-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
1 Timothy 3:12
- Thread starter DeclareHim
- Start date
paidagogos
Active Member
No, I disagree. It does relate to divorce. See my comments in an earlier posting on this thread regarding the marriage covenant between man and wife. A divorced man is no longer a "one-woman man" thus disqualifying him from the pastorate.
So you disagree. It still has nothing to do with divorce. It is a shiboleth created by the same preachers who made up a host of other rules and regs for "good" christians.
Read the Greek. Stephanos 1555 (underlying AV)
mias = one
gunaikos = woman
andra = male
That's it. 3 simple words. You can disagree but you can't change it. Paul could have been inspired to add other words, make divorce the issue, etc, but was not so led.
Sorry.
Read the Greek. Stephanos 1555 (underlying AV)
mias = one
gunaikos = woman
andra = male
That's it. 3 simple words. You can disagree but you can't change it. Paul could have been inspired to add other words, make divorce the issue, etc, but was not so led.
Sorry.
Greg Linscott
<img src =/7963.jpg>
I didn't want to jump in on the topic, since I don't really feel confident enough yet to defend my views. However, as I have been studying this issue, I was listening to a series of Sunday School lessons by a well-known pastor here in New England, and he offered the explanations of the text that have made the most sense to me on the divorce issue. His points were very well-presented and Biblically supported over a long period of time, so please keep that in mind as I present them in succinct form to you here:
</font>
Anyway, not sure if these are radical new ideas, but I hadn't seen or heard them before, and thought you might find them interesting.
PS: if you want information on where to get these very interesting Sunday School lesson tapes, PM me on the board. I think you'd enjoy them, agree or not.
</font>
- On the porneia issue, he argued that Christ was referring specifically to "illegal" or immoral marriages, such as the one Herod and Herodias had entered into, that were based on an inherently flawed immoral foundation. Other examples might by today's "same sex" marriages, incestuous relationships, and so on. In the context of the passage in Matthew, he argues that the Pharisees and Saducees were trying to trap Jesus into death or discredit. Getting him to side with the school that said divorce was permissible under any circumstance for any reason would surely weaken his credibility among the orthodox, and getting him to publicly condemn divorce would lead to the same fate his cousin had just met (John the Baptist's beheading for condemning Herod's marriage to Herodias).
Instead of taking one side or the other, however, he argues that Christ instead strengthened the OT by arguing marriage was always intended by God to be permanent, and that God only allowed for divorce in the cases of immoral or "illegal" marriages. Since it was clearly wrong for him to marry his brother's wife under the circumstances he did, this pastor argues that Christ was saying that divorce was not only permitted, but necessary in compliance with God's moral law. For OT precedent, he offers Ezra 10, where God through Ezra commands the men of Israel to "put away" or divorce their pagan wives (He also establishes here that it is not divorce that is the sin, but sin that leads to divorce). Otherwise, he argues that biblical marriage is always a lifetime covenant (Side note: the pastor further argues that this is why, in Matthew 19:10, the disciples were amazed- they saw this as being very difficult standard to hold to).</font> - A Christian is permitted to divorce their spouse if their unbelieving spouse has left them (1 Cor. 7).</font>
- By application of Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 7, if a Christian spouse leaves another Christian spouse, is confronted, and refuses to repent, he is to be treated as an unsaved person. Divorce is then permissable (although not ideal).</font>
- He also submits the teaching of 1 Cor. 7:7-9 (the "unmarried") to specifically be referring to a legitimately divorced person. His argument is that the other possible categories (widow, virgin) are clearly identified. He then argues that remarriage after divorce is permissable, provided that the other biblical steps have been precisely followed.</font>
- Finally, he argues that divorced individuals should not be pastors or deacons, but not on the basis of the "one-woman man" argument. Rather, it is on the qualifications of good reputation and ruling your house well (also found in 1 Timothy 3).</font>
Anyway, not sure if these are radical new ideas, but I hadn't seen or heard them before, and thought you might find them interesting.
