This will be a long lecture, a little longer than the hour. I'll understand if you have to go and take care of personal business during it. It's being recorded. You should feel free to record it if you would like. And it'll be posted within about a week on our website. So you can listen to it there. again or refer others to it we're looking at the last of three lectures on one and the first was just the doctrine of the word one in holy scripture the next lecture last week was one as it applies to marriage and this lecture is one and specifically addressing the passage in 1st Timothy 3.2 that a spiritual leader should be the husband of one wife. Let's go to the Lord in prayer, shall we? O Lord God, this is your holy word. We are your servants. Give us understanding that we might know your testimonies. You have prayed, O Lord, sanctify them in truth, thy word is truth. Use your holy, eternal, and errant written word to set us apart this day to your service and to your glory. Show us now great and mighty things which we do not know. The sower sows the word. Let not your word go out and return empty, but accomplish that purpose for which you are sending it out and for which you have gathered us together. Protect us from Satan who will snatch your word. Protect us from a wrong reaction to difficulties and discouragements and persecutions which make our hearts hard and unresponsive to your word. Protect us from the world's cares and the delight of wealth and the passion of other interests which enters in and chokes the word, making it fruitless. Rather, give us good soil, O Lord, plow up now the hard ground of our hearts, that your sown word would send roots downward and bear fruit upwards. Unsheathe now the sword of your spirit, O Lord. Cut to the dividing point of soul and spirit, bone and marrow. Judge now the thoughts and intentions of each heart gathered here. both the one who speaks and the one who hears. Spread your word before our lives as a banquet table, O Lord. Grant grace that we might eat of the rich meat and drink of the sweet milk of the great doctrines of your holy word. give us the heart of the prophet who cried to you thy words were found and i did eat them and thy words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart from called by thy name oh lord god of us oh lord we live in a dark and a wicked age Broad is the way, and many are on it, which leads to destruction. Make your word a lamp to our feet. Make your word a light to our path. Show us that narrow way that you would have us run. And Lord, as we run in the paths of your commandments, enlarge our hearts. that in loving you we would be more obedient to your holy written word. Drop your word against our lives as a plumb line, O Lord. Grant grace that we might see how we deviate from its high and holy purposes. Make your word to us a mirror, O Lord. grant grace that we might not be as those who look and go away and forget, but make us active doers, not forgetful listeners of your Holy Word. O Lord, because of our fealty to you, because of our undying love and devotion to your Son, our resurrected Savior, We pledge to you this day our total submission to your holy, eternal, inerrant written work. And we pledge to you our unquestioning obedience to all of its commands. In the name of our Lord and resurrected Savior, Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen. Amin and Amin. Well, gentlemen, we're looking at the husband of one wife. Who would have thought a word as simple and straightforward as one would cause such division in the church in the 21st century? One God, And yet today we have pastors of some of the largest churches in America, such as Joel Osteen, saying publicly on an international radio program that, you know, the Hindus are so spiritual, they speak in tongues, they do miracles, they have visions, they talk with God, that they must also be worshiping God. It's clear there is one God in scripture. One day of creation, Genesis 1.3. One day. And yet people called them millions of years. One man, Adam. Historically, no evolution, no Neanderthal, no Cro-Magnon becoming a humanoid. No. One man, Adam. One mediator, Jesus Christ. No priests, no saints, no Mary, no nothing. One death, man. Not people dying and coming back and dying and coming back, one death. One return of Christ. Not people, not Christ returning hundreds of times before he returns. The two become one in marriage. Let no man separate, and yet bishops, pastors, priests, so-called men of God, feel they can set aside the unity of marriage. As does the state. And that spiritual leaders should be the husband of one wife. And yet again, we have, what does this mean? Does one mean one? How can one mean one? Well, we know from our study of how people corrupt the Word of God, that to the evangelical pragmatist, the Word of God is understood and interpreted by what works. And so to the evangelical pragmatist, even the most clear passage of scripture, if it endangers money or attendance, will be compromised. Now, we looked at the Greek. It's very clear. There are two words for one. and they have one meaning. Mia means one as in first, and heis means in one as in the numeral. And that's all there is. They don't mean anything more than first or one. It's not like agape love versus phileo love versus eros love. It's not like that. It's not like, well, the name is, the word is God, but is it Jehovah? Is it Elohim? You know what, which, which word is it? There's the word one is what we call in computer parlay. Wizzy Wig. What you see is what you get. It's very straightforward. Nothing complicated. So when the Bible talks of one wife, one husband, it means just that. One, an overseer, a spiritual leader, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife. So that immediately brings into question, if he is not the husband of one wife, he is not above reproach. Because I hear people saying, well, I know this man is divorced and remarried, but his life is exemplary. It's above reproach. No, it's not. He surrendered that honor when he betrayed the wife of his youth and divorced her. I'm sorry. Now, I don't go out of my way to campaign in a church or ministry on this issue. But when it is brought up in public, I will speak up in public. I mean, the rules can't be that you can teach any type of error in fellowship or public that you want, but nobody can teach the truth. So once I say out there, once it's out there, it's out there. And I will not sit by and have people say, well, you know, he's a godly man and I don't think he should be kept from being a spiritual leader just because he divorced his wife. Well, he's not a godly man if he divorced his wife. He's God above reproach. Godly men do not divorce their wives. 