The only matters we will discuss about Peter Ruckman's personal life come from what he has volunteered to release publicly via his writings. Ruckman is a public ministry figure who has himself published details regarding his personal life; therefore the details should not be considered off limits or inappropriate. This is the only article we have planned on Ruckman's personal life. Any other mention elsewhere will be incidental.
Briefly, the most controversial detail about his personal life is the fact that he is twice divorced and married three times. As if that was not controversial enough for a pastor, each one of those marriages and divorces involved controversies of their own. Concerning the accusations of physical abuse alleged by his first wife, he admits to leaving bruises during what he described as "a violent argument" in which he grabbed her by the wrists, and pushed her against a table and a sink (The Full Cup, p. 225). The divorce trial, which he implies ended in his favor, went all the way to the Supreme Court of Alabama. The second woman he married was the young former wife of one of his students (The Full Cup, p. 273). His decision to remarry in 1972 split the church he was pastoring, as a third of the congregation voted against the second marriage, believing he was no longer qualified to pastor (Ibid, p. 276, The Book of Hebrews, 1986, p. 243). Ruckman appeared to have stayed for two more years according to his own words: "I resigned and gave the people I left two years to get the work on its feet" (The Full Cup, p. 276). He then picked up seventy-five people and started Bible Baptist Church in 1974 in the same town (The Book of Hebrews, 1986, p. 243). His second marriage ended in divorce in 1988. Ruckman married a third time in 1989 to a member of his congregation who was 27 years younger.
As for Ruckman's side of the story, he says his first two wives deserted him. Regarding the claims of physical abuse alleged by his first wife, he affirms that he did not hit her, and she was trying to provoke bruises to document abuse. He claims to be against divorce and says he does not recommend divorce.
His irreverent attitude towards those who hold to the historic and conservative view that "the husband of one wife" means "a one-woman man" is revealed by his description of a traditional church wedding for his third marriage, followed by the following words: "I was flaunting my faith in the face of the apostate Fundamentalists who were going to 'cash in' on my marriage" (The Full Cup, p. 319).
He described the environment of his second marriage early on as follows:
Out in public, it was the "happy Ruckman family" with "Ruckman's new wife," but inside…fights going to the airport, fights returning, fights on the way to church, fights (or deadly silence) all the way back. (The Full Cup, pp. 279-280)
Without specifying which troubled marriage, he described the low point in his home life as follows: "…knock-down, drag-out arguments in the home sometimes running as long as three days" (The Last Grenade, p. 339). As to disagreements over disciplining children with his second wife, he described how "there was something just short of a fistfight everytime [sic] I disciplined them." (The Full Cup, p. 279)
All the above information should be scrutinized in the light of God's Word, which contains the qualifications for a pastor. 1 Tim. 3:2-5 reveals multiple violations, regardless of which spouse was at fault the most:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Kenneth Wuest, author of the multi-volume Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, explains the meaning of the term "husband of one wife" from the Greek:
The entire context is one in which the character of the bishop (pastor) is being discussed. Thus, one can translate, "a one-wife sort of a husband," or "a one-woman sort of a man." We speak of the Airedale as a one-man dog. We mean by that, that it is his nature to become attached to only one man, his master. Since character is emphasized by the Greek construction, the bishop should be a man who loves only one woman as his wife. (Volume 2, p. 53)
In his booklet Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, Ruckman provides strange reasoning for his belief that the "husband of one wife" pastoral qualification cannot mean "only married once." Notice what he says on p. 27:
First Timothy 3:1 can't mean "only married once." That would disqualify a thousand ministers from the ministry. It has to mean he is faithful to the one wife he's got. If he's scripturally and legally divorced and remarried, he has only one wife. If he's true to her, that is the only wife he's got. Any other interpretation of that passage is immoral and is trying to give a man an alibi for sin; because if it means "only married once," it means the bishop, as long as he doesn't get divorce papers from his wife or vice-versa, can have as many women to shack up with as he wants to.
Divorce is caused by sin. And yet Peter Ruckman strangely claims that those who interpret the pastoral qualifications in 1 Tim. 3:1 as meaning only married once (with an exception made for death of the first wife, as he acknowledged on p. 26) are the ones interpreting in an immoral fashion and seeking an alibi for sin! His twisted interpretation that the "only married once" view would allow a pastor to shack up with as many women as he wanted as long as he did not get divorce papers is refuted by the same verse stating that the pastor must be blameless and of good behaviour, not to mention v. 7 also stating that he must have a "good report of them which are without."
According to 1 Pet. 5:3, pastors are to be "ensamples to the flock." 1 Tim. 3 makes it clear that the example the pastor should set includes his home life. Regardless of who may have been at fault the most, Ruckman's own description of his home life during his first two marriages reveals it was not an example, and he even used the term "dual life" to describe the second marriage (The Full Cup, p. 279).
Even if one interpreted "the husband of one wife" in 1 Tim. 3 as merely a prohibition of polygamy, and would further reason that since Ruckman's home life has stabilized with his third marriage, a case could still be made that Ruckman's caustic writings and unscriptural beliefs reveal that he still does not meet the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1.
