1 Timothy 3:12

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by freeatlast:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DeclareHim:
I agree with Gary Blake I mean if the KJV says "husband of one wife" and "ruling there on houses well" then obviosly they cannot be divorced.

Like I said it does not say husband of one wife. The translators changed that to read that way. it says one woman man. You can be the husband of one wife and not be a one woman man. The text is much stricter then just speaking about being married to one woman. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh? Please explain and substantiate. Please don’t be so esoteric with your knowledge. Thanks.

 

[amixedupmom]

-butts in-

The reason that we are having a view issue on this is for this reason.

It's not plain.

It says the Husband of one wife. It dosen't say, the husband of one wife now or only the husband of one wife for life. There are many extreme circumstances in our lives that might apply to this.

Also you have to look at the time period in which this text was written. It was back when people had multiple wives. Many MANY wives. I beleive that this was meant to stop this, not to stop people from getting out of very distructive realtionships.

This is something we will be debating for all time, until we get to heaven and can ask him ourselves.


God Bless

 

[Marcia]

Posted by Freeatlast:
Like I said it does not say husband of one wife. The translators changed that to read that way. it says one woman man. You can be the husband of one wife and not be a one woman man. The text is much stricter then just speaking about being married to one woman.

My pastor has preached on this or referred to this passage several times. He always says it means "a one woman kind of man." He says that means a man committed to his wife, whose eye does not roam to other women, who does not flirt with or desire other women, but shows strong commitment to his wife and marriage. I can't recall whether he says this can be applied to single men or not.

 

[Brod Mon]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
i know a pastor that has added 1(wife) at a time to this verse but this same pastor gets up and preaches against the Modern Versions because they delete a few words or add a few i think this is hypocrisy since the he says the KJV is divinly inspired but yet he adds things to it. any thoughts

The verse is simply saying that a deacon or a pastor must not be immoral or adulterous because he must be a good example for the church and to unbelievers. A simple obedience to the commandment of God not to comment adultery and nothing else.

 

[GODzThunder]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Does that exclude singles?

I believe it does for one reason, an unmarried perosn cannot possibly comprehend two areas of family. 1. They cannot understand maritial problems and issues as they have not wife of their own, so they have no right to really give advice or cannot have a full empathy to those who are struggling with their marriages. 2. They have no concept of raising children, so they cannot give advice on rearing a child.
Actually a third is they cannot comprehend being the head of a household as they have no home but themselves, there is no responsibility nor is there limitations and disciplines that a husband and father must display.

I believe that both pastors and deacons must be married and have children that they may be living examples of the home to all.

 

[gb93433]

Much of what has been stated does not agree with Jesus' example of singleness and Pual's example nor what he wrote about singleness, divorce, and the death of a spouse. It also soes not agree with waas is written in the gospels about the reason for divorce. In the Bible it gives specific reasons that allow for divorce. If God does not condemn something then why should we.

I tend to think Paul and Jesus did quite a commendable job in ministry and making disciples.

 

[Artimaeus]

I always took it to mean he could not be a polygamist. If it just meant he was to be married, there is a perfectly good Greek word for married.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by freeatlast:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DeclareHim:
I agree with Gary Blake I mean if the KJV says "husband of one wife" and "ruling there on houses well" then obviosly they cannot be divorced.

Like I said it does not say husband of one wife. The translators changed that to read that way. it says one woman man. You can be the husband of one wife and not be a one woman man. The text is much stricter then just speaking about being married to one woman. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh? Please explain and substantiate. Please don’t be so esoteric with your knowledge. Thanks. </font>[/QUOTE]The word translated husband means "man"... and is translated that way by the KJV 156 times versus 50 times "husband".

The word translated wife means "woman"... and is translated that way 129 times versus 92 "wife".

Same as verse 2.

 

[rufus]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
A "one woman man" is the most literal English we could use in this passage....
That's what I am.

Me too!

 

[HankD]

"one woman man": The Roman Rule (the reigning empire at the time of Christ) was legally monogamous. Only one legal wife at a time.

However, concubines were also legal, allowed and were (as well as the resultant children) protected by law IF publicly accepted by the father at birth.

So, IMO, Paul used this phrase to exclude Roman citizens who, though they had only one wife, had legal concubines.

HankD

 

[amixedupmom]

Ok simple question ...


Explain how a man who is divorced is the man of two wives , when he has disolved that marriage?

when he is only committed to one, only vowing to one not two.

If the marriage is dissolved he is therefore responsible for himself no one else (unless children come from the first marriage) and he is free to marry again.

I'm not sure I understand this?

 

[TomVols]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
A "one woman man" is the most literal English we could use in this passage. Not one woman ever. Just one woman.

Yes. Ver correct. It's a shame our english translations don't do a better job of translating this passage.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by freeatlast:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DeclareHim:
I agree with Gary Blake I mean if the KJV says "husband of one wife" and "ruling there on houses well" then obviosly they cannot be divorced.

