Husband of one wife

The text is "one woman man," as has been pointed out. Historically, the consensus opinion among conservatives has been that this prohibition was to keep polygamists from holding the office of elder/deacon. Having more than one spouse means a man is distracted from his duties (Paul's 1 Cor 7 argument) and also places him squarely in line with current cultural practice that was never God's intention (Adam & Eve as the model). The fact that this text is used to prohibit qualified men from the eldership or diaconate just because of a divorce is a shame, and is a blight on Bible believers. The character qualifications in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 are all in present tense. This precludes the interpretation of "If you've been divorced, you can't pastor or be a deacon."

Scripture gives permissible grounds for divorce, though it condemns the practice of divorce. However, even God commanded divorce (see Ezra 10) for spiritual reasons.

Godly, one-woman men must not be barred from office if they are qualified, even if they've suffered a divorce. A single man can be a one woman kind of man, just as a married man can be, or a divorced man can be. I know some men who have been married for 40 years but aren't one woman men. I know men who have been divorced and remarried and are indeed one woman men.

Ever notice how this requirement is exalted above all others? It's as if as long as a man has never been divorced, he's deacon material. Forget about the way he treats his wife; forget about his business dealings and how that affects his reputation with outsiders; forget about his familial duties. Just as long as he's only been married once, even though he's got a lustful eye, he's better than so-and-so who had a divorce but repented and is now married to a godly woman and whose character and home life are the exact kinds of character and home life we'd want for all our church's families.

 

I'm going to put on my moderator's hat for a second and remind everyone that we need to keep our emotions in check. Many parties have stridently critiqued the views of others, and some have bordered on personal attack. Remember that attacks are violations of Baptist Board rules and will not be tolerated. If you cannot discuss this matter within the framework of the rules, you know where the door is. If not, I or one of the other moderators will gladly show you. Carry on...carefully.

 

Yes. It’s rather like the situation of the husband who sleeps around until he contracts aids and passes it to his poor, faithful wife. Sin hurts more than just the sinner. The wife is not morally guilty for her husband’s sin but she suffers the horrific ravages of aids nonetheless.</font>[/QUOTE]There's no way whatsoever that you can compare the two.

First and foremost, Jesus doesn't hold us responsible for the sins of others. Note the healing of the blind man (it was believed he was born blind due to the sins of his parents).

Second, there's no scriptural support for forbidding church roles based on a person's illness or disabilities.

Third, the only way to produce scriptural support for forbidding a church office to a divorced man (when the divorce is for a scripturally permissible reason) is by interpreting scripture with a fair amoung of implication.

 

For the record, William Heth has changed his position. He no longer agrees with Wenham, and published his new position (The majority position, that divorce is permissible in at least 2 circumstances) in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Spring 2002. Link is listed below.
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/publications/sbjt/2002Spring.php

 

I'd rather read Jesus' thoughts on divorce in scripture. He clearly permits it in at lest one instance. Scripture likewise permits it in at least on other circumstance.

 

Some folks believe that only married men should be pastors or deacons. There is a good argument for it. Not everyone, however, makes this a requirment.

 

God does.

 

Well, that disqualifies Jesus and Paul...!

 

Only if you are referring to one that inspired something other than "one woman man". Because that God didn't say that a man had to be married or couldn't be divorced.

 

At least.

Is there any scripture stating that either John or Timothy were married while pastoring?

 

Interesting comment- even in jest- from someone who has supplied the words covenant, divorce, and marriage where God didn't see fit to inspire them. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, I find nothing of substance in this post except an insinuation against my character and integrity. Perhaps the moderator ought to edit this post as bordering on personal attack.

Unless you believe the KJV or some other English translation is inspired, then God never inspired the words covenant, divorce or marriage anywhere. Furthermore, I can't find that God specified that He was giving character qualities in I Timothy 3:2. Can you show it to me? That's your idea, not God's.

 

I don't know that either Jesus or Paul was a pastor. Do you? Furthermore, it is likely that Paul was married at one time since he was a member of the Sanhedrin, which required marriage for its members. Some aver that Paul was divorced. We just don’t have enough data to make an informed conclusion. We don’t know—it’s all speculation. So, what do you say now?

 

So, how do you know?