A poster on an internet forum posted the following relevant comment, which we reproduce here:
A bishop must be blameless — Can anyone claim Ruckman is blameless — no one can legitimately hold accusations against him?
The husband of one wife — Whether you believe this phrase means "one woman man" or literally the husband of one wife, it doesn't matter, Ruckman is disqualified.
No Striker — a pugnacious, contentious, quarrelsome person. Ruckman? Definitely!
Not A Brawler — contentious — again, no question.
Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without — What is Ruckman's report? I think this one alone is enough to disqualify him.
No pastor is perfect, and pastors struggle with sin along with everyone else. The problem is when these matters characterize the offender, when they are not even recognized as sin by the offender, and the offender is not actively striving to rectify the problems caused by the sin. Ruckman, if he only was willing to be an obedient "doer" of the words of Scripture rather than simply a "professor" of the words of Scripture, would immediately resign his post as pastor of his church to someone who is Biblically qualified. He would also immediately apologize for his vulgarity, brutish rhetoric, and seek reconciliation with those he has sinned against.
A rather large number of pastors don’t measure up to the scriptural standard either, let alone gay and women pastors.
I’m not happy with his nuttiness, but I see no condemnation here of anyone else who falls short.
The scripture does mention other conditions of marriage and divorce that you didn’t bother to bring up.
A question about this part in brackets: [Ruckman stayed for two more years according to his own words: I resigned and gave the people I left two years to get the work on its feet (The Full Cup, p. 276). He then picked up seventy-five people and started Bible Baptist Church in 1974 in the same town (The Book of Hebrews. 1986, p. 243). His second marriage ended in divorce in 1988. Ruckman married a third time in 1989 to a member of his congregation.]
– Something above is not clear to me. Ruckman’s words say “I left”, but your words say he “stayed”? I don’t have the book. Does that mean he resigned as pastor, but stayed as a member, or what?
– My understanding of the “husband of one wife” requirement is that it is a prohibition against polygamy, and that an unmarried bachelor could not serve in that office. If any man serving in that office loses his wife through death or desertion, and the people of the congregation are pleased that he continue to minister, who are we so say other wise. (I’m assuming the people would have prayed for the Lord’s counsel.) – Richard
This is a good question. I reread that portion of his biography just now, and it isn’t perfectly clear what his relationship was with Brent Baptist Church from 1972 until 1974, but his statement implies that his 1972 resignation was to take effect in two years. I did quote him verbatim where he made the confusing statement, “I resigned and gave the people I left two years to get the work on its feet” (The Full Cup, p. 276).
In the Bible Believers’ Bulletin for Oct. 2009, Ruckman provides the following biographical detail: “I left this fulltime evangelism in 1960 to become a pastor: first of the Brent Baptist Church and then the Bible Baptist Church (1961–2009).”
In the above he implies he was a pastor continuously from 1961-2009. Keeping in mind that he began to pastor Brent around 1960 or 1961, notice the following statement on p. 276 of his auto-biography: “In the first place, I wouldn’t think of staying and fighting a third of my congregation (although I could do it without missing any sleep!), and secondly, Brent was now, after fourteen years, ‘out of the red.’ Their bills were paid. Whoever I left the church to would not have to pay a dime more than ‘operating expenses:'”
If he took Brent in 1960, and stayed in the leadership for 14 years, that would put him there till 1974, two years after the resignation. In spite of all the circumstantial evidence, to be on the safe side I edited the article slightly to say that it “appears” that Ruckman stayed for two more years after the resignation. As much as I disagree with Ruckman, I have no desire to misrepresent him or portray him unfairly.
Thanks for clearing that up as much as possible.
I don’t personally know Ruckman, but I seem to side with him. Looks to me like you have it out for him by trying hard to make him look unscriptural. Just looking at it from native american and biblical standpoint.
I would rather stand with Scripture rather than with Ruckman. You said you were looking at it from a “biblical standpoint,” but you did not present any Scripture to back yourself up. I didn’t have to try hard to make him look unbiblical as you state. I had very little to say. I stuck to what Ruckman himself has admitted in his writings, and quoted some relevant Scripture passages.
Divorce and remarriage is pointing to the Jews not for Christians, have you forgot Jesus died for our sins, all sin is now forgiven washed in the blood of the Lamb.
im confused here, what does husband of one wife mean .? if your wife divorces you, are you single now or still the husband of one wife, and if your x wife marries again , does that make you the husband of a wife and a husband. oh Kenneth wuest says the greek says a bishop is a one wife sort a husband. thanks what does a dog being attached to one man have to do with a man being the husband of one wife. how come any of the newer translattions print it like that if mr wuest. is right .ariedale,,, please now that’s funny. so clearer. gonna have to get me some nt greek from Kenny.not confused any more ruf ruff .
Husband of one wife means husband of one wife. Its says what it means, and means what it says. There is also the further clarification of “a one-wife sort of a husband,” or “a one-woman sort of a man.”