1st Timothy 5 and 9. A widow is to be put on the list, and that is as Dorcas was, to minister to the women and children and needs of the church as a widow. If she is not less than 60 years old, being the wife of one man, same Greek word, one, mia, or first, Is 1st Timothy 3.2 speaking to a polygamous husband, having more than one wife? That is often what I was taught in coming up in the church that, well, it's not speaking about divorce and remarriage, it's speaking about polygamy. If we are to assume that 1st Timothy 3.2 is speaking about polygamy, a husband who has multiple simultaneous wives. Then we must assume 1 Timothy 5.10, the wife of one man, is speaking to a polygamous wife with multiple simultaneous husbands. That's unknown in all cultures. There are some obscure cultures where a woman will have, it's a matriarchal society and a woman will have several husbands. But that is so obscure as not to be worth mentioning. 1 Timothy 3.2 is not speaking of polygamy any more than 1 Timothy 5.10 is speaking of polygamy. Now I was always taught this passage refers to polygamy. that this was common in ancient Greece and Rome. That the Greeks and the Romans and Jews were all polygamous, and so Paul was addressing the problem of men becoming mature Christians, but having several wives. You can imagine my shock when in a secular history class at the University of Texas, it was called Western Civilization, the first half, when I learned that this was not true. In fact, it was such a shock to me that periodically, and this study has caused me to do it again, I've gone back to the books and back to the internet just to make sure I'm not misrepresenting this. It has been established clearly through historical records that at the time of the writing of the epistles, polygamy was outlawed both in Roman and Greek law. Neither husbands nor wives were permitted by law to have more than one spouse. And it was not civil law. It was criminal law. In America, bigamy. having multiple wives which is a criminal offense not polygamy but bigamy is polygamy is also an offense but bigamy is when a man travels back and forth between cities and neither wife knows he's married to the other person by american law you can only have one wife but that law follows the tradition of the Greco-Roman laws that are passed down that shape Western laws. This passage was not written because of the prevalence of polygamy. It was outlawed. It was a criminal offense that was enforced. The Jews, having been occupied and ruled by both Greece and Rome, conformed Hebrew law to this same standard. Polygamy was outlawed in Israel and that law was enforced first by Greece and later by Rome. In the Gospels, in the Book of Acts, in the Epistles, there is not a single instance of polygamy as practiced by Jew or Gentile. Now, I say that, but I'm open to correction. I'm not being facetious or sarcastic here. I've looked and looked to try to find somewhere in the Epistles, in the Gospels, or in the Book of Acts where polygamy was being dealt with as a sin or as a problem in the church. And I have not been able to find it. Nor is polygamy separated out from divorce and remarriage ever mentioned. That means that the husband of one wife refers to multiple marriages and divorces, not polygamy. Remember, the Pharisees never questioned Jesus on the subject of polygamy, did they? But they did talk to him about divorce and remarriage and about the instance where the man was married, his wife died, the woman was married, her husband died, and she married again, and her husband died because Jesus allowed this. She married again. She was married seven times. All seven husbands died. Who would she be married to in heaven? But they were considering all seven her husband, weren't they? Even in death, not polygamy. This teaching that the husband of one wife clause deals with the common practice of polygamy at the time is simply a fabrication. It is created in the mind of Bible teachers to get around the embarrassing state of divorce and remarriage by Christians in the 21st century church. They're having to deal with it. So they call it polygamy, allowing for multiple marriage, or what I call serial polygamy. But it's not. This passage is dealing with men who divorce and remarry women, not polygamy. Let me say that again. Polygamy was outlawed. The Roman culture, the Greek culture, and the Hebrew culture at the time was not polygamous. And monogamous marriages was enforced not by civil law, where a woman could protest that her husband had married someone else, but by criminal law, the state would enforce this. Thus the teaching that the husband of one wife, Claus, deals with the common practice of polygamy at the time is a fabrication. Remember some of the other fabrications we talked about? that the clause that in Ephesians 5, 22 through 24 and 1 Peter 3, 1 through 6, that wives should submit to and obey their husbands was a result of the wild and unruly marriages at the time. And we said, that's a fabrication. There's no historical proof of that. That the teaching that in first Timothy two, that a wife should not teach or exercise authority over her husband or in the church or people in the church was a result of the wild and unruly behavior of women in the church of Ephesus and other churches of the time. That's made up. It's a fabrication. There is no historical evidence of it. The teaching that the husband of one wife clause is given because of the polygamous nature of the culture is a fabrication. It's made up. All of these fabrications are created by liberal women and men Bible teachers who don't want to deal with the clear teaching of scripture. Therefore, they make up a historical or cultural environment from their minds which allows them to disobey. Don't do that. Jesus did not recognize the woman at the well as having one husband. He did not recognize her as having one husband simply because she had divorced the others. So let's take a look at this passage. Brother Bishan, would you read John 4, 16 through 18, please? John 4, 16 through 18. John 4, 16 through 18. He said to her, go call your husband and come here. