Baptist Hermeneutics

[Dave G]

Nornally hamburgers.

What about Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding a deacon as being the husband to one wife? Does this exclude a divorced man from being a deacon? Does a deacon have to be married?

I'll tell you what mine do...

A deacon cannot be the husband of more than one wife.
As believers, we are "married" to Christ ( Ephesians 5:22-33 ), not the devil ( 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 ).

As examples to the flock, deacons should then mirror this "marriage"... and if they are divorced ( and the original wife still lives ) then he should not take the office.
If his original wife is dead, then the divorce matters not at all, as he is now a widow in God's eyes.

Does a deacon specifically have to be married?
I would say "no".

Why?
Going by the text, Stephen wasn't.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

This is interesting, I was told by an exegete to start with "context, context, context." I am discovering how different the bible is to what I thought on my own going verse by verse. Combined with topical study, concordance, commentaries, cross references, and study of the original languages the bible is really opened up.

 

[JonC]

I'll tell you what mine do...

A deacon cannot be the husband of more than one wife.
As believers, we are "married" to Christ ( Ephesians 5:22-33 ), not the devil ( 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 ).

As examples to the flock, deacons should then mirror this "marriage"... and if they are divorced ( and the original wife still lives ) then he should not take the office.
If his original wife is dead, then the divorce matters not at all, as he is now a widow in God's eyes.

Does a deacon specifically have to be married?
Going by the text, Stephen wasn't.

I believe it a prohibition against polygamy.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Oh, and that exegete taught me the danger of narci-gesis, of reading yourself into the bible. No we aren't David or Moses, we are Christians following Jesus Christ our Savior from our sins.

 

[Dave G]

No we aren't David or Moses, we are Christians following Jesus Christ our Savior from our sins.

So were they.

Mere men doing the will of God, and who had God's favor upon them.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

So were they.

Mere men doing the will of God, and who had God's favor upon them.

I get what you are saying. Yeah that is true. What I said is more of a warning to those looking to slay their next "Goliath," of those saying there is a David anointing, or those turning Moses burning bush into something for everyday Christians.

 

[Alan Gross]

Good point.
What do your "internal hermeneutics" dictate?

David and Jon C,

In the portion of Scripture, below, is the woman in this passage said to be the first man's wife?

Or, in verse 24:4, does it say that the woman can not again be his wife?


Deuteronomy 24
King James Version (KJV)

24:1; When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

...

When the man, above, did not have a wife, how many wifes did he have?

None.

...

The misconception regarding:

What about Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding a deacon as being the husband to one wife? Does this exclude a divorced man from being a deacon? Does a deacon have to be married?

...involves a denial of John Chapter 8, also, if a misunderstanding of:

"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." Matthew 5:32

" except for the cause of fornication" is a broad term for various sexual sin.

Matthew 5:32, saying except for the cause of fornication is Jesus Saying Fornication may result in the guilty party losing their Married Partner.

The person in Matthew 5:32 that was divorced and committeth adultery was divorced without the cause of fornication and then, therefore, weren't officially divorced, as Jesus Puts it, and so, afterward does commit adultery, because they are still Married.


The implied reading of this portion: "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Matthew 5:32

...would be..."and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, who was not really divorced by the Criteria of The Law Giver of The New Testament, Who Said, "except for the cause of fornication"... "committeth adultery."

...

Paul later added clarification of "if the unbelieving depart"...

Well, what are we as Human Beings to 'assume' will take place in the life of the person who departed?

Will they commit adultery?

Do we know for sure?

Do we have to know for sure?

Not according to Paul.

If they are gone, they are gone and the Marriage is over.

...

Moses, Jesus on every occasion and Paul each made the indication clear that 'fornication', sexual sin' could result in the loss of a mate, in divorce,

and Deuteronomy 24:4; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife,

.... "except for the cause of fornication"

...and, "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." I Corinthians 7:15,

... all mean the same thing.

When fornication is involved, that is The Criteria of The Law Giver, for two previously Married Individuals to no longer be Married.

...

Now, watch this.

What do we do with I Corinthians 7:39, then?

"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."

Do you see the word, 'law' in there the same as I do?

Who Makes The Law?

The Criteria of The Lord Jesus Christ, The Law Giver of The New Testament, Said, "except for the cause of fornication"

...

What about Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding a deacon as being the husband to one wife?

Polygamy had been 'a thing' and Jesus Indicates that that is NOT what He has wanted, "from The Beginning".

Does the deacon have two wives or more?

They are disqualified from Office.


Does this exclude a divorced man from being a deacon?

Not according to God, unless the divorce was not a divorce, for cause.

The divorced man has no wife.

Does a deacon have to be married?

This is up to the Congregation and there certainly would be a lot of issues avoided, by a deacon 'looking for a wife', or dating several, etc.

However, that is psychology and not a Rule by The Law Giver.

Avoid all appearance of evil.

But, that is up to the Congregation.

I Timothy 3: includes wisdom in the suggestion of the deacon being Married; "10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well".

...

 

[Dave G]

David and Jon C,

In the portion of Scripture, below, is the woman in this passage said to be the first man's wife?