PS: if you want information on where to get these very interesting Sunday School lesson tapes, PM me on the board. I think you'd enjoy them, agree or not.
paidagogos
Active Member
Aw...come on Dr. Bob. Don't trot out the Greek on me. You're savvy enough to know my argument has nothing to do with the grammar. It's theological. Look at the theology of covenants and the marriage covenant in particular. Look at the covenantal connection here. Biblical truth is not always contained in some esoteric rendering of the Greek. Sometimes, language tools and grammar may be helpful in shaping the theology and arriving at the truth but it is overblown and too often used as a crutch. Since I'm not contesting semantics, please explain the purpose of this passage and exactly what Paul is saying then. Again, my argument is theological, not grammatical. The ball's in your court. Deal with my argument, not Greek grammar.
Well,the only thing I want to add is that no translation can change the mind of God concerning this. A man of one wife is simply what God said. If any man thinks is one wife at a time or a divorcee can marry another wife, all may be saying these to suit thier self desire but I want to add a man with one wife is what God said and that is the final. May be this will now makes to share what God told about marriage when I was seeking Him for a girl to marry.I will do tis later
I Jamiu. Not saying this for "own desire". I have been married 34 years to my first wife. But also not reading in EXTRA to the Scripture.
It says NOTHING about divorce. If it means only one wife, period, then every preacher who is NOT married or whose wife has died and he REmarried is sinning.
Stick with what God said, not the English translation and sermons of preachers.
It says NOTHING about divorce. If it means only one wife, period, then every preacher who is NOT married or whose wife has died and he REmarried is sinning.
Stick with what God said, not the English translation and sermons of preachers.
Debby in Philly
Active Member
Then Paul was wrong for not ever marrying?
paidagogos
Active Member
Much pabulum regarding 1 Timothy 3:2 has wasted bandwidth on this thread with such opinions as “I feel” on the lower end to “I believe” or “I think” at a somewhat higher level. However, only one, Dr. Bob Griffin, has attempted to support opinion with reasons and exegesis. Even Dr. Bob is deficient in the brevity of his analysis by leaving out some of the most important factors. Dr. Bob, no doubt, is of the grammatico-historical school of interpretation. On the other hand, he stresses the language to the detriment of the historical aspect and he completely ignores the theological and teleological aspects. This is sheer folly since language changes with historical context. Even in the present context, there is much latitude for debate about modern language and sense (e.g. Stanley Fish and the “deconstructionist school” think the author doesn’t know what he has written and the reader doesn’t know what the author has written until the reader assigns meaning to it. So, we have the Sokel Affair!). Considering that scholars for umpteen years did not know that Classical and Kione Greek were different, it would logically follow that there are many things, especially the fine points, in the Kione about which we are uncertain and ignorant.
However, our argument with Dr. Bob is not as much about language technicalities as the meaning of the syntax. On the other hand, there is sufficient warrant to argue that the part he literally translates “one woman man” could be better translated “one wife husband” in the context and sense of the passage. There are many passages where the translation of aner and gunaikeios are properly translated in the context and sense as husband (e.g. Matt. 1:16, Gal. 4:27, 1 Cor. 7:2, John 4:16, Acts 5:9, Eph. 5:33, Mk. 10:12) and wife (Titus 1:6, Eph. 5:23, Matt. 19:10, Lk. 3:19, Lk. 17:32, Acts 5:2) respectively. IMHO, it is a better and more accurate translation to use husband and wife where the martial relationship is obviously indicated, although I do know of one exception. The Greek words aner and gunaikeios can mean man and woman respectively but they also can mean husband and wife depending on the context. These are both boarder and narrower meanings where the inclusiveness depends on the subject and context.
However, our argument is not about trivial language technicalities so we will for the sake of the debate accept Dr. Bob’s translation of “one woman man.” Rather, we are concerned about what “one woman man” means. To determine this, we must first look at the context and ask what is the purpose of this passage? Obviously, Paul is setting forth the qualifications of a pastor (bishop or overseer. To set qualifications is to presuppose that some are qualified and some are not. Note that there are several other qualifications other than the “one woman man.” It is passing strange that this is the one qualification that gets the flack whereas the others are generally ignored by both sides.
