The "One-Woman Man" - Who is He?

So, if a Roman man who was saved and came to the Lord but had several concubines with children, what would be his responsibility in light of 1 Timothy Chapter 3?

HankD

 

The phrase “one woman man” (whether an accurate translation or not) still means exactly what it says! A man cannot separate from his wife (i.e. his “one woman”) and then pick up with another woman and refer to the new woman as his “one woman.”

The new woman, by definition, would be his “second woman” (or third, or fourth, etc). The LORD himself addressed this in a similar situation (John 4: 16-18).

latterrain77

[ September 11, 2002, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

I don’t know much about Greek and Hebrew. However, I wish to comment on your questions relating to the requirements stated in I Timothy 3 about a bishop and a deacon having one wife. I am a deacon at the First Baptist Church of Kingsland, TX. This item seems to come up each time we have a new selection of deacons. To make it very clear at the very beginning, I believe the Bible has been preserved for us this many years so that we may understand God’s word.
When the Bible says “one wife” in I Timothy 3, I believe it applies to married men who have never been divorced. I also rationalize that this was a requirement for these two types of individuals so they would not be questioned in the future about their job - “being found blameless”. It is very clear to me that Jesus meant “no divorce - except for fornication” in any marriage. (Matt 3:31-32) Also (Matt
19:3-12) (Luke 16:16-18) I also believe that death is the termination of a marriage and a man or woman is free to marry again and is not included within the requirements for a bishop or deacon. (Ro 7: 1-3)
Although I Timothy chapter 3 is the Bible reference normally referred to in determining the requirements of a bishop (pastor) and deacon, Paul listed some of the requirements also in Titus 1:5-9. He also gives the reason for some of the requirements in the following verses.
I do not agree with your translation as a “one-woman man”. In specific response to your questions according to my understanding as “no divorce except for fornication”:
1. Yes. The requirement of no divorce does not apply because he has never been married.
2. Possibly. It depends on the reason for the previous divorce. (Fornication)
3. Probably not.
4. No. He would not have been found blameless if known by others.
5. Probably, however, this does not say he has not sinned.
6. Possibly. There are requirements for other members of the family other than the bishop or deacon.
7. I don’t think this question relates to the qualifications of a bishop or deacon as referred to in I Timothy 3, but to how we should treat others.

 

I guess that would be my opinion. A divorced man hasn't demonstrated that he can run a hosehold.

That includes me, BTW. A child out of wedlock means that I have not lived a life beyond reproach, and would disqualify me from being a pastor, or even a deacon. Any position with authority. Sorry to say.

 

But the verses you cited make the point about children. Are you backing away from your contention based on this verse? On the basis of these verses in the context of 1 Tim 3, if he has to have a wife, then to be consistent with the text, he has to have children. I was a single pastor for three years so to say that a "Pastor must have a wife" is clearly not true. Would you say that I was living in sin for three years because I did not have a wife? If so, on what scriptural basis do your relegate the "requirement" for children to a secondary status to the "requirement" for a wife?

[ September 12, 2002, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

latterrain writes...

What about a widower?

HankD

 

rlvaughn Thank you sir for brining these excellent questions to light. I was once fairly sure about this issue, until recently. This thread makes me think about it even more.

I am really enjoying this thread.

 

No one here is disputing whether or nothe text means exactly what it says. We all agree on that. What the disagreement is on is "What does the text say?" It says mias gunaikes andres, literally translated "one woman man." The implications of that are what are under discussion. No one has shown the phrase to refer to anything but a man's character. In fact, only one (maybe two) of the qualifications deal with anything other than character (able to teach, and a good manager).

 

Hi Hank D & Larry. Thank you for your comments. Hank D, Paul says a man who is loosed from his wife (widower) should remain single (1 Cor. 7: 27). However, in the next verse (v28), it says he may marry, but only as a last resort if he cannot restrain himself from fornication (verse 2). Often, widowers remarry because they are LONELY, not because they are fornicating.

The first part of verse 27 shows that the latter part of v27 ONLY applies to widowers. It cannot apply to a divorced man because the first part of v27 does not allow a man to divorce or separate from his living wife. If she is alive, he is BOUND to her. Only the death of the wife can provide for a remarriage, and the latter part of v27-28 explains the procedure under that circumstance.

In my view, the “second woman” would STILL be the second woman – even with a widower who might meet the criteria of a “clean” remarriage after the death of the first spouse. I say this because memories ARE alive. The LORD’s Supper proves this to be so (Luke 22: 19). The LORD has “died” and as HIS bride we remember HIM. Our earthly marriage mimics the heavenly one. I am not suggesting that a widower CANNOT - but he should only do so under the circumstances described.