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, you have correctly said. have no husband, for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband. This you have said truly." Now, the fact that this woman is viewed in the eyes of God as having had five husbands has nothing to do with polygamy. It's divorce and remarriage. Now let's look at man's view. What does the woman say? I have no husband. What does Jesus say? You have had five husbands. Jesus said, well, currently you don't have any husband, but that doesn't mean you don't have husbands. A man who is divorced and remarried has had two wives. If he is divorced and remarried five times, he has had five wives. You can't get around it. How many wives have you had? Well, I am currently married to one wife. That doesn't work. How many wives have you had? Five. You can only be the husband of one wife and be a spiritual leader in the church or a ministry. A woman who is divorced and remarried has had two husbands. If she is divorced and remarried five times, she has had five husbands. Neither is the husband of one wife, nor the wife of one husband. It's clearly taught here. It's established by Jesus. Man's view, I have no husband, I'm divorced. Jesus' view, you have had five husbands. I asked a person, are you the husband of one wife? He said, well, I currently only have one wife. That's not the question I asked you. How many wives have you had? Don't play word games with God. I've had two, I've had three, I've had five. Now, in the Greek language, there is room for the phrase, one at a time. But this phrase is not used. One here means what? One at a time is very simple. In modern Greek, it's Eva Eva. Just one is Eva. One at a time is Eva twice. In ancient Greek it is kata mia. Just one extra word. Here mia means one or first. Add the word kata in front of it and it means one at a time. It's not difficult. There is no linguistics gymnastics necessary for in the Greek for you to end up with this phrase that would make it an uncommon phrase. It's a very simple addition. God the Holy Spirit could have very simply added in front of Mia in 1st Timothy 3.2, the husband of one and instead of Mia, put Cata Mia, the husband of one wife at a time. But God the Holy Spirit doesn't do that. He leaves it to mean one. It would have been simple for the Holy Spirit to have done it, but he doesn't. It is ludicrous to think that a man as highly educated as Paul would use simply the word one instead of one at a time if he meant one at a time. And it's ludicrous to think that God the Holy Spirit was somehow constrained by the language. He wasn't. If God the Holy Spirit wanted to say one at a time, he would have put kata in front of the Greek word mia. But he doesn't. In fact, Mia means one slash first. So if you wanted to really translate this passage, you could say he has to be the husband of one slash current or first time wife. That further slams the door on the one at a time. Now let's look at this. I'm gonna pick on Bishan. Bishan, you'll have to unmute. I'm gonna pick on you here. Okay, Bishan, you're going to have some students over for an evangelistic gathering. You do that quite often. And your wife says she's going to fix biscuits and tea for them so that you can have the talk, then have a tea break. pause de café, as they say in Cameroon, and then have question-answer time. But your wife has cooked these cookies and biscuits especially for the meeting. And she's got them on the counter there at the table, cooling, so they'll be ready when the students come. Your child comes up to you and says, Daddy, may I have one cookie? Now, your wife has asked you not to eat all these up because she doesn't have any more and she wants them to be for refreshments for the students so that you can bless those to whom you're ministering. And of course you agree to that. Well, it comes time for the break and your wife goes to get the tray and half the cookies are gone. She says, Bishan, This is your house. You're the head of the house. You can eat all these cookies. But, you know, I really wanted to be able to bless your ministry and be your helpmate. And you say, well, I didn't eat any cookies. And you call your son and say, I thought I said you could eat one cookie. And he said, well, I never had polygamous cookies. I never took a handful so that I had three or four or five cookies in my hand at one time. That would be sin. At one time, I only had one cookie. And in fact, I have one cookie now. So I ate that one cookie, and then you said I could have one cookie, so I got one cookie. I never had in my hand more than one cookie. Are you happy with that answer, Bishan? No. You know, if it was my child, the child would be received three strokes with the rod. Because they know what you mean. Even a small child knows what you mean by one cookie. We do not allow our children to play word games with us. How much more should we not try to play word games with the God of the universe who gave us the Holy Scripture. Husband of one wife means husband of one wife, first wife. Bishan, how many times have you been married? Once. And is she the first wife you've ever had? Yes. I mean, that's nonsensical, isn't it? Yes, okay. John didn't marry one wife, she is the first wife. But we have to talk like that because people refuse to accept the authority of... If people would simply accept the authority of God's Word, we could move on, couldn't we? But they don't want to. So that's why we have to go to these lengths. Have you ever been married before? No. You have the husband of one wife. And no one can say to you, well, you're the husband of one wife. You say correctly, but you have had three wives. They can't say that to you, can they, Bishan? No. They can't. They can't say it to me. The list goes on in terms of the irrational use of the one at a time clause when using the word one. They say, well, it's the husband of one wife at a time. If I contact you and say the meeting will begin in one hour, how many hours before the meeting begins, Bishan? That's right. So if you log on in one hour, and you wait, and you wait, and you wait, and I'm still not there, and you text me, well I said one hour, but that was one hour at a time. And then it's another one hour at a time, and then another, you know, that's nonsensical, isn't it? If you go, if I go into a store and I say, how much is the price for this bread? And they say $1. Oh, good. So I put $1 on the counter. They say, excellent. Now, $1. But that is $1. Well, the price is $1 at a time. You just keep putting $1 at a time down. I'll tell you when to stop. That's ridiculous, isn't it? I will arrive at your house in one hour. You rearrange your schedule to make sure you're there to greet me. Three hours later, I'm not there. And I said, well, I'm going to arrive in one hour, but one hour at a time. It's ridiculous. You