Husband of one wife

Agreed.Also I would not consider the thought life unless it was continually dwelt upon and then only that person would know.We cannot know what is in the heart of another.However we do know what is in our own heart.If we are men of integrity then we would disqualify ourselves if lewd thoughts with other women were allowed to continually fill our minds and we were to allow it.We can chase these thoughts away.We are children of The Almighty God.

 

That you have a tendency to not be gracious and careful with your words. That you attempt to win by insulting others rather than dealing with the substance of what they say.

I don't have to psychoanalyze you... Your words speak for themselves. Is it necessary to go back and pull out a list of quotes that were condescending, disrespectful, and demeaning while adding nothing to the substance of the discussion?

Or are you willing to stop with the insulting language and show some Christian grace?

 

We all need to play nice.

 

So, can a man divorce his wife for fornication that she committed before they were married? Is this what you're saying?</font>[/QUOTE] I am saying that it was allowed under Moses.

Yes. As you have so aggressively argued though, forgiveness does not necessarily undo what has been done. A man should forgive his wife if she commits adultery... but as you noted, she has violated a sacred covenant. There are legitimate reasons that even someone who is forgiven may not be allowed to do or be something.

I agree... the Pharissees added their traditions and interpretations to the scripture as you have done to 1 Tim and Titus in a supposed attempt to by holy. In the process, they distorted or obscured God's real intent.

That wasn't me.

I am under no delusions about the fact that some sins take years to overcome even after salvation. If a person sank into the depths of depravity before salvation, sinful lusts may continue to be a problem for them for a long time or even their whole life. The appetites they cultivated may never be overcome to the extent that they can hold a leadership position.

Again, you think I am advocating a lower standard when I am not. A divorce would certainly be a flag. But since it is not specifically mentioned in the text, it should not be considered a disqualifier in and of itself.

 

Scott J piously chided:
Tact and grace have not been a problem for you to date so there is no need for you to warn me that you are putting it "bluntly".

But, to put it bluntly to you, you have simply adopted a legalistic position and entrenched yourself. You refuse to recognize the inconsistency of your interpretation. You refuse to see that you are adding to the text when you force in the concepts of the violation of the marriage covenant or divorce.

[snip]
If you can't see your inconsistency on this then the beam is in your eye... so you can leave my mote alone. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, now……you’re not coming off prettily here! While chiding me for sarcasm and bluntness, you do the same toward me. Your charm and grace impresses me. I don’t think I have stepped over the line of acceptable decorum for a debate forum. However, you imply that I have although you are doing the same to me. Hypothetically, if I should be wrong then Scripture commands us not to give evil for evil. What have you done by chiding me for you are presently doing? There’s a word for this kind of thing if you can recall. Scottie, old boy, you have painted yourself into a logical corner. Be careful not to step on the wet paint now. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes... that word is "rebuke". I have asked you to stop using dishonest and ungracious words and tactics.

I am not offended that you would disagree with me. I am offended that you persistently use insulting language like "wimping", humanistic, et al.

I don't think anyone here would accuse me of either... but you have implied that I am for no reason apparently except maybe because you think it makes your responses stronger and obscures their weakness. We run into the same thing from evolutionists very frequently. If you can dismiss your opponent then you can excuse ignoring their position.

 

Because I rely on what the texts actually say. God didn't say that a divorced man was automatically disqualified. It is you, not I, that argues from silence. If God didn't say it... I find no justification for saying it for Him.

A divorce can be forgiven and still leave a man unqualified if the flaws in the man remain. A "one woman man" standard is not a low standard at all. It goes to the behavior and attitudes that may cause a divorce and doesn't stop with just the superficial level. However, the fact that a man may not have always been a "one woman man" does not mean that he can never be one.

 

Thanks, Tom, for your explanation. Your mention of financial treatment of women indicates I did not properly explain what I meant. I'll not pursue it any further, since this thread is becoming lengthy and losing light value.

 

Scott J, it's the re-marriage to another woman that disqualifies the man, not the divorce.

You implied that all divorces are the result of deviate behaviour on the part of the man. This is not always the case and I don't believe you did that intentionally.

Divorces are forgivable, just as all sin is forgivable excepting the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost BUT!!! the consequences of all sin still are effectual due to the digressive nature of all sin.