Or, in verse 24:4, does it say that the woman can not again be his wife?

Alan,
Perhaps starting a thread on this would be better?

I also seem to remember this subject coming up recently.

With respect to this thread...
According to "Baptist Hermeneutics", what is the correct answer?

 

[1689Dave]

Biblical Hermeneutics has been called the science of Biblical Interpretation. There are some things regarding Baptist Bible Interpreation which sets Baptist interpreation unique to Baptists. And then there are the eclectic interpretations in which individuals differ in interpretations of texts.

There are in distiction from Baptist Hermeneutics: Romans Catholic, Orthodox Church, Protestant, when it comes to interpreting passages of Holy Scripture.

Typically there is an eisegtical character to interpretations as opposed to their exegetical base which all good Biblcal interpreations have. Which sets an interpration apart from what the interpretated text actaully says.

So where there are Hermeneutical disagreements as to an interpreation of a text, it comes down to between eisegetical reading into the text versus the exegetical basis of an interpretation.

This issue is the identifying difference.

There is a broad range of issues of interpretation where this occurs.

It's hard to not eisegete the bible. And I believe it's an acquired discipline to make sure we don't.

 

[37818]

You need to tighten up this sentence. It makes little sense.

You cited two sentences. So which one does not make sense?

Typically there is an eisegtical character to interpretations as opposed to their exegetical base which all good Biblcal interpreations have.

Which sets an interpration apart from what the interpretated text actaully says.

 

[37818]

You would have to spell out your definition of 'an eisegtical (sp?) character to interpretations' as opposed to their 'exegetical base', for some to begin to fight you on a level playing field.

Typo, should be "eisegetical." Which means to read one's interpretation "into" the meaning of the text. A correctly interpreted text which has a valid "exegetical base," an interprtation actually "from" the text, may seem to others which think they disagree with it, it may seem to them to be "eisegetical."

 

[37818]

Personally, I find it strange that the understanding of God's word gets lumped into types of "hermeneutics", . . .

There are many Christian groups which are non-Baptistic. There interpretations of the Bible are often much different from what would be the Baptist view point.

 

[37818]

Primarily, as we would not see God citing in OT "out of Egypt called my Son" as referring to Jesus and not Israel, but Matthrew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit tied that into life of Christ!

Actually Hosea 11:1 which Matthew cites, Hosea is making references to Israel which God figuratively called His son, "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. . . ." ". . . . Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: . . ." -- Exodus 4:22. Now our Christ was in the loins of Israel (Genesis 3:15). And was literally called out of Egypt according to the Law (Hebrews 10:1; Matthew 2:15; Luke 2:39).

 

[Alan Gross]

Alan,
Perhaps starting a thread on this would be better?

I also seem to remember this subject coming up recently.

With respect to this thread...
According to "Baptist Hermeneutics", what is the correct answer?

What's that question, again?

I have chased a rabbit.

(I got 'em, but that is beside the point)

Thus, the point was supposed to be...?

 

[Alan Gross]

It's hard to not eisegete the bible. And I believe it's an acquired discipline to make sure we don't.

Yes, the generic Wiki says,

"Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held agenda."

Here's a 'Hemenutical Rule':

It' called, 'being honest with Scripture'.

That 'Rule' is so difficult as to actually be impossible.

The human flesh is full of:
" presuppositions, agendas or biases".

Thus, the heart of all of us, as sinners, must be crucified and taken out of the equation.

That is where Jon C mentioned our fleshly mind.

The Holy Spirit must be Called Upon and Invoked for a True Understanding.

Then, a thread on various HERMINUTICAL Thoughts and Principals would be great, too.

VERY BIG TIME IMPORTANT VALUABLE STUFF!!!

The Bible verses must all agree with one another is a powerful principal.

The issues of man's thinking being Overridden by The God of The Universe, in The Bible, is O. K., and Glorious.

 

[Alan Gross]

You cited two sentences. So which one does not make sense?

Just put a small 'w' on 'which', with a comma before it, if Grammerly will let you, and let it rip.

The two sentences become a complete compound, without any run-on, and makes two perfectly complete thoughts.

Latin is where Schoolmarms came up with 'not beginning or ending a sentence with a preposition, but English Literature and usage does not bare it out, for English.

In English, it is perfectly exceptable to 'end a sentence using a preposition', although we hear otherwise, from uneducated schoolmarms, so to speak, that somehow borrowed that junk from Latin usage.

I had years of Latin, French, Hebrew, and Greek, and was taught the King's North American Proper English in Upstate New York, but that just means, like with The Bible, I am barely acquainted with them, as a beginner, every day, and just make a go of it.

Defining you terminology was probably the principal determinant to conveying your fine insight.

 

[Alan Gross]

There are many Christian groups which are non-Baptistic. There interpretations of the Bible are often much different from what would be the Baptist view point.

The idea of, 'a system of interpretation', is of interest in all this.

Let's say that I begin with 'a system of interpretation' that has as it's premise, "there are some good, yeah, that's right".

Will I gleen a rational gem of any kind from The Bible that God would have me to understand?