can say, we can meet at my house, it's only one kilometer, or one mile from the church. So everybody starts walking to my house from the church, and several hours later they say, I thought you said it was one kilometer. Well, it's one kilometer at a time. They'll add up to 20, but it's one kilometer at a time. That's ridiculous. The prescription calls for one pill once a day. If one doesn't mean one, you're going to end up either poisoning yourself or not getting well. One means one. That's so clear. Why is it hard for people to believe the husband of one wife means one wife? Why is that hard? Let's look at some other passages of scripture. Bishan, would you read Luke 15.8, please? And then Nashua, you'll read 2 Corinthians 11.24. And then Samah, if you're able to read, oh, I lost Sam. Augustine, you can read Ephesians 4, 3 through 6. Let's read Luke 15, 8. Luke 15, 8. For what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? How many coins did she lose? one coin. So if somebody told you I've lost a coin and you swept the house and found it and they said well I still need to find one coin and then I need to find one coin you'd say why did you just tell me you lost all ten? Well I did lose all ten I just lost one coin at a time. 2nd Corinthians 11 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Yeah, he received thirty-nine lashes. One means one. Ephesians 4, 3 through 6. There is one body and one spirit. Just as also you will be called in one room of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. one God, and the Father of all, who is over all, and the true One, and in all." These are all the same words in 1st Timothy 3.2. One wife. Hebrews 10.12, but He having offered one sacrifice for sins. 1.1.1.1. And evangelical Christians will vehemently defend One, one body, one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, one sacrifice. And yet having vehemently defended as Bible-believing Christians the above usage of one in these passages, the same teachers will choke on 1 Timothy 3.2. The husband of... Well, we're not sure what that means. Well, you were sure what one coin means. You were sure what one 40 minus 1 means you were sure what one body, one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father meant. You were sure of what one sacrifice meant. Why aren't you sure of what the husband of one wife means? By what stretch of the imagination can any of these passages mean one at a time? The reason they are not sure that the husband of one wife means one is they don't want it to mean one because of the ramifications it will be financially and in attendance to their ministries if they preach on the sin of divorce and remarriage and enforce God's standards. Why do pastors and Bible teachers play games with the word one? when it comes to marriage. Well, one reason, there's one, there are several, but the first reason is compassion. It is usually an emotional reaction and false sense of compassion. This comes from a personal experience or someone they may know. They've either been divorced or remarried or a close family member or a close friend or an influential member of the church. They just say, you know, we just have to have compassion on these people. We can't judge them unfairly. Well, then now they're talking about like a non-Christian. How can you say a loving God would send anyone to hell? How can you say a loving God will send my auntie to hell? She was such a loving auntie just because she didn't become a Christian. How can you say that? Say, I'm not saying it. I'm saying God has said it. And despite that fact, he is still a good, compassionate God. They are not contradictory. We don't have to be more compassionate than God. And God, the God of compassion, we've studied that, one of the early attributes of God. is still the God of compassion when he excludes men from spiritual leadership who have been divorced and remarried. Irrespective of the compassion that these teachers feel, once one does not mean one, but rather one at a time, then the number of one at a time become arbitrary. Does that make sense? When it's scripturally one, that's locked in stone. We know exactly what that means, doesn't it? Knowing. But when it's one at a time, and they don't have a verse that says three is the maximum number, or two is the maximum number of one at a time, then it's completely open, isn't it? I asked the church board or teacher, What if the someone has been divorced and remarried? They then come up with an answer they feel comfortable with, but which has no scriptural basis. So feelings are important in their answer. For instance, one standard is that it's been a long time since the event occurred. Show me a verse in the Bible that says time has anything to do with this. Then I respond, what if someone has been divorced and remarried twice? Well, now this is kind of a sticky issue. We were just saying one time. Then I respond, what about three times? Well, I'm not sure we could do that. What about four? What about five? And sometime they will say, no, that's too many. But by what standard do they say one divorce and remarriage does not disqualify, but five divorces and remarriage does disqualify? It's totally based on their feelings, isn't it? It's totally based on their sensibilities, not the word of God. His feeling may be that five divorces and remarriage are too many. Another, though, in his church may not feel this. I witnessed many times to a teacher when I was in my twenties, and he had already, in his twenties, been divorced and remarried five times. If he received Christ remained faithful to his sixth wife for ten years, why would he not be eligible to become a deacon, elder, or pastor?" And then the person will say, well, maybe in that case, it's still how they feel, isn't it? We don't make these decisions based on how we feel. We make them based on the holy, eternal, inerrant written word of God. The pastor's standard may be that five divorces and remarriages are too many and that he is uncomfortable with considering a man for the role of elder, deacon, or pastor who has had more than two wives and marriages, but this is simply by the pastor's emotional response. God's standard is one marriage to one wife, one time, one lifetime. That's the acceptable number of wives in marriages. It is not that God is uncomfortable with two or more wives in marriages. No, it's not a discomfort. God's emotional response to this is in Malachi 2.16, I hate divorce. Oh, yes, but he's so unhappy. This is a difficult marriage. So what? God wants you to love your wife as Christ loved the church. Ephesians 5. 