fear is that the lack of these additional qualifiers would “open up the floodgates” for divorce in our church.

Others would also want to say that this was not what the Pharisees tried to do to the Law (putting a fence around the law by adding extra rules). The attempt was to add the counsel of other biblical texts like, “How many times must I forgive my brother?” (Matthew 18:21). Jesus takes a strong stand there on the need to have a heart that is free from bitterness and continually ready to forgive.

In response, I would say that I don’t believe extra qualifiers are strong enough to hold back the floodgates of divorce. Only God can keep the floodgates shut that our culture opens wide when it comes to a weak commitment to marriage. God keeps marriages together by the power of the Holy Spirit and through the faithful ministry of his word in many shepherding contexts at Bethlehem where the word is applied with wisdom and skill to many different situations (small groups, one-on-one biblical counseling, case-by-case consultation with the elders, preaching, etc.). No one is saying “we trust in qualifiers,” but I want to make the source of our hope explicit.

Second, I agree that we must apply the whole counsel of God when speaking into marriages that have been traumatized by adultery, desertion, or abuse. We need more than a few proof texts; we need the whole Bible to speak wisdom and light into each scenario. But that approach of taking additional texts that do not speak directly to biblical grounds for divorce makes the issue a wisdom issue, not a law issue. In general, we tend to overvalue law and undervalue wisdom. Adding extra qualifiers to Matthew 19:9 would treat a wisdom issue like a law issue. In other words, we must wisely shepherd people through the application of these texts on a case-by -case basis, but we can’t bind their consciences with a blanket of extra-biblical qualifications (like “repeated” adultery).

Let me illustrate the difference between a wisdom approach and a law approach. Here is a thought experiment in which two circumstances are very different even though they have a “one-time” act of adultery in common.

Someone could commit an act of adultery and come under tremendous conviction from the Holy Spirit. The person quickly confesses it, repents of it, and bears the fruit of repentance that is immediate and obvious and lasting. We would not commend divorce in that situation. We would want the other spouse to give room for repentance, redemption, and restoration. We could strongly commend the path of forgiveness and restoration in that example. We would want to highlight the opportunity to model the gospel realities of forgiveness.

Now, let us look at another scenario in which there was a one-time act of adultery, but the scenario is different. In this scenario, the man never confessed it. The wife discovers that it happened and confronts the husband and he is caught so he has to confess that it happened. But in the process, she discovers that he has been weaving a whole web of lies. He has been living a double life— drunkenness, habitual lying, hidden spending. Suddenly, she has a hard time trusting anything that he says and she continues to catch him in multiple lies. She doesn’t even know if it was a one-time act of adultery because she struggles to believe anything that he says.

In this second scenario, after much prayer, if she decides to move forward with divorce, should the elders tell her that she can’t because the adultery was not “repeated”?

Viewing this as a “law” issue would render a decision in these two cases with the same conclusion (no divorce) because they share in common a singular act of adultery. Treating this as a wisdom issue would want to walk through all the other variables at work in this situation and come to a decision that best makes sense of the cumulative weight of all the situational factors and biblical texts involved.

Let me also hasten to say that this is a wisdom issue and can’t be reduced to a law issue even in the case of multiple acts of infidelity. That would be a wisdom issue and a conscience issue, because we say that divorce would be permissible, not mandatory even in this case. Some spouses may feel a calling to live out a gospel story or a Hosea story in which someone sins against the marriage covenant in repeated ways and the spouse refuses to divorce—or the other spouse pursues a divorce that must be accepted, but the offended spouse refuses to remarry and instead chooses to pray for the repentance of the spouse and the restoration of the original marriage.

You can see that we are now beginning to bring many other factors to bear in this issue of divorce and remarriage. Let me move to attempting to answer some of the range of questions that this issue has raised in various venues at Bethlehem. 

Part Three: Frequently Asked Questions 

Doesn’t focusing on the third view open up the floodgates for divorce and remarriage?