Larry, you are correct. However, I sensed that some of the discussion was leaning towards the question of whether a “second woman” would be permissible, while the “one woman” was still alive. I do not believe this is ever possible in my understanding of what the Scripture says. My comments were not meant to change the subject, only to add to it. Thanks!

latterrain77

 

First, the KJV says "husband of one wife". It does not say "must have children". It does say that the children need to be in subjection. To me, that means, if you have rebels for children, you have failed to meet the requirements for a pastor.

Secondly, if you say "Pastor must have a wife is clearly not true", then God has done me a great disserevice by allowing me to have a lie in my bible. "...must be the husband of one wife".1Timothy 3:2 That is what the bible says.

Third, I am not the one to tell you that you were living in sin. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. But for me, I would only attend a church that had a married man for a pastor. That is MY conviction.

 

Several comments.

First, on 1 cor 7:27-28, I think it is talking about divorce by virtue of the parallel. If he is married, do not seek to be free (by divorce). If he is free, then do not seek to remarry but if he does he has not sinned. The second “free” should be interpreted the same as the first “free.” Therefore, I disagree with your exegesis of it.

Second, on kids. The qualifications list a one woman man who manages his children well. How can you say that he must be married without at the same time saying he must also have kids. If you say it only means that if he has kids, they must be under control, then I say it only means if he has a wife, he must have only one. In order to be consistent you cannot make a distinction between the necessity of it. Understanding mias gunaikes andres to be a one woman man solves the problem and brings all the qualifications into line on equal standing.

Mr. Curtis says, Secondly, if you say "Pastor must have a wife is clearly not true", then God has done me a great disserevice by allowing me to have a lie in my bible. "...must be the husband of one wife".1Timothy 3:2 That is what the bible says.. I still respond, I was a pastor without a wife so you cannot say that a pastor must have a wife. I am living proof that such is not true. It is not about a lie in your Bible. The most you can say is that a Pastor is living in sin if he does not have a wife. But even that is questionable. And for the record you misquoted Scripture (Remember Satan’s deadly ploy in the garden???? ). Scripture does not say "...must be the husband of one wife". It says, he must be blameless, the husband of one wife. Blameless is the overarching qualification; the rest are examples. Your standard would refuse Christ a position in his own church. It would refuse Paul a position in the churches. That simply is not consistent. I can testify to you that when I got married, the amount of time I could put into church work went down drastically. As Paul says, the one who is single cares for the things of the Lord; the one who is married cares for the things of his wife. I am not complaining, mind you. Simply stating that a single man has a great benefit in ministry.

On to Robert’s questions

It can be translated either way. I don’t think this is as great a point. I think “husband of one wife” makes my point just as well.

Again, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. But I think that to exclude single men or widowers would not be in keeping with the qualification of blamelessness.

I have wondered this myself. Perhaps tradition? I really don’t know. What does the ESV say here? They took a few avante garde translations in other places. I would be curious.

I still think the overall point is about the state of a man’s life in regard to women. The ideal that Paul is holding up is one man and one woman for one lifetime. That is what he says is normal. I do not think Paul was intending to make a categorical statement to narrow a set of parameters elsewhere permitted (such as singleness or death). Good questions that I do have time to do justice to. But I thought I would make a stab.

 

No offense P.L., but I'd rather read the KJV, and take it for what it says, than read 10000 scholars who tell me what it really says.

 

I am sorry you feel that way. Rather than putting your trust in what a group of scholars translate, I would study the text to see what Paul said and what he meant by that ... but then I am just silly that way I guess ...

Seriously, I think the KJV says exactly what I am saying. I think it is very plain, from theology, exegesis, church history, and practice. I see no need to change it. That is why I haven't.

 

Pastor Larry you said:

This is the second time you mentioned this in the discussion. I am just trying to get some clarification from you here. Why are you pointing to yourself as an example? There are many who are in the office of Pastor that are not holding to the biblical qualifications. Such as Ruckman. And a few women as well. So I guess I am not understanding how you are using yourself as proof of a qualified pastor?

Also another small clarification if you will:

Does your understanding of this passage then mean that a divorced person can remarry without sinning, and then if so, is it o.k. for that same person (if a man) can then resume office of Pastor?

Also, this is what the ESV says:

NET says: (if anyone is interested)

As a foot note, the NET says:

Thanks