25 through 33. And Christ loved the church and gave himself up to her. and we are to love our wives until death does us part." Philippians 2. Christ was obedient unto death and we are to love our wives as Christ loved the Church. We will be obedient and faithful to our wives until death. Philippians 2. Why? When they talk about how difficult a marriage is, and how the poor man is suffering, why is that some excuse to divorce his wife? Why are they not exhorting the man, it's true this is a difficult marriage, it's true you're suffering, Christ suffered for you as an example. You have not suffered to the point of shedding blood in this marriage. Win her as Christ won you. Why isn't that counsel given? You see, in God's value system, protection is compassion. What do I mean by that? They say let's be compassionate and even though God says no you cannot divorce and remarry and be an elder. Let's be compassionate and let them divorce and remarry and be an elder. God says no. My command that you should not be a pastor, teacher, elder, a spiritual leader, divorced and remarried, is a compassionate response. It protects the pastor from on the one hand humiliating his wife and children, or on the other hand, diluting, adulterating, and corrupting the Word of God. What do I mean by that? I'll give you an example. Bishan, have you ever done a lecture series on the priestly robes in Leviticus? No, I haven't. No, I haven't either. And you are under no mandate to do that. Now, you can study that if you want to, but you're under no mandate to do it. But if you were a pastor and preaching through the Bible, you would have to touch on that. Well, if a man is a member of the church and a Bible teacher and an evangelist, He is under no mandate to teach on divorce and remarriage and the sins incurred. He can choose what he teaches in his Sunday school class or his Bible study. I don't think the design for discipleships, lessons on assurance, lessons on Christian living, none of those touch on that subject. He doesn't have to teach that, divorce and remarriage. But if he's a pastor, he does. and his wife and children would have to listen to it. They would have to sit there and listen to him say, now, you know, I'm married and there is Sister Jezebel sitting down there who I married, but she's not my first wife. I divorced my first wife and that was a sin. And then I married Sister Jezebel and that was a sin. And then we went on a honeymoon and that was a sin. That would be humiliating to his wife and children and to him. So God would spare the repentant, divorced, and remarried man from this humiliation by setting him aside from the offices of pastor, elder, or deacon. He doesn't have to vote. He doesn't have to rule. He doesn't have to teach on the subject. Can you see that? And it also is compassionate in protecting him from diluting, adulterating, and corrupting God's word. Because I've never known someone who is divorced and remarried who spoke strongly against divorce and strongly against remarriage. They always dilute it. They always give exceptions. Instead of talking about the sin of divorce and remarriage, they'll talk about why it's okay in many cases, and how we should be compassionate, and how we shouldn't judge. So, God's standard of divorce and remarriage, eliminating someone from the pastorate, from being a deacon, an elder, a spiritual leader, is compassionate. Man's standard is simply based on his emotions. Totally arbitrary. Another thing they will say is the passage of time. And then they have to pick one year, five years, ten years. What's it going to be? There's no scriptural standard for this. So they just have to make it up. See how easy it is to rule the body of Christ, to be a disciple-making leader, to be a pastor, an elder, a teacher, to be a campus director, when you can just make things up as you go along? That makes it really easy, doesn't it? In some U.S., in the U.S., some crimes, such as theft and forgery, have a statute of limitations. After 10 years, you cannot be tried for theft or forgery. On the other hand, in the U.S., murder, rape, and kidnapping are exempt from the Statute of Limitations, sometimes 20 years after a murder in the U.S. I've seen it as many as 40 years. A DNA sample or a clue will come up, and they will find out who raped or murdered the person, and they will go arrest him. He might have done it when he was 25, and he's now 65 or 75. It doesn't matter. There's no statute of limitation. So we live in a culture of statutes of limitations here in the US, so we think we can create our own statutes of limitations for sin. Holy Scripture, however, does not exempt a man from confessing sin and making restitution simply because 10 years have gone by. When he is convicted of it, he needs to confess it, and if he is able to, make restitution. Sometimes he's not able to. The business, whatever business it was, has gone out of business. The person has died. There's no one to make restitution to. But he still needs to confess it. My first year on staff, I was teaching through the topical memory system on the campus. I thought, they're going to memorize two verses a week. Let's make sure they know what these verses mean. So I just created a Bible study. We covered two verses a week. When we got to honesty, and I looked at Leviticus 1911, thou shalt not lie, steal, nor do wrong falsely with one another. As I was doing that study, God convicted me of an action I had taken while as a high school teacher. When I was a high school teacher, there was another teacher there involved with the Navigators, and he said, you know, they have a photocopy machine here. You can just run your Bible studies and handouts and conference materials off on that photocopy machine. They don't care. Just go in there and do it. Everybody does it. So I did it. Well, I realized he doesn't have authority to let me do that. Just because everybody else is doing it, I shouldn't do it. So I did as best as I can. I calculated how many copies I had made over a period of two years. Then I doubled it. Then I wrote out a check to the principal, Aldon Zalgado, and explained to him my decision and mailed it to him. I confessed it to the Lord, and I made restitution, even though it had been several years. If I had realized that 20 years later, the Austin Independent School District would still have been in business, I wouldn't be able to mail it to Aldan Zalgado, but I could have mailed it to the school district. Passage of time did not exempt me from making restitution. by what