Husband of one wife

Very good paidagogos! Excellent point and one that I will add to support my belief of divorced men being disqualified from being pastor/bishop or deacon. Thank you!

 

Not necessarily--she was returned to her father's household in at least some cases. Check your OT references.

 

What do you want me to establish and how would you recommend that I go about establishing it.

Contextually, the subject is marriage, singleness, divorce, and remarriage (explicitly so for widows). The specific topic that this applies to is the obligation of believers who are married to unbelievers who are "not pleased to dwell" with them. The believer should try to maintain the marriage. However if the unbeliever is unwilling then Paul declares that the believer is "not under bondage". If qualification of that liberty were needed then certainly it was incumbent upon the original Author to give it. But there is none. It says "not under bondage"... as in not bound in unqualified terms.

No. I am assuming that words mean what they mean in the context in which they are spoken... and that if qualification of "not under bondage" were required- it would have been given as God's Word is inerrant. It would certainly be an "error" if God meant to qualify "not under bondage" with "but don't remarry" and was somehow unable to do it.

] Because it doesn't forbid remarriage. The text doesn't list an exclusion of remarriage. We have no reason to suspect that there is a blank that needs to be filled in between the lines of this scripture.

If I tell my kid he can have any toy in Walmart, it is up to me to give a qualifier if I intend one. For instance, "any toy that costs less than $25 and does not require assembly." If I fail to do so and he chooses a $150 airplane that requires a union mechanic to construct... that's my error, not his. Since God makes no errors... I simply trust that He said what He meant.

I presented the text... it provides its own context. If you want to argue that God wasn't conservative enough then that's not an argument to have with me.

That is an artificial limitation that you have read into the text. Accusing me is fine but there is nothing in the context of that passage that suggests such a limitation... that is simply what you would like to have seen.

I just did a fairly intensive study of the whole chapter in preparation for about 5 or 6 SS lessons as I lead my class through 1 Corinthians. IOW's, I have done more than just read it "without prejudice".

I would recommend rather than you read it without prejudice. The text is as conservative and liberating as God wanted it to be without assuming that there are missing exceptions to the liberty granted those who divorce an unbelieving spouse.

Nope. I have just tried to let their words say what they say... without attempting to make them more conservative or liberal than what they are. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, you have never shown any mention of remarriage in the context of I Corinthians 7. The whole idea of remarriage is your own a priori assumption that separation or divorce implies the right to remarriage. The Scriptures don't say that. Additionaly, you have brought no other Scriptures to bear on this idea and you are claiming Biblical support.

Furthermore, the context is definite that divorce and remarriage is not an option for two believers (vv. 10-11) and you have not shown why divorce is acceptable for a believer and unbeliever.

What does "not under bondage" mean? IMHO, the OT bill of divorcement granted by Moses due to the hardness of the Jewish heart was the cessation of economic and civil arrangements between the spouses and the families. One must consider that marriage was also an arrangement between families in the Jewish context. It freed the woman from a kind of enslavement from the husband, not the nullification of a moral and spiritual covenant in God's eyes. With that in mind, we come to the matter of what "not under bondage" means. In vv. 3-5, Paul speaks of the obligations between spouses to fulfil certain marital duties. IMHO, marital obligations, as taught in other passages, extend beyond mere sex. Therefore, "not under bondage" simply means contextually that a believer is not enslaved to live with and perform marital duties, including sexual acts, to an unbelieving and unwilling spouse. In other words, the believing spouse is "not under bondage" to carry out duties to an unwilling partner. If the unbeliever departs, the believer has not sinned but the believer is not necessarily free to remarry. (Contra to other expressed opinions , the sin of divorce is not just adultery in remarriage but it is also the breaking of commitments in not performing one's duties to the spouse. However, the point in I Corinthians 7 is that the believer has not sinned in breaking commitments as long as he or she is willing and the unbeliever is unwilling. It further clarifies that the believer is not to divorce on the basis of being unequally yoked.) This is painted against a background of God's expectation of a lifetime commitment of marital fulfilment. In Matthew 19, Jesus clearly said that God's will was one man and one woman.