Nah.

So, recognizing our presuppositions is essential to find what God has for us.

Our 'beliefs' need to be acknowledged, so that an alternative can be brought under consideration.

If I demand that Revelation be read straight through and never consider that God may have Revelation Composed into seven overlapping layers, which Reine rate His UnVailing of Spiritual Realities, in progressively more depth and detail, will I ever see like a seer?

Nope.

We always have to check ourselves.

Gill does that, as a rule, by lining out any number of possible meanings that folks have brought to a text and then weighing most God Honoring.

That is something he does, which is Valuable, for the sake of HONESTY.....

 

[MB]

Biblical Hermeneutics has been called the science of Biblical Interpretation. There are some things regarding Baptist Bible Interpreation which sets Baptist interpreation unique to Baptists. And then there are the eclectic interpretations in which individuals differ in interpretations of texts.

There are in distiction from Baptist Hermeneutics: Romans Catholic, Orthodox Church, Protestant, when it comes to interpreting passages of Holy Scripture.

Typically there is an eisegtical character to interpretations as opposed to their exegetical base which all good Biblcal interpreations have. Which sets an interpration apart from what the interpretated text actaully says.

So where there are Hermeneutical disagreements as to an interpreation of a text, it comes down to between eisegetical reading into the text versus the exegetical basis of an interpretation.

This issue is the identifying difference.

There is a broad range of issues of interpretation where this occurs.

What is proper interpretation. Is it something some highly educated guy says it is. When scripture clearly says ;
1Pe_2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
So why would you need some one else to tell you how to understand? I rely totally on God giving me what I need to understand. I thought only Catholics needed someone to tell them the truth if they don't understand. I have to tell you that confusion is a work of the devil. I suggest when you are confused. Pray for understanding Men will only mislead you when they get the chance.
MB

 

[Alan Gross]

What is proper interpretation. Is it something some highly educated guy says it is. When scripture clearly says ;
1Pe_2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
So why would you need some one else to tell you how to understand? I rely totally on God giving me what I need to understand. I thought only Catholics needed someone to tell them the truth if they don't understand. I have to tell you that confusion is a work of the devil. I suggest when you are confused. Pray for understanding Men will only mislead you when they get the chance.
MB

The person in I Peter 2:6 that is said to not be confounded in Jesus, or ashamed of Jesus, is a Saved soul.

Is that what you are wanting to say?

Certainly a 'historical belief', or an 'agreement they exist', in the same way as 'believing' Christopher Columbus was a real person, isn't what you are saying is it.

In order to 'acquire Salvstion', by mentally 'believing'.

I hope not.

The 'believeth' on Him has to do with those who have already been Saved.

...

This is a commentator.

Do you get the same types of 5hongs out of this verse that he does?

"behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious;
Christ is here called a chief corner stone, as in ( Ephesians 2:20 )

because he not only adorns and strengthens the building, but unites the parts, and keeps them together, even all the saints, Jews or Gentiles, in all ages and places, whether in heaven or earth;

and he, as such, is chosen of God for that purpose, and is precious both to God and man, on that account; and is a stone, not of men's laying,

but of God's laying in His Council, Covenant,
Promises,
and Prophecies,
in the mission of Hm into this world,
and in the Gospel ministry;

the place where He is Laid is in Sion, the Gospel church*, of which He is both the Foundation and Corner Stone:

and this account is introduced with a "behold", it being something very wonderful, and worthy of attention: to which is added,

he that believeth on him shall not be confounded:
or "ashamed"; of the Foundation and Cornerstone Christ, nor of his faith in Him;

and he shall not be confounded by men or devils, neither in this world, nor in that to come;

he shall have confidence before Christ, and not be ashamed at His Coming;

he shall be safe now, being laid on this stone; nor shall he be removed from it, or intimidated by any enemy, so as to flee from it; nor shall he make haste, as it is in ( Isaiah 28:16 ) to lay another foundation;

and he shall be found upon this hereafter; so that his person and state will be safe, though many of his works may be burnt up."

*The Bible usage and meaning in every instance 'church' is Written, defines 'church', as a 'called out assembly' and there is never any other definition used, or given, or indicated in any way, in The Bible.

In the Architectural medipuor off a 'building' that Jesus 'built', which is Jesus' Kind of assembled church congregation, as a Divinely Instituted Corporate Entity, Jesus is 'The Cheif Cornerstone'.

Any other religious, or social Bible get together, or corporation, that has a man as it's founder, or head, is not God's.

Referencing and reviewing the thoughts of Godly commentators doesn't hurt anyone.

1 Peter 2:6 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

 

[37818]

What is proper interpretation. Is it something some highly educated guy says it is. When scripture clearly says ;
1Pe_2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
So why would you need some one else to tell you how to understand? I rely totally on God giving me what I need to understand. I thought only Catholics needed someone to tell them the truth if they don't understand. I have to tell you that confusion is a work of the devil. I suggest when you are confused. Pray for understanding Men will only mislead you when they get the chance.
MB

Unless there is a problem with the base text (a known variant) or with the translation, it should be simply understood to mean what it plainly says.