authority or by what passage of scripture is divorce and remarriage set aside by the scriptural doctrine of the statutes of limitations? Show it to me. Show me the verse. That is the one statement that stymies and frustrates everybody on this issue. Well, we have to be compassionate. You know, we just can't be judgmental. Okay, show me the verse. Well, judge not that you will not be judged. No, that's all we're talking about. Show me the verse. If you're going to apply that, then I can commit any sin. theft, murder, I can break all ten commandments and you can't judge me. That verse is not talking about a universal blanket turning your back on anybody's sin. Show me the verse that says that when a man is divorced and remarried and is the husband of more than one wife, that although the scriptures say he should not be an elder, that because of the compassion of the current church leadership, he can be. Show me the verse. Well, it's been 10 years. Fine. He's led an exemplary life. Fine. Show me the verse. Show me the verse that says after passage of a certain amount of time, even though he's the husband of more than one wife, he's qualified. Just show me the verse. They will never show you the verse and as a general rule will become angrier and then use slander or accusations or sarcasm. Oh, you're one of those. Don't be so rigid. Since there is no scripture giving the passage of time, it has become emotionally arbitrary, and those who are defending the passage of time scenario respond emotionally. I know for a lot of churches, ten years seems like an acceptable time. I was talking to an elder. That's the standard of their church, ten years. I said, what about ten days? He said, oh no, that's not acceptable. That just doesn't seem right. I said, by what standard? Show me the verse that says ten years yes, ten days no. Well, it just makes sense. Show me the verse that says you should come up with an acceptable time limit. So be the verse. Both are based on the word seems as there exists no scriptural guideline for either the passage of time nor the comfort level of the reader. This seems acceptable. Ten days does not seem acceptable. It's purely emotional. Don't make decisions based on what seems right. The word of God is clear. Many will set aside this teaching because of unfair versus fair. They just don't feel like it's fair. They feel like it's very unfair that a man, simply because he made a bad decision 10 years ago, should not be allowed to be a spiritual leader in the church. Again, it's viewed as unduly harsh and judgmental, when in fact the exact opposite is true, and we just looked at that. It protects him from humiliation, and it protects him from adulterating the Word of God. Whether man feels this scriptural standard is fair or unfair is of no consequence. Many feel that when I tell them only Christians go to heaven and all others go to hell, that that's not fair. That's not right. How can you be so judgmental? How can you be so inflexible? Well, John 14, 6, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me. Well, yeah, but still, you know, there will be exceptions to every rule. How can you say that? Many feel that it's unfair that they are judged as fornicators when they move in with their girlfriend. And I was talking with a military man about this who claimed to be a Christian. He said, well, you know, before I moved in to my girlfriend, you know, when I would be transferred to a new city, every weekend I would go to a bar and sleep with a different girl. Now I find a girl and she moves in with me and I only sleep with her. So I'm a better Christian living with this girl than not living with her. I said, no you're not. You're a fornicator. And the fact that you're fornicating with the same woman versus fornicating with different women doesn't change it. Repent. Marry her. Or commit yourself to purity. And they did neither one. He did neither one. But he felt like he was unfairly judged by what I was saying. Many feel it is unfair that their homosexuality is condemned when they are a monogamous relationship with a same-sex partner. And that's the big deal now. Celebrate homosexuals in the church and monogamous homosexuals in the church, and it's unfair to judge them when they are living pure lives. They're not living pure lives. They're homosexuals. It's a sin. The only alternative to the homosexual sin is repentance and becoming a heterosexual. Otherwise, you're still a homosexual. And the list goes on. Many people feel God's standards in terms of doctrine and morality are unfair. That does not affect us. we stand with the Word of God. That brings us to hypocrisy and inconsistency in the application of standards by those in the church. It should be noted that the only standard for pastors and elders and deacons in 1st Timothy and in Titus from which liberal Bible teachers allow an escape clause are those that deal with marriage and children. For instance, let's look at the list in 1 Timothy 3, 1-7. an overseer must be above reproach. The husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine, pugnacious, gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money, he must be one who manages his own household well, not a new convert, good reputation outside the church, So, we're going to review this guy and we'll say he's not temperate. You never know what he's going to do. Goes into debt, speaks out of turn, is unreliable, is neither temperate nor approved. He's not respectable. You ask around the church, you ask around town, you ask in his family, nobody respects him. He's not hospitable. He'll never ask you into his home. He'll never be willing to give a cup of cold water. He'll never do it. He's not able to teach. He doesn't know the Bible. Would any of those people be acceptable? He's an alcoholic. He's pugnacious. He's a rabble rouser. He's always causing fights and division. He's not gentle. He's not peaceable. In fact, he's a money lover. He'll probably steal from the offering plate like Judas. Would any of those people be acceptable as spiritual leader candidates? No. But he's the husband of one wife. Oh, well, not necessarily. I mean, he's got one wife now, so I guess that's okay. His children are out of control. Well, he's put his children on the altar. Well, can he put alcoholism? Can he put sobriety on the altar? Can he put Bible study on the altar? Can he put his reputation on the altar? Can he put riotous living? No, he can't put those on the altar. Just husband of one wife and his children. That's hypocrisy and inconsistency. Simply because these teachers