Husband of one wife

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, don’t worry about the apology. It’s not how it seems to me. You’re the author and know your own intentions, not me. I am just arguing for the latitude to punch back at you.

That’s not true. You ascribe a motive or reason to my statements that’s not there. Don’t read into or analyze why I said something. I say they are ignorant of the implication because they don’t see different possibilities and other interpretations. Obviously they have not done much reading in the literature or they would realize this is a lively debate with many permutations. Otherwise, I think they would be able to draw inferences without my having to laboriously lay the foundation and build the wall brick by brick. I don’t have the time to do that here.

What are you talking about? I’ve lost the antecedent of your pronouns. The marriage relationship is implied because I Timothy 3:2 is specifically speaking of a husband and wife. Whereas aner can be properly translated as man and gune as woman, the context and connotation here is positively “the husband of one wife.”

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. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you were making a cheap point on the actual words not being there although the ideas were implicit in the meaning. I simply made your argument silly by doing the same thing to you.

As mentioned before, the passage is present tense. That's what characterizes the person now. </font>[/QUOTE]This is an invalid argument. There’s no linguistic clue in the tense. This is the misuse and abuse of what Greek you may know. Of course, it’s in the present—this is a silly argument. A man divorced in the past is still divorced in the present. There are a thousand arguments, many of them as specious as your point, one could use. To give a parallel, suppose it said, “must be (present tense) a virgin.” Are you saying a promiscuous woman, although forgiven, could meet this qualification? The simple fact is that the pastoral qualifications are presented as qualifications in the present. It doesn’t indicate that these are necessarily character qualities in the present. It says nothing relative to our debate.

I’m not parsing words. You were the one wanting to make something out of the tense.

No, they are not exclusively what we could call character traits. There is no sound exegetical reason for limiting the list to character traits although you may call some of these qualifications character traits if you wish (I still can’t find the term character traits in the Scripture. ) Your logic seems to be that “one woman man” must be a character trait since all the other listed qualities are. You forgot about not being a novice and having a good report from without. I would hardly call these character traits. Since your argument is based on all being character traits, then your whole hypothesis is kaput!

Well, I’ve told you. Are you ready to wave the white flag? BTW, I never tried to insert these words. I simply referred to the ideas there. It’s a theological interpretation. Couldn’t you see that—it’s simple—instead of going off on a tangent about the words not being there? I can’t find the word rapture in the Scriptures but I believe in it.

 

Porneia is a general term which includes all kinds of sexual immorality. This includes sexual adultery and many other deviant sexual behaviors. However, adultery does not always include porneia such as when James calls his readers adulteresses. Generally adultery is a violation of God's standard.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]This is the kind of drivel that I don’t have the time to refute. I have more useful things to do than to engage in childish repartee.

Yeah, you’re taunting me but I don’t take you seriously. This is absolutely an inane statement.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]You’re assuming and reading lots into this matter. Are you a Freudian psychoanalyst or something? Just how do you know? Do you experience these things in yourself? Even so, how do you know another’s heart or mind? Tell me.

Yeah, you’re right that I probably allow a little condescension to creep into my posts but you must read the above balderdash and consider what I have to deal with. As for my pleasure, I defy you to prove it. How can you read my thoughts and emotions? You can only know what is in your mind but you can never read mine. You see, there’s no way to know that what is in your heart and mind resembles mine in any way.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]All of the others? Novice? Good report? Seems that the good report is external, not an internal character trait.

I have added no words to the text. I mentioned theological ideas that you morphed into some textual aberrant. This is your fantasy, not mine.

Why don't you show where God said that rather than you? </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, seems you still want to chew on me instead of ideas. This is a theological concept that is based in those ideas that you don’t like—marriage, covenant, etc. This is no way to answer my question. If you are going to behave like this, why should I take you seriously or your questions seriously?

Will Christ ever divorce the church?

You really seem angry. Do you want to put me in my place? I thought that’s almost what you accused me—deriving pleasure from intellectual dominance or something.

Now, you criticize my word choices. Can’t a man speak his mind and use his own vocabulary? Are you jealous of my vocabulary? Get a good thesaurus. Seems that you really are nitpicking to find something wrong here.

Yes, I did but you ignored it. It's not about sex--it's a covenant, a promise. A sexual act does not consitute a commitment or covenant.

