Position on translations leads to....

OK, after study I've changed my view.

My mistake was that I was basing the qualifications of this office on the basis of salvation. This is incorrect, the qualifications are for an office and for that only.

Paul states:

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Here I misunderstood "blameless" as a form of "washed of sin" / "sinless". Now I believe this to mean, beyond reproach. Paul is setting these qualifications up so that these leaders are to be a good example to all the church.

Now do I think a congregation of divorced people shouldn't have a pastor, no. The best quailfied based on Paul's list should be selected.

This is a VERY tough group of passages...

I used Matthews Commentary, Wilmington's Guide to the Bible, an interlinear, Believer's Commentary and The Defender's Study Bible.

I think The Defender's Study Bible sums it up in the most concise way:

Both Bishops and Deacons must be monogamous and permanent in their marriages, in accord with God's primeval command, as reinforced by Christ (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:3-8)

Here's a link to a few views:

Christian Answers

Looks like you had it right Sue.



><> ><> ><> ><>

Evg. Dave
http://www.praisechrist.org

 

A man remains married to one wife even after her death. So I'd say a widowed elder can remain in his position. As far as a remarried elder, Paul talks about a widow's remarriage:

1 Corinthians 7
8   I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9   But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

It appears an elder that cannot contain should remarry, should he still lead? Maybe he will be too busy with his new life? Only God knows why he laid down the qualifications.

Something that caught my eye from the previous link I posted:
"not all people are to be eligible for leadership roles but that this in no way should eliminate them from other sorts of ministry."

That quote could open up a whole can of worms for another discussion of what is seen in the pulpit of some churches!

 

Going back to the original passage from Timothy "husband of one wife".

I worded my previous response wrong. (I had to rewrite my whole response last time. The screen went crazy putting spaces like someone was laying on the keyboard.)

Anyway, I shouldn't have written he remains married. He doesn't remain married, he is still the husband of one wife though. Meaning he was never married twice, that's the message I get.

So there really isn't a need for you to refer to my interpretation as a notion. No need get nasty.... You won't loose your salvation over this one friend.



><> ><> ><> ><>

Evg. Dave

 

Alcott, I agree with you to a point. However, I am one who has always preferred the familiar in most situations (like the old English system of measurement), but yet I am not one to hold to tradition. I feel there is a difference between the famliiar (that with which we feel comfortable) and tradition (that which we do because it is "the right thing to do"). I often wear blue jeans to church, but they are not ratty jeans with holes in them. And even though I attend a church where the pastor and many of the church members are of the KJV Only stance, I often carry my Ryrie Study Bible in the NKJV (inside a Bible cover to avoid controversy).

It is always so hard to make certain things fit nicely within a certain niche. There are, I am sure, many who are KJV Only when it comes to Bible versions but who are otherwise very open to changes around them. Likewise, I am sure there are those who prefer modern Bible versions (NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc.) but who resist most kinds of change with a passion.

That's my two cents...