don't want to deal with the fact that he must be the husband of one wife. They in their hypocrisy and inconsistency released the candidate from family obligations while holding him to all the others. What are the consequences of this? Why is this a big deal? Why am I making such an issue over this? These well-meaning pastors and Bible teachers do not think through on the details when departing from the scriptural standards of divorce and remarriage. After this study, if you sit down with your wife and say, you know, I think John had it all wrong. I think you, a minister or a spiritual leader or a staff man or a deacon or an elder, you know, you name it. He can divorce his wife and keep his position. How does that make her feel? She knows she's on borrowed time, doesn't she? My wife doesn't have to worry about that. She knows how I feel about divorce and remarriage, that I will never ever divorce and remarry her, and if our marriage was dissolved, I would resign from the ministry, and I have no intention of doing that. I'll fight for our marriage. I'll sanctify her as Christ does the church, by the washing of the water of the word. I'll prevent her spotless and perfect. before the Lord when he returns. I'll love her as my own body. I'll love her as myself. Ephesians 5, 25 through 33. I'll love her unto death. There was a discussion at a table at a conference where I spoke on this issue and they were all arguing about the grounds for divorce. I said, hey, I don't want to talk about this. Why do I need to know the grounds for divorce? Bishan, do you need to do the Bible study of the spiritual consequences of murdering your wife? No. No, you don't need to know that. And I don't need to know the grounds of divorce. I'm not going to divorce, and I'm not going to give anybody permission to divorce. God hates it. It's a sin. But they were discussing it. So I said, man, I'm leaving this table. But before I do, I want you to know I will never divorce my wife. And under any circumstances, well, I feel divorcing my wife is acceptable. And I say this because before this conference is over, all your wives will know under what circumstances you will unload her for a younger, prettier girl. Because that's what you're debating now, aren't you? Under what circumstances not is divorce acceptable, but can you divorce your wife? An elder told me that his church had finally decided to change their constitution where elders and deacons and pastors can be divorced and remarried. Then they had set up some nice standards of evaluation on this, none of which was scriptural. And I said to him, well, Hezekiah, that must be a great relief to your wife. It must be very comforting for her to know that after intense Bible study, you were able to come up with a reason to divorce her and keep your position. He said, well, that's not what this means. I said, of course that's what it means. I mean, you got this other guy over here who's divorced and remarried. You're gonna let him be an elder so she knows you can do the same thing. How about your children? What is your so-called, what is your so-called gracious and merciful spirit communicate to your children. My children knew from the very early Bible teaching on obedience and family that mommy and daddy would never divorce, that divorce was a sin. And we were very upfront. Well, what about Uncle Hezekiah? He's in sin. Well, what about Sister Jezebel, you know, who's in the choir at church? She's in sin. Well, what about, you know, and there, he's in sin. It's sin. It's the same as if those people were smoking. It's the same as if they were drinking. It's the same as if they were carousing. It's the same as if they were stealing. Well, they seem like such nice people. It's still a sin. Our children grew up knowing it's a sin. And when they got married, they had a strong, firm conviction that it is not just an unfortunate event when the marriage fails, but rather it is a volitional sin. against God a sin that he hates. What does this communicate to the married men and women in the church? It communicates there are no consequences. Just want to announce to the church that now elders and deacons and pastors and spiritual leaders in our church or our organization can be divorced and remarried. Now all the young men in the church know that rather than fighting for their marriage, which is very difficult and hard to do, they can go ahead and get divorced, marry someone else, and still be a leader in the church. Congratulations. Your ministry has a divorce recovery class, but no discipline for the sin of divorce and remarriage, no public preaching against the sin of divorce and remarriage. What does this communicate to those struggling with a difficult marriage? Let's get a divorce and join the divorce recovery class. We're going to let our spiritual leaders be divorced and remarried. Fine. Is the former spouse going to be welcome in the church when her first husband is appointed deacon and elder and pastor? She's going to stand up at testimony time and say what she thinks about it? Is the former spouse going to be welcome at testimony time at the ordination of her husband? Will the former spouse be welcome in the Sunday school class, small group, or other ministry activities, either in the church or Christian organization, that he will lead as a pastor, deacon, or elder? Is she going to be welcome there? Why should she be ostracized? That's going to be a great situation. He shows up to lead Bible study with his wife and she shows up too. Well, we wouldn't just let that happen. Why? By what authority? She's a member of the church. According to you, they're not married anymore. She's just a single woman coming to Bible study. But she isn't, is she? And we all know she isn't. She's still married to him, although they're divorced. He's the husband of two wives. not married in any sense of the word except for the embarrassment of the presence that they became one at one time. My neighbor was divorced. He used to, when I was working in the yard, would come across the street and ask me different Bible questions. One day he came across and he said, you know, you told me about divorce and remarriage. Divorce is a big joke. There's no such thing as a divorce. I've been divorced five years. Every time I want to do something with the children, I have two wives to continue with. Every financial decision, there's two wives. Every birthday, two wives. Every baptism, two wives. My former wife shows up at every event. Every birthday party, every financial event, every decision concerning the children