Some would make the interpretation as narrow and restrictive as to stipulate that marriage is required for the pastor. This makes about as much sense as requiring celibacy. There is nothing in the context to indicate this view. If the pastor must be married, then he must also have children because v. 4 requires that he have his children in subjection. Strictly following this reasoning, he would have to father at least two offspring since children is plural. Off hand, we can dismiss this as fallacious reasoning and a faulty hermeneutic.
Dr. Bob is technically correct in stating that the passage is not dealing with divorce because it is dealing with a much broader issue including polygamy, adultery, divorce, etc. Historically, we realize that this was written in an immoral society and culture, perhaps very similar to our own pagan society. Many people, much like today, were involved with polygamy, adultery, and divorce. This created a tremendous practical problem when these people were saved and came into the church. What do you tell a man who has three wives and gets saved? Do you advise abandonment of two women? It is similar to a dilemma faced by a friend of mine who pastors a church in intercity Baltimore. An unmarried woman, who was living with her lover and the father of her three children, was saved and began to grow in Christ. She came to my friend, her pastor, for advice about her immoral relationship. Her boyfriend was still lost and didn’t want to get married. What do you say? Where are your Scriptural guidelines now?
Note that the qualifications of a pastor deal with testimony and reputation both within and without the church. Three spiritual truths are represented and brought together here in the pastor’s marriage relationship. First, there is identification from a theological standpoint of the undershepherd, the pastor, with the Chief Shepherd whom he serves (1 Peter 5:1-4). It is imperative that this pastor has a good testimony both within and without the congregation. Second, there is the depiction of the Christ-church relationship in the husband-wife relationship (Eph. 5:22-33). Considering the marriage relationship as picturing the relation of Christ to His church, the polygamous, adulterous, or divorced man is not qualified as a pastor or deacon since his martial circumstances presents a distorted image of Christ and His church. This is not to say that he cannot be forgiven and in fellowship with God but rather he is not qualified for the position. In fact, Dr. Bob—I wish he would be more specific and detailed in his posts—may be intimating that a man is further disqualified from the pastorate or deaconship if his relationship to his one wife does not fit the Biblical pattern. If so, I agree especially in light that Scripture specifically demands a proper father relationship and authority toward his children (v.4). Third, marriage is all about a covenant, not a sexual relationship (I know, I know, this is contrary to the modern mind but it is Biblical. Mary and Joseph were married before they had a sexual relationship.). Nevertheless, illicit sexual relationships as well as polygamy and divorce violate the marriage covenant. Marriage is a covenantal bond that shows something of our covenantal affiliation with God. Violation of this marital covenant makes a distorted statement of the believer’s covenantal union with God. How can a divorced pastor or polygamous pastor or adulterous pastor properly portray in his marriage the covenantal connection to God?
In sum, the qualification of a “one woman man” precludes any divorced, polygamous, or adulterous* man from meeting the Biblical qualifications for a pastor.
*Note: There is a distinct difference here, I think, between adultery specifically and the more general immorality of fornication since sexual immorality before marriage, especially many times before salvation, does not necessarily involve the marriage covenant. This is debatable.
paidagogos
Active Member
Yes, but God didn't say that--you did. This passage doesn't necessarily teach that a pastor is required to be married anymore than it stipulates that he must have children (at least 2) in verse 4. It is simply a faulty inference drawn by reading one's own presupposition into Scripture. There's no brute statement of required marriage even in your own grammar and translation. It just ain't there.
paidagogos
Active Member
Yes, they do but not with the exactitude that some think. Furthermore, words change with time and context. Witness our own English language. Context is the key. Taken in isolation from context, words lose meaning. For example, capsule can mean a pill you swallow or a space vehicle depending upon the context. Words made of sound vocalizations have no magic contrary to the Word of Faith guys. There ain't no Baptist mantra.
If we don't have exactitude in language - with words having specific meaning (in the historical/grammatical context of course) - we are left adrift and without an absolute guide.
Whether the text is male/husband or female/wife is not consequential. If your translation said a one-wife husband I would not balk.
The question, of course, is what "one wife/woman man" means in the qualification list. The problems are manifest.
If I am not married, I am a "no-wife" man.
If I am widowed and remarried, I am a "two-wife" man.
If I'm Ruckman and divorced a couple of women and married another, I am a "three-wife" man.
These suppositions are not reading "into" the text, just taking it at face value.