 

Contextually, you are just wrong. The passage deals with the character of the man- not covenants, not marriage. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, you said. That’s easy. Now back up your claim with Scripture or sound reasoning. I don’t think you can speak “ex cathedra.”

 

Interesting comment- even in jest- from someone who has supplied the words covenant, divorce, and marriage where God didn't see fit to inspire them. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, I find nothing of substance in this post except an insinuation against my character and integrity. Perhaps the moderator ought to edit this post as bordering on personal attack.</font>[/QUOTE] I apologize if it seems that way to you. But I am making a point against your argument and methods of argumentation.

You have suggested that those who disagree with you are ignorant of the debate... for no apparent reason except that they disagree with you.

You have also argued an interpretation of a passage that does not include those terms by arguing about those terms. You are adding those terms to the text.

In the passage in question, He didn't inspire the Greek words for covenant, divorce, or marriage either. That was my point... but I think you knew that and are attempting to evade.

As mentioned before, the passage is present tense. That's what characterizes the person now.

But you are attempting to parse words. Are those things character traits or not? If you disagree with my assertion then please tell me why you don't think that description fits... I think I have been more than specific about why I don't think the insertion of the concepts/words "divorce, covenant, and marriage" is not legitimate.

 

I don't know that either Jesus or Paul was a pastor. Do you? Furthermore, it is likely that Paul was married at one time since he was a member of the Sanhedrin, which required marriage for its members. Some aver that Paul was divorced. We just don’t have enough data to make an informed conclusion. We don’t know—it’s all speculation. So, what do you say now? </font>[/QUOTE]Paul seems to have pastored the Corinthian church having stayed there as both teacher and shepherd for more than a year.

 

I'd rather read Jesus' thoughts on divorce in scripture. He clearly permits it in at lest one instance. Scripture likewise permits it in at least on other circumstance. </font>[/QUOTE]Upon what grounds? Does it grant permission for remarriage? Contra to the naïve opinions that divorce of itself is not sinful, I strongly disagree. It is the breaking of the marriage covenant regardless of remarriage. Divorce and remarriage are two separate sins, IHMO. The remarriage constitutes adultery whereas divorce is covenant breaking.

 

Contextually, you are just wrong. The passage deals with the character of the man- not covenants, not marriage. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, you said. That’s easy. Now back up your claim with Scripture or sound reasoning. </font>[/QUOTE]
Read the passage. "Blameless" is what if not a character trait/behavior.

In fact, just read it yourself. It describes the character and demonstrated behavior of an individual:

These words mean nothing if they aren't a description of character.

I am not attempting to. I am only attempting to summarize what this list is. If you have an alternative to "description of character/behavior" then by all means present it. Further, if you have an answer to the fact that the passage is in the present tense, present it.

 

In one instance Jesus permits divorce in the case of infidelity. Scripture has been supported for this in nauseating abundance.

Paul says plainly that it is better for a person to marry that to be consumed with sexual desire. He makes no exception for those who were married before.

Then you disagree with Jesus, who clearly gives an exception to the ban on divorce.

The marital convenant is already broken by the person who commits adultery or desertion, not by the spouse who is the innocent party.

When the marital covenant has already been severed, it doesn't appear that scripture puts any ban on the innocent party remarrying. In fact, it puts the guilt on the offendine spouse, not the innocent spouse.

I can find no scripture that put the sin of adultery upon a person who has left the marriage for scriptural reasons cited prior.

 

I'd rather read Jesus' thoughts on divorce in scripture. He clearly permits it in at lest one instance. Scripture likewise permits it in at least on other circumstance. </font>[/QUOTE]Upon what grounds? Does it grant permission for remarriage? Contra to the naïve opinions that divorce of itself is not sinful, I strongly disagree. It is the breaking of the marriage covenant regardless of remarriage.</font>[/QUOTE] Covenants are conditional... especially those between people. Christ and Paul laid out the conditions for terminating a marriage covenant between two people.

Not necessarily... according to Paul in 1 Corinthians.

You are attempting to lay guilt at the feet of the person who was sinned against when the covenant was broken.

If your wife violates your marriage covenant, are you saying that you are guilty of that violation? You may be responsible for other sins. You may be responsible for tempting her. But she acted and broke the covenant... not you.