Like I said it does not say husband of one wife. The translators changed that to read that way. it says one woman man. You can be the husband of one wife and not be a one woman man. The text is much stricter then just speaking about being married to one woman. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh? Please explain and substantiate. Please don’t be so esoteric with your knowledge. Thanks. </font>[/QUOTE]The word translated husband means "man"... and is translated that way by the KJV 156 times versus 50 times "husband".

The word translated wife means "woman"... and is translated that way 129 times versus 92 "wife".

Same as verse 2. </font>[/QUOTE]We’re not playing Trivial Pursuit. So, what does this mean?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Lea:
Ok simple question ...


Explain how a man who is divorced is the man of two wives , when he has disolved that marriage?

when he is only committed to one, only vowing to one not two.

If the marriage is dissolved he is therefore responsible for himself no one else (unless children come from the first marriage) and he is free to marry again.

I'm not sure I understand this?

Marriage is a covenant of companionship for life. This was clearly God’s intention and will. (See Matthew 19:4-8, 6) That covenant is a picture of Christ and His church. (Ephesians 5:23ff, 32) To place a man in pastoral leadership who has violated the marriage covenant, which is a picture of the Christ-church relationship, disqualifies him for such a position. It’s not that he can’t be forgiven but it that he is no longer qualified for this particular ministry. Rationalizing it to be what you want it to be won’t wash. Moses was banned from entering the Promised Land because of his one act of disobedience. Divorce can ban a man from the pastorate.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Lea:
-butts in-

The reason that we are having a view issue on this is for this reason.

It's not plain.

It says the Husband of one wife. It dosen't say, the husband of one wife now or only the husband of one wife for life. There are many extreme circumstances in our lives that might apply to this.

Also you have to look at the time period in which this text was written. It was back when people had multiple wives. Many MANY wives. I beleive that this was meant to stop this, not to stop people from getting out of very distructive realtionships.

This is something we will be debating for all time, until we get to heaven and can ask him ourselves.


God Bless

I disagree. The Word of God is clear enough. The disciples found this to be a hard teaching and difficult to accept too(See Matthew 19). The Bible is clear enough but the problem is that we just don't want to accept this hard teaching since so many lives are messed up with divorce. Denying the teaching won't change God's mind. Jesus clearly stated God's original intentions or will for man and wife. It was to be purely monogamous. However, there can be forgiveness but even forgiven sin can carry disqualifications (e.g. Moses).

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Christ4Kildare:
I am very old fashioned on this issue I think it means "the husband of one" wife, not one at a time. Wouldn't that mean that he could have gone through a whole series, and even change wives while he was pastor/deacon?

I am not sure that you're being old-fashioned, just Biblical. From Christ's comments in Matthew, it would appear that divorce was given as a purely practical matter to prevent bigamy. On the other hand, divorce was never God's will for man and wife. Since marriage is a covenant picturing the relationship of Christ and His church, I am not sure that one can be entirely free from it. Divorce provides a legal standing for those who are willful and hardheaded but it may bear the consequences of willful disobedience much like Moses did. Then, there's the disobedience and wilfulness of Saul, David, Esau, etc.

Of course, one must consider the idea of a covenant and the dissolution of the same. After all, God's names allude to His covenant-keeping. The idea of a covenant and covenant-keeping is very important in considering marriage and divorce.

 

[dianetavegia]

I also believe scripture says a pastor can only have been married once except in the case of death of his spouse.

Not one at a time..... ONE.

Diane

 

[Dr. Bob]

Most of the question about pastors/divorce etc is from two BADLY TRANSLATED passages. If folks just read the Word apart from the AV1611, there might not be as much confusion.

Phrase one - "except for pornea (sexual immorality)" is given by our Lord and should be understood in EVERY CLAUSE of His teaching on divorce.

Read it "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,except it be for fornication, committeth adultery,except it be for fornication: and whoso marrieth her which is put away except it be for fornication, doth commit adultery.


Phrase two - "one-woman man" is simply that. One woman, as contrasted to two-women man or three-women man. Nothing to do with divorce.

 

[PastorGreg]

If "husband of one wife" is such a poor translation, how come all your beloved MV's translate it the same way? Just quickly checked NASB, NIV, and ESV and all say "Husband of one wife." Is it possible that's not such a bad translation after all and we are trying to change it to accommodate our culture?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Phrase one - "except for pornea (sexual immorality)" is given by our Lord and should be understood in EVERY CLAUSE of His teaching on divorce.

I don't think it's bad translation, but bad application. A married person who fornicates (commits pornea) is committing adultery. Those who MUST HAVE this word translated as "fornication" instead of "adultery" are splitting hairs.

Phrase two - "one-woman man" is simply that. One woman, as contrasted to two-women man or three-women man. Nothing to do with divorce.

Again, not a case of bad translation, just bad application. Some folks attempt to apply this to the topic of divorce, where no such application is intended by the author.