So which is the "proper" interpretation?
A bishop then must be:
blameless,
the husband of one wife,
vigilant,
sober,
of good behavior,
given to hospitality,
apt to teach;
etc
Nothing in this verse (or list) would indicate that a man MUST be married. Nothing that he MUST not have remarried as a widower.
But polygamy and divorce WOULD be indicated by both the words "blameless" and "good behavior". Interpretations including those would have contextual support.
Whether the text is male/husband or female/wife is not consequential. If your translation said a one-wife husband I would not balk.
The question, of course, is what "one wife/woman man" means in the qualification list. The problems are manifest.
If I am not married, I am a "no-wife" man.
If I am widowed and remarried, I am a "two-wife" man.
If I'm Ruckman and divorced a couple of women and married another, I am a "three-wife" man.
These suppositions are not reading "into" the text, just taking it at face value.
So which is the "proper" interpretation?
A bishop then must be:
blameless,
the husband of one wife,
vigilant,
sober,
of good behavior,
given to hospitality,
apt to teach;
etc
Nothing in this verse (or list) would indicate that a man MUST be married. Nothing that he MUST not have remarried as a widower.
But polygamy and divorce WOULD be indicated by both the words "blameless" and "good behavior". Interpretations including those would have contextual support.
I was reading last week something from early church history that said the early church understood "husband of one wife" to even disqualify a widower who re-married. Can't remember the source now, though.
Great post, paidagogos. I was coming here to post this thought: If I Tim. 3:2 & 12 should be translated one woman man, should Eph. 5:22 be translated, "Women submit yourselves to your own men as unto the Lord, for the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the church"? But read your post that addressed that foolishness very well.
Great post, paidagogos. I was coming here to post this thought: If I Tim. 3:2 & 12 should be translated one woman man, should Eph. 5:22 be translated, "Women submit yourselves to your own men as unto the Lord, for the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the church"? But read your post that addressed that foolishness very well.
paidagogos
Active Member
I agree especially when we are talking about God's choice of words as in Scripture. However, the rub is that we, as modern humans, don't know and fully understand with extactitude the full historical-culture factor. In fact, we have problems in communicating between subcultures within a culture and even in our subculture. Yankees and Southerners have difficulty understanding one another. Words have denotation and connotation. How can you know the connotative content of Kione Greek when we weren't around when it was the common language? In fact, we use smiley faces, etc. today in the computer age to show the connotation. The facial expressions, tone, etc. that give meaning to words are missing in written language. So, some content is irretrievably lost whenever words are written.
It just occurred to me that we really don't have exactitude if we have degrees of uncertainty about the text. According to a corrupted text theory, is there any word or even verse that we can point to and say with 100% certainty, this was in the originals? There is always a slight, although very slight, possibility of corruption in the first copy of the original autograph. Disturbing thought? Huh?
Check again. NIV reads "husband of but one wife" and all have explanatory notes noting the rendering could be different. Cf the NIV at 1 Tim 5:9, where the phrasing is the same, only talking about a one-man woman. </font>[/QUOTE]The NIV will read difrently from publisher, to publisher, because it is copyrighted, and each publisher must make canges to print thier own copyright version, this is why I like King James Version.
Interesting. Consider:
Is this passage injurious to the nature of marriage? Then how can a divorce be injurious to the covenant established by Christ? One does not logically or hermeneutically lead to the other. I am not advocating a haphazard testimony to the world. I am simply saying that we hear much about the marriage element, but nothing of how being a poor father to the children would extraordinarily damage the covenental picture of the fatherhood of God, nor of being a poor influence would violate any of God's attributes.
So theoretically, a man with a lurid sex life before marriage is somehow not quite as bad as, say, a man with a singular indiscretion after marriage? Again, theoretically.
I don't see where he did this. Can you be more specific where this has happened?
Yes, but words written by the Biblical authors do not go through an evolution in terms of their original meaning. There was a meaning to the receptor. That meaning is timeless. The application of that meaning now and in the future may differ, but the timelessness of receptor meaning is nothing we want to tamper with. To do so is to attack the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible at whim.
This is an interesting discussion. I look forward to more engaging discussion.