There you go reading my mind again! Perhaps, God intended more than divorce. There are some Baptist preachers who might as well be divorced as far as they fulfill their husbandly duties toward their wives. Some make slaves of their wives and claim they are Biblical in doing so.

Scott J, I don't have time to play with this nonsense further. I did a reply on this one post. If you want to continue in this vein, then I'll just decline to reply. You can think that you win by default--I don't care. You don't appear amendable to reason or argument. Please dicuss ideas.

 

Porneia is a general term which includes all kinds of sexual immorality. This includes sexual adultery and many other deviant sexual behaviors. However, adultery does not always include porneia such as when James calls his readers adulteresses. Generally adultery is a violation of God's standard. </font>[/QUOTE]Please kindly postulate why Jesus used two different words to refer to the same thing, if He did, in the same context. Are you saying that Jesus used the two terms synonymously in Matthew 19? The word porneia appears to be some terrible filthiness. Could Christ have been referring to some horrendous wickedness such as lesbianism or homosexuality? Incest? Could it refer to the defilement of Deuteronomy 24:4? Even so, there is reasonable doubt, IMHO, whether porneia means adultery. Therefore, it is not absolutely certain that Jesus left the door open for divorce in the case of adultery. From the context, I question this generally accepted interpretation.

 

I take Mt. 19:9 as if a man divorces his wife for anything other than deviant sexual behavior and marries another he deviates from God's original plan. If he divorces her because of his actions alone then it lies upon him and not her. He cannot control her actions just his. I take porneia to include things such as beastiality, lesbianism, etc. It is a general term which includes all kinds of deviant sexual behavior. The way I see it is that divorce is always adultery in the general sense of diverting from God's original plan. Jesus spelled out God's original plan for a married couple earlier in Mt. 19. If a man divorces his wife for any reason other than her sexual deviation from God's plan then he is committing adultery and forcing adultery on the person he marries. In Mt. 19 Jesus pointed out the reason why divorce was allowed. It was allowed because a man could in a sense hold his wife hostage and not let her back into his home while at the same time preventing her from remarrying. So Moses commanded the man to give her a bill of divorcement if he did not want her in his house and allowing her to remarry.

In Mt. 19 those who held opposing views were standing there waiting for Jesus' answer while he addressed what God wanted from the beginning.

 

Getting back to the OP. Maybe I just have a simple mind, if so let me know I think we can all agree that Paul was a scholar.? Regardless of our view of divorce, he does not use that word in the I Timothy verses or the Titus verses. Since Paul was a scholar and we ought to let the Scripture speak for Itself. There are clearly many qualification terms used by Paul in both the above verses, but divorcement is not one of them. I personally believe if Paul was speaking of divorce he would have used the word divorce. Not once in I Timothy or Titus does he use the word (Apoluo) or any form of it. While both he in I Corinthians 7 and Jesus in Matthew 19 used this word to refer to divorce. It is completely absent from the I Timothy and Titus text. So being that Paul was being specific about the qualifications of a deacon and overseer and did not deal with the matter of divorce it seems to me that to use the term "husband of one wife" to refer to divorce goes beyond Paul's intent. Again, if you hold that a divorced man should not serve as Pastor, that is your perogative, but Paul did not say that in the above verses.

Too simple? I personally think the portion of the Scripture that speaks of "ruling his household well" speaks to the marriage relationship and children in a more important way than the "husband of one wife" phrase.

Bro Tony

 

And then some people think that Paul was talking about a man not being polygamous.
I find it difficult and hypocritical to hold divorce as the unpardonable disqualifier and all others sins can be forgiven and forgotten.We have pastors who have even had affairs who are not disqualified because they are not divorced.That is the ultimate not a one woman man which is forgiven and forgotten in manybaptist circles be they fundamentalist,evangelical,or liberal baptist.The poor boy just made a mistake and used bad judgement,he was going through a mid-life crisis and will be ok from here on out and we can look past that can't we.

 

Some churches should not have a pastor because of how much they expect from him such as 24/7 and do not expect him to take time to be with his family.

 

Your hermeneutic is faulty. You are requiring an explicit statement where no explicit mention is required if the idea is implicit in the discussion. The phrase “one woman man” or “the husband of one wife” in the KJV is much broader than divorce but it includes divorce. However, it includes other things such as polygamy, marital infidelity, etc. as well. It also implies that the husband must be fulfilling his covenantal duties to his wife. A divorced man cannot be a “one woman man” because he has broken a covenantal relationship with one woman and promised the same to a second woman. Yes, divorce is antithetical to the concept of a “one woman man.”