Can we really uphold the sanctity of marriage if we talk about biblical grounds for divorce? Some have even said to me that they read the biblical texts in a way that aligns with view three, but they do not want to focus on those verses because if people know about biblical grounds then they will use them. The implied assumption at work here is that people are always looking for a way out of hard marriages, and they will take a quick exit if they can get away with it.

First, let me say that the people I have walked with on these issues at Bethlehem do not fit that description. They are serious about making their marriage work and they tremble at the weight involved in dissolving a marriage. It is not their first impulse at all.

Second, let me acknowledge that it can be jarring to be in a series that has so much teaching on things like “exception clauses” and what biblical grounds exist (if any) for divorce and remarriage. I understand that it can start to feel like all we are talking about is grounds for dissolving marriages, rather than have our main emphasis be the fight to preserve and protect marriages.

Third, this series is not intended to be the mainstay of our teaching on marriage. Our approach should be the same as Jesus. Let’s start by holding up the meaning of marriage before we ever consider actions that could break the covenant of marriage. We can talk about biblical grounds as a last resort, not a first impulse. We don’t start there, but sometimes we are forced to go there. In this way, talking about biblical grounds for divorce is somewhat analogous to what happens on an airplane. When the flight attendant is discussing the safety information before taking off, it is a loving thing to talk about what to do in case of an emergency. But they do not discuss it all the way through the flight. Therefore, people do not respond and say, “Don’t talk about what to do if there is an emergency. You will scare people into thinking that a crash is inevitable.” It should be a short and necessary discussion as part of the flight, but it is also must be put into perspective and not become the main topic of conversation. 

If marriage is a picture that symbolizes the marriage between Jesus and his bride, then shouldn’t we try to get the two to line up as closely as possible?

The answer is “yes, yes, a thousand times yes.” Your leaders want to hold up as high of a picture of marriage as we can. We want to do everything we can to fight for marriage. But if your conclusion is talking about biblical grounds for divorce will keep us from that alignment because Jesus never divorces his bride, then we need to talk about how the symbol and the reality can be different. They are not synonymous. Pictures break and some symbols tragically say the opposite of what the reality is. What if I wore a ring that said: “I hate you, I curse you, I will try to control you and destroy you?” Abusers do not have truth in advertising when they take their wedding vows. Sometimes the symbol has so destroyed the picture of the heavenly reality that it is dishonoring to God. That is when biblical grounds need to be part of the discussion.

What has changed among the leaders—why is this being discussed now and not in the past?

One surprise for me personally in this series is how many people I have heard from who are on the spectrum from confused to irritated to wounded about this issue because they have always believed view number three, but they thought Bethlehem only held view #1. The reason many believed this to be the case was that even though all three views were held at Bethlehem, they only heard one view preached at Bethlehem from the pulpit.

This idea that only one view was held at Bethlehem could be further reinforced depending on what one pastor spoke to and what view he personally held. In other words, if the view you heard from the pulpit matched the view held by the pastor that gave you counsel in marriage counseling, then one could easily assume that only one view was acceptable here at the church. Sometimes people felt like there was no consistent standard for shepherding and each pastor did what was right in their own eyes.

I think the unforeseen consequence of this state of affairs was that we confused a lot of people. That is one of the reasons why I have spent so much time sketching the three different views so that you would know what different pastors actually believe. We don’t want to silence or prohibit any of the views. I am praying that we can achieve greater clarity to bear now by sharing all three views from the pulpit and allowing our people to come to their own convictions on this issue. 

In the same way, we want our congregation to have a continuity and consistency of care from our leaders. If one of our pastors does not believe in remarriage after divorce, then we will not ask him to marry someone who has been previously divorced. But the conscience of one pastor also cannot close the door on the conversation. If a pastor cannot marry a couple, then they should put that couple in touch with another pastor on that campus who would feel free to explore the question with them. 

What about someone who has a spouse who deserts the other spouse but claims to be a believer? In other words, if someone does not live like a Christian but claims to be a Christian, is the other spouse enslaved in that case?

If a spouse who is a professing Christian physically deserts a Christian spouse, then the church should go through the process of church discipline. The goal of church discipline is that the person may repent and be reconciled to Christ and reconciled to his/her spouse (restore the marriage). If the guilty spouse is unrepentant, then the church/elders would follow the steps of church discipline leading to excommunication and declaring that they do not see evidence that makes the profession of faith of the offending spouse credible.