Is there anywhere you know of where we can read the wive's side of the story?
I don’t know. I have wondered about that myself. His defenders continually point out Ruckman’s side of the story, but as well all know, there is always two sides to every story.
Transcripts from court cases could be a good start. I have not pursued that, or sought an interview if any of his former wives are still living, because I don’t want to focus too much on Ruckman’s personal life. Most, if not all I’ve pointed out about his personal life stem from his own writings. I’ve stayed away from the “he said/she said” accusations because of the danger of innaccuracies. As much as I disagree with Ruckman, I do not want to treat him unfairly.
Dad left Brent in 1972 and started his new Chapel/Church adjacent to his a Bible Institute ..Dad should’ve stayed single after my Mom packed up and took us to her Mom’s house in the Fall of 61’…Dad did try to reconcile with my Mom for many years , but my Mom couldn’t trust him anymore.. My oldest Sister told me that things escalated after my younger Brother Pete was born in 1959…. I loved my Dad and Mom even with all their personal flaws . My Mom passed away this last October of 2018 as Dad did coming up in 3 years this April…My most satisfactions was to hear from my Dad’s closet associate since 1952, Roy Clipper whom I spent a lot of time with talking about Dad and his ups and downs in his life …Mr. Clipper told me that when Dad was about 85 they were talking about marriages in Dad’s office and Mr. Clipper told me ” Mike , your Dad told me that he believed that Janie was the only woman that he’s ever truly did love ” I always knew this even with all the made for show stuff for these past few decades of my Dad’s life here on Earth….My Dad and Mom are now in Heaven….Regardless of our own likes and dislikes 🙂
Do you know when your father started to teach his multiple inspiration theory of the KJV? It is iseful to pin a date on it if possible
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Jesus’s words.)
Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man,.
Also see Proverbs 6:32, Luke 16:18, Matthew 5:32, Romans 7:2, Exodus 20:14, Leviticus 20:10.
I had the pleasure of hearing Dr. Ruckman twice at a local church. His personality was unique but I respected his study of the authorized version of the Holy Bible, commonly called the King James. While we are all sinners and want only God to know our secret sins, he had struggles in his personal life that he and God will sort out.
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ephesians 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
How blessed we are in America to have the Word of God!
I was a member of Dr. Ruckman's church. As one of the smartest men that God has ever created (confirmed IQ of 190), and the most fruitful preacher/teacher that God has ever used, with thousands of people saved, it is to be expected that Satan would attack like never before. He stood his ground, and finished his course. No mater what you believe about the man, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." I will love him until the day I die!
Very well said! I know there are not many if any that have won that many people to the Lord. The evil one always wants to hinder a man that had such a burden and a heart for lost souls by coming up with his faults. He will always be cherished. I was so blessed to be able to go to his church while in ultrasound school. I watched his chalk drawings on Friday nights before I went to Florida. I watch his utube videos now and just bought my first Ruckman Reference Bible! He had flaws but I know the Lord used him in a mighty way!
There were blacks in Dr. Ruckman's church when I was a member.
I believe that the KJV is God's Word to the English speaking people of the world and that it is the best translation from the original divinely inspired and preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The KJV is NOT a double inspiration. All other English versions are perversions of God's Holy Word.
Apart from his sometimes crazy interpretations of certain scriptures, I find Ruckman's personal life a horrible testimony.. I always thought talking with his 3 wives would be a real eye opener into what he was really like-his multiple roots of bitterness, his angry, vile words toward those who didn't "toe the line" doctrinally or practically with him..
Fruit of his ministry? here is an example of the fruit of his ministry.. simply TRAGIC..His son Peter murdering his two sons, then killing himself..
I am burrying a man THIS WEEK who thought the world of Ruckman, and his family deserted him as well…the question is WHY would they want to desert him? Anger, bitterness, verbal, and other abuse..
God bless any GOOD that Peter Ruckman did. I find his insights very interesting and enlightening at times.. but it is all overshadowed by his PERSONAL and FAMILY life being a disaster..
Well, you've got to check out what happen to King James children. Do wanna blame that king James had bad fruit? Did you know that tragedies in king James family happened after he died? Its really satans attack. Men never learn from history.
Cliff… Would you say God is the perfect parent? Perfect parent, perfect environment, and yet Adam and Eve sinned. Parents do best they can, but Dr Ruckman's son was a grown man ….married with own children….making his own decisions. He had his own free will. Obviously, had his own struggles. In part, going through divorce with his wife, yet no one saw any signs of trouble. She didn't see any signs of trouble or she wouldn't have let her children be with their dad. And you think his quite elderly mother and father,… or just father?…are responsible?
Why would you even bring it up?…and..add link to this tragic story? You and yours must have a trouble free life. I hope you never have such tragedy, such mental health issues, to touch your life, or the life of those you love and know. Maybe we could pray for this large Ruckman family …for those who will long term be dealing with this awful situation.
Thank you for your post Cliff. It calms my heart.
That's all, thank you.