There is much more to this problem than has been discussed on this thread. No one has considered or plumbed the ramifications of a divorced pastor. Did he divorce for a Biblically allowed reason? Now, one’s view on whether divorce is allowable and on what grounds comes into play. How does he counsel his congregation on divorce? ad infinitum

 

Some churches should not have a pastor because of how much they expect from him such as 24/7 and do not expect him to take time to be with his family. </font>[/QUOTE]True, pastors do need time to take care of the personal and home life. However, some pastors find the 24/7 thing as a boon to their ego. They are the workaholic type with their ministry and family serving as props to their own self-interest.

 

I browsed the last page or so here and I'm still not sure who believes what...

But I'll add 2 cents worth.

I think Jesus is against divorce - for any reason.

Many Christians speak about "biblically sanctioned divorce" - as if Jesus has given us a NEW LIST of reasons for which divorce is permissible (compared to Moses list which was longer).

Jesus' point is that the marriage is a bond of 2 people. We should enter into marriage not having any idea that divorce is possible for any reason.

Examples...

One member has an adulterous relationship but wishes to reconcile with his/her partner. Is divorce premissible according to Jesus?

No.

Now if the cheating spouse is bent on divorce and will not reconcile then there is not much that can be done. There is no covenent.

We need to see Jesus' response here in the right context. It is possible that the Pharisees were trying to involve Him in the Hillel/Shammai debate.

It is interesting that Matthew includes "but for fornication". Joseph Fitzmyer thinks this may refer to an arranged incestuous marriage - lending more credence the the fact that Jesus did not think divorce was an option.

The bottom line should be that marriage is a covenant. The fact that one member is unfaithful does not void the covenant. All possible efforts should be made to save the marriage.

Ready for incoming shots...

 

Which got me to thinking, "How could we know an unmarried man is a 'one woman man', or IOWs, in what sense is an umarried man a 'one woman man'?" Then I read Tom's statement:

So I'd like someone to expound on what he/she means by this. </font>[/QUOTE]Is the man an adulterer or fornicator? Do they have a proper understanding of a man's position and duties concerning the women in his life?

You would learn a man's character on this in the same way you would on any of the other items.

By the testimony of others, ie. Is this someone who has a reputation for wandering eyes?

By asking the candidate, ie. Are you innocent of adultery/fornication even in your thoughts as Jesus established?

By observing the man and his wife, ie. Is she generally sullen, overbearing, or oppressed?

 

You are absolutely right. Many years ago I actually had a pastor who was near retirement tell me to make sure to take care of the people for job security reasons. Not one of his kids is serving God today. Yet he was in the denominational papers for his great work.

In my second pastorate I actually had a deacon tell me my family was "just too good". I was not available 24/7. My family came before the church. I was determined that my children would not have the same excuse a close friend of mine from high school had.

I had a close friend in high school whose dad was a pastor of a local Baptist church. In our senior year we discussed where we were going to college and why. He had decided to go to a Baptist university in Texas. So I asked him if he was going to be a pastor. He told me he was not because, "My dad is never home." I heard that as a non-Christian.

 

In the conext of the OT question He was answering, that is even broader than just adultery- not more narrow.

If He had intended divorce/one marriage rather than "one woman man", I think He would have used those words. I do believe He knew the difference between the words, don't you?

 

Forgiveness and qualifications are different species. Qualifications for a pastor are not the same as being forgiven. A divorced man, although forgiven, is not qualified to counsel and nurture marriage relationships in the church. It is rather like the doctor advising his patient to quit smoking while he puffs a pipe.

No one--I repeat no one--has said that divorce is unpardonable or unforgivable. You folks misunderstand and are reading something into this that doesn't exist.

Allow me to spin a simple illustration. A baseball player accepts a bribe to lose a ballgame. He is caught and convicted. The judge sentences him to ten years in prison but the governor pardons him because he has given much time and effort to helping crippled children. Although he is pardoned and does not serve time in the penitentiary, he is disqualified from playing baseball again.

Now, tell me this? Would you make a former homosexual pedophile the teacher of your young boys’ Sunday School class. Would you let him take these same young boys on a class camping trip alone?

Was Moses forgiven for his disobedience in striking the rock? If so, how was this connected to his prohibition from entering the Promised Land?