What should I do if I am the innocent party or the guilty party in a divorce?

The innocent party should involve forgiving one’s spouse or ex-spouse for the wrongs done to them in order to be free from the cancer of bitterness and unforgiveness. Now remember that forgiveness is purchased at the cross, but trust must be earned. You can forgive someone that molested your child, but that does not mean you should let them babysit that child unsupervised. Forgiveness and trust are not synonymous.

The guilty party in divorce should confess his/her sin and should make genuine attempts at reconciliation, including a commitment to long-term prayer and appropriate conduct that makes reconciliation possible. They should make whatever restitution is possible and wise. There should be ongoing care for one’s children in a way that fits one’s biblical role as father or mother. There should also be a desire to submit one’s thinking and attitudes and desires to the Bible’s teaching on remarriage—including appropriate submission to elders regarding issues revolving around dating and the potential for remarriage. 

I did not have biblical grounds for divorce, but I divorced and remarried. Are you saying that I am living in perpetual adultery?

Let us establish some of our terms first. I would say that God sees your current marriage as a real marriage and he is not calling you to break up your current marriage. Jesus speaks about divorcing and marrying another. If there are not biblical grounds for the divorce and remarriage, he calls it “adultery.” But he also called it a marriage (“marries another”). So how do we make sense of the fact that he calls the second marriage a real marriage, while also calling it adultery? The only way to make sense of that equation is to affirm both as true: Your current marriage exists under a situation of unconfessed sin and the charge of adultery. That charge is not removed and cleansed and forgiven until that sin is brought into the light and confessed. So acknowledge the wrong, confess it, repent of it and seek to make the fullest restitution possible. What if you genuinely repent and turn in brokenness to the Lord for forgiveness? He will not cast you out. He will receive you and restore you and forgive you. “If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). The result: You are forgiven. Be faithful in your current marriage and make it all that it can be by God’s grace. We believe in gospel hope and resurrection power.

Conclusion

Some of you, through this series, have had the Holy Spirit convict you of sin in your past or even in your present life that has never been confessed and addressed. Once again, I would encourage you to confess your sins because there is no hope apart from repentance because Jesus did not die for the denial of sins. The all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ is for confessed sin. If you confess your sins, he is faithful and just to forgive those sins and cleanse you. Do you hear that? The gospel is so great that you will be forgiven and cleansed. Not in a second-class way. There are not gradations of forgiveness. You will be just as forgiven as the person who never divorced. Otherwise, we don’t believe that Jesus paid it all.

If you have been the victim of divorce or the victimizer in divorce, the call of the gospel should speak volumes to you. I call you to a gospel identity that guards you against identity theft.

Divorce leads to identity theft when it becomes the controlling adjective of your life: “I am a divorced man or divorced woman.” 

Grasping the sufficiency of the gospel to save creates a gospel identity: “Because Jesus is enough and because Jesus paid it all, I am a child of God in Christ who sometimes struggles with the fact that I am divorced.”

Outline

1. Interpreting “the husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2
2. Discussing the recommended changes to Bethlehem’s Relational Commitments
3. Answering some frequently asked questions from this sermon series

Discussion Questions

• What is the overall umbrella requirement for elders? How do the rest of the qualifications relate to that overarching requirement?
• What are the two main ways to read the phrase “husband of one wife”?
• Why do the elders recommend removing the relational commitment that states that people who are remarried after divorce forgo positions of leadership at Bethlehem called elder or deacon?
• Why do the elders recommend changing the language for the relational commitments on biblical grounds for divorce?

Application Questions

• What questions do you still have about divorce and remarriage that have not been adequately answered in this series?
• How does divorce lead to identity theft? How does the gospel provide a gospel identity?
• What can you do in your sphere of influence at Bethlehem to strengthen marriages?

Prayer Focus
Pray for a grace to pursue greater clarity on where we stand as a church on divorce and remarriage and where you stand personally on the issue of divorce and remarriage.