 

True. But this passage doesn't mention marriage.

The passage says nothing about a covenant.

Contextually, you are just wrong. The passage deals with the character of the man- not covenants, not marriage.

That's a false charge.

I am thinking biblically. I am allowing the text to speak for itself without inserting my bias. I am allowing the text to speak contexually rather than arbitrarily lifting one portion of it out and re-writing it to suit my preconceived biases.

It is by no means "humanistic" rationalizing to simple accept what God said in the way that He said it. He very easily could have said "divorce". HE didn't. That came from you and others who are dogmatically demanding a very narrow and inconsistent interpretation.

You’re sniveling. No if you understand marriage to be a covenantal relationship, not a sexual liaison. You don’t get married to legitimatize sex.</font>[/QUOTE] The text says nothing about a covenant or even marriage. The dynamic translation that grew into traditional acceptance is unfortunate since it doesn't accurately reflect the words of the original.

btw, nowhere in scripture does it say that divorced people are still married. A divorced, remarried man can reflect the covenant you cite very well with his wife. Scripturally, he has only one wife.

IOW's, you have no Bible based response. You refuse to let the text stand as given by God, insist on reading between the lines, and are offended that someone would question the human authority to do so.

Your interpretation is not a clear biblical teaching. It is not a consistent teaching. Indeed the bulk of your response to my very direct and simple assertion that the text should speak for itself was to introduce babble- you limited the meaning to one area then expanded that area to the extreme.

It belongs to the "Which is more authoritative category... human interpretations (which are necessary I realize) or the literal thing God said in context.

I choose what God actually said over what you say He said.

Do you accept the Biblical definition of marriage as a lifetime covenant of companionship?</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. With the exception of the exceptions given by Christ and Paul.

Yes. And a divorced man can mirro this relationship with his wife.

But that really doesn't matter since the texts qualifying church officers doesn't mention, marriage, divorce, or covenants. It discusses the character of the man under consideration.

To include every stray thought and moment of lust? That's without even entering into how false your argument is that acts before marriage have no impact on a later marriage covenant... that is "humanistic rationalization" that has led to most Christian marriages not being between two virgins... or even including one virgin.

No. It speaks to the character of a man being considered for a church office. That is the context.

Christ purifies his bride by grace. Christ blood covers sin... including those related to divorce.

Not unless you use this rule to establish the context for the whole passage.

No one said it could. We said that this passage deals with demonstrated character and not one's entire sinful past. </font>[/QUOTE]Kudos, Scott J.

 

IOW's, you have no real answer of substance to the plain, direct, liteal intepretation of the text. You have to add words and concepts to the passage that God never inspired to make your case.

The text says what it says in spite of the fact that you don't like it.

I doubt that. Legalism and operating under some self-contrived "higher standard" and the feelings of superiority some get from being holier than thou are very much appealing to the flesh.

Your condescending remarks indicate that you are getting a good deal of pleasure "putting us in our places."

Actually, your problem is that it does match the scriptures in question precisely. These scriptures don't mention divorce and, like noted before, all of the others deal with a man's character. The grammar of the sentence lends further support to the "present" behavior of the man.

You have added to the scriptures words that simply aren't there in order to promote a human opinion.

Why don't you show where God said that rather than you?

Why don't you demonstrate that the marriage of a divorced man cannot picture the relationship between Christ and the Church?

You once again have supplied thus saith Paidagogos where you have found thus saith the Lord insufficient to sustain your argument. Further, for all your pompous words, you still haven't made any kind of case for why your intepretation is consistent. You never addressed with substance why a divorcee isn't a "one woman man" while those who have considered or had more than one woman are.

God could have said divorce. There is a greek word for it if that's what He had in mind. He didn't and for some reason... you can't stand for it. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, good post, Scott J.