or my finances, now I've got two women to contend with instead of one. Divorce is a big joke." Well, he thinks that's bad. What if his former wife decides she wants to come and sit on the same pew? She wants to come to his Bible study. See? These people who speak of compassion don't think through on the consequences, do they? Now, what is the response of the Church to the sin of divorce and remarriage? Well, one, divorce is not the unforgivable sin. It is a sin, though. It is not a state of sin, but it is a sin that must be repented of. remarriage when reconciliation is possible is a sin. They should not have gotten remarried. It's not the unforgivable sin. As a result, the church must teach and preach against these sins because what the members say by their lifestyle screams far louder than anything from the pulpit or the Sunday school class. What the members say by their lifestyle in this area teaches more than is being taught from the pulpit or the Bible study class. Remember Dawson Trotman said, more is caught than taught. What is being caught today in Christian organizations and the church is divorce and remarriage acceptable, let's go ahead and get it over with, get past with it and get on with your life. Now the church should receive repentant sinners without stigma as they do any other sin. Adultery is a sin, Matthew 5, 27. You have heard you shall not commit adultery. Whether it is by married couples sinning outside their marriage or by married couples divorcing and remarried, adultery is a sin. It should be taught as such. Adultery is a sin and it should be taught as such in the home, too, to your children. However, in Matthew 5.28, but I say to you that anyone looks at a Roman to lust that in his heart has already committed adultery with her in his heart. In the final analysis, all men have committed adultery in their hearts. So no one is free to judge another as a second-class Christian, but that doesn't mean that we do not carry out the injunction of teaching and preaching against divorce and remarriage. I had a Sunday school class where I was supposed to teach on this issue. And all the people who had been divorced and remarried sat on one side and all the people who hadn't been divorced and remarried sat on the other side. And they did this with no instruction from me. So I told them all. We're all sinners. Now let's figure out how we're going to grow in Christ. However, divorce and remarriage should not be treated in such a cavalier manner that our children and young couples in the church feel no compunction, no reluctance, no shame concerning this sin. It is not just an unfortunate consequence of bad decisions. It is open rebellion against God. God has said, when I have joined together, let no man separate. And I hate divorce. And even though God has said, getting that divorce is a sin and it's a sin that he hates, they're going ahead and doing it anyways. And one of the reasons they go ahead and do it anyways is we haven't taught them how serious it is. We have divorce recovery classes, but these are not a place for divorcees to feel good about their sin and meet other divorces for the sake of the sin of adultery. If they recover from their sin, it should not be called divorce recovery class, but divorce repentance class. Not divorce recovery, but divorce repentance. Divorce recovery means we're going to try to help them heal and feel good about their current situation. Divorce repentance means they're going to repent from the sins that caused the divorce. They're going to repent from the attitude where they felt they could get a divorce and they are going to be repentant Christians. The consequences of divorce and remarriage should be held as a high standard when selecting pastors and elders and deacons so that everybody knows there are consequences for that decision. And if you do that, I've been in churches where that high standard was held, and men would leave the church because they couldn't be a deacon. And my attitude was good. Now let all the young people see. It's not just something you can do and walk away from. It's a wicked sin. To summarize our three lectures, marriage is ordained by God and rooted in our creation. Marriage is between one man, one woman. For those who wish to enact the divorce clause, as allowed by God, it reveals that they have a hard heart. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it. It reveals that they are willing to do something God hates, even though it's allowed. Those who divorce or enable divorce do so in direct disobedience to God. It's a sin. You have the verses here. If you do resort to divorce and remarry, you commit adultery. You are permanently disqualified from the leadership of pastor, elder, deacon, spiritual leader in the church. Those are serious consequences. Don't do it. Though the phrase one at a time did exist, this is number four, though the phrase one at a time did exist in the ancient Greek, it is not used, but rather the scriptural standard of one first is consistently used in teachings on marriage. Though divorce and remarriage is not the unforgivable sin, the consequences should be real to the church and its application in the church leadership and in preaching from the pulpit and teaching for children on through adult education. Now I'll say this personally to you men, you cannot control the compromises of your church or Christian organization. But you can control what is taught to your family and personal ministry. You don't want your children to get a divorce? Teach them early that it is a sin God hates. You want your wife to feel secure? Stand up and teach against divorce and remarriage. If your wife has come under the influence of some liberal Bible teacher and she says, but you know there are reasons for divorce, look at her and say, what are you trying to communicate to me? Do you want a divorce? No, I don't. Do you want me to divorce you? No. Then why are we talking about this, sweetheart? Think. Think about what you're saying. Did we swear to God till death do us part? Yes. Then on what basis are we having the conversation Grounds for Divorce? The reimagining. And that's what I mean. It's purely springing from the imaginations of man. The reimagining of the meaning of one wife and twisting it into one wife at a time does not arise from an in-depth study of the subject. but rather from an emotional reaction of teachers to this standard coupled with the deplorable state of divorce and remarriage in the 21st century church. May God add his blessing to his holy work. In Christ's name I pray, amen.