 

If you are going to present a point and claim it as biblical truth then you have the obligation for establishing it.

If you have found the works of authors worthwhile, that's great. I have too. But it still comes back to a fundamental question: What did God actually say and mean?

The only truly critical reference is the Bible.

What are you talking about? I’ve lost the antecedent of your pronouns. The marriage relationship is implied because I Timothy 3:2 is specifically speaking of a husband and wife.</font>[/QUOTE] I quoted the passage. It doesn't specifically say "husband and wife" nor imply it nor is the context "marriage".

Your own words reveal the weakness of your position you said it was implied because it was specifically being spoken of. If it were specifically speaking of a husband and wife there would be no need to read in an implication.

That's an interpretation- not a fact. Further, there is nothing in scripture that suggests that a divorce doesn't really end a marriage for whatever reason.

So even if you could establish that this was specifically speaking of a marriage relationship only... you still haven't proven that it is speaking of divorce whatsoever.

In fact, you have chosen the lower hurdle. The words for man/husband and woman/wife leave room for ambiguity. That doesn't change the definition of divorce- a legal act that ends a marriage. It also doesn't answer why God would use more ambiguous wording when He could have easily inspired- "no divorcees allowed".

No, you were making a cheap point on the actual words not being there although the ideas were implicit in the meaning. I simply made your argument silly by doing the same thing to you.</font>[/QUOTE] There is nothing silly nor cheap about pointing out what God actually said and didn't say. The ideas are not "implicit in the meaning" or else this debate would have no footing. Again, there are words for marriage, divorce, and covenant... and they don't appear in the passage. However, you insist that the "ideas" are there...

I say let's simply read what's there rather than adding ideas.

No, they are not exclusively what we could call character traits. There is no sound exegetical reason for limiting the list to character traits </font>[/QUOTE] You mean other than reading them in context?

Really? I would. Experience is a character trait requiring wisdom. A person able to maintain a good name is most decidedly exhibiting a character trait.

How could someone have a bad report from without having done nothing to exhibit bad character? How could they have a good report without having exhibited good character?

Be my guest and call it whatever you want... "divorce, marriage, and covenant" are still not to be found in the list.

No. You haven't argued at all concerning the words that actually are there. You refused that argument. You scoffed at the notion that a "one woman man" would mean just that. Instead, you rambled off into these "ideas"...

One that is not grounded in what was actually inspired though. That's my problem with the interpretation. Not that I am looking for a palatable idea as you falsely accused before... but because it isn't what God said... when He could have used words to say what you say He meant.

It may be simple... and I do understand your argument... but find it invalid. When there is controversy on a biblical issue, I think the first thing to do is go back and see what God actually said.

When I do this with this particular topic, I find that He could have specifically forbidden divorcees or said "having had only one wife" or some other wording... He didn't.

Like "character trait", it is a description of something said in scripture. It is simpler to simply say the word than use a whole paragraph to express the event given in scripture. IOW's, oranges and apples.

 

Charles, we have been on opposing sides of many issues but we are on the same side of the fence for this one. Welcome on board!

 

Very well said! We are in substantial agreement here. You have articulated the position well and you have shown a breadth of knowledge and understanding.

 

In the conext of the OT question He was answering, that is even broader than just adultery- not more narrow. </font>[/QUOTE]Read gb93433’s post. He articulated it well and there’s no need for me to replicate his argument. Furthermore, if you had read the books that I recommended rather than disparaging me for recommending them, then you would know this the problem with the interpretation of porneia.

If He had intended divorce/one marriage rather than "one woman man", I think He would have used those words. I do believe He knew the difference between the words, don't you? </font>[/QUOTE]No, the cases are different. In Matthew 19, Jesus said porneia meaning one thing and immediately used moichao meaning something different. You cannot make a legitimate parallel between Matthew 19:9 and I Timothy 3:2. A legitimate point wrongly applied in another context is no longer legitimate. Your reasoning is spurious.

[ November 28, 2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: paidagogos ]

 

You are absolutely right. Many years ago I actually had a pastor who was near retirement tell me to make sure to take care of the people for job security reasons. Not one of his kids is serving God today. Yet he was in the denominational papers for his great work. </font>[/QUOTE]What do you think the ruling one’s own house means? Is it not more than having things in control? Doesn’t the pastor need to have his own house in order before he can put God’s house in order?

I trust that you didn’t listen to him.

And this story could be told thousands of times over. Sad.