Divorce ends a living institution. It puts to death the marriage covenant, but not the first wife. She is still living, thus the man who re-marries would have two living wives and disqualified due to being the husband of such and therefore NOT the "husband of one wife".

 

Thanks, Tom, for your explanation. Your mention of financial treatment of women indicates I did not properly explain what I meant. I'll not pursue it any further, since this thread is becoming lengthy and losing light value. </font>[/QUOTE]Is there anything else I can do to make my explanation clearer?

 

Tom, I'm sure you could, and I appreciate the offer. But at this point, this thread (not you) is beginning to wear thin and I don't think I will come back and read any more of it. Plus, I don't want to put the thought into it to find the right words to explain what I meant. It's been a long day and I'm tired. Thanks though.

 

I don't find that in the text either... unless you adopt an inconsistent interpretation. If a man who remarries is disqualified then why wouldn't a man be who had other sex partners before marriage. And if they, why not those who fantasized about other partners... and on and on.

Yes and no. I am not sure that a divorce ever occurs where a man wouldn't bear some responsibility even if it is just lack of carefulness in who he married. All men could be better husbands. All men could be less bad husbands.

OTOH, the offended party usually didn't directly force the offender into abandonment or fornication. Those are personal responsibilities before God that are not situational nor dependent on circumstances.

I don't disagree. But as I said before, it is God, not man, that determines whether those consequences include not being able to ever be a pastor or deacon.

The literal reading of the passage in question is "one woman man". As TomVols has pointed out, the language indicates a present condition. A divorced man can be a "one woman man" in the here and now.

Yes.

No. There is no place in scripture where it is denied that divorce ends a marriage. The Bible doesn't say that a divorced man continues to be married to his first wife... in fact, that is a violation of the definition of the word. Divorce for whatever reason literally ends the marriage.

A biblically divorced man who has repented of his sin can demonstrate the qualifications mentioned in the Bible.

Two things to recap.

First, he is no longer the husband of the first woman. The Bible does define divorce implicitly as the end of a marriage though the NT restricts the cases where a believer may use it.

Second, "husband of one wife" is an interpretive translation. It isn't literal. "one woman man" is literal... and significantly broader than just marriage.

 

The language DOES NOT indicate present condition. It INDICATED a condition in their society 2,000 years ago.

Nor is the phrase "one woman man" literal, unless you are arguing that Paul intended for each leader to live with one woman and not marry.

The phrase was a literal "one wife man".

 

Which means....?

 

Actually, "one woman man" is not literal, because MIAS GYNAIKOS is in the genitive case meaning "of one woman" or "of one wife". In all three cases the Greek construction is used, the "one" is emphasized by its primary placement, with the meaning "a husband of but one wife", eliminating polygamous men from consideration. To say that Paul meant more than this is dangerous exegesis in my opinion.

 

Maybe this should be in another thread, but Matthew's "exception clause" may have only been for the current Jewish case to allow a man to put his "woman" away if it were found out that she had been previously defiled by another man. In this way Joseph would not have sinned by divorcing Mary had she actually been defiled by another man prior to their own marital consummation. Mark and Luke leave out this clause, possibly indicating that it wasn't even pertinent to the discussion, i.e., that divorce causes all people involved, if they remarry, to be in a continuous state of adultery. And a person in a continuous state of adultery should not be a pastor.

 

God's Word says, "husband of one wife" not one at a time. One, unless death parts them. Again, it says one. It means one, the woman at the well talking with Jesus, Jesus said that she had five husbands and the one she was with was not her husband. So, the divorce didn't stop the count of husbands. If a man divorces and remarries another he has two wives and if he does it again he has three, and so on, just as Jesus said. Which would rule him out of being a pastor/bishop or deacon according to I Timothy 3. Thank you all for being so kind as to share your imput!

 

Huh?

Nope. Nothing there to suspend anything Paul said about the sinfulness of fornication or adultery which would be more than sufficiently covered under the term "blameless".

No. It is woman.

Needless to say, "one wife man" only addresses polygamy and not divorce since a divorced and once remarried man only has one wife... biblically speaking.

I think however that more than that is intended. I think that a pastor or deacon should have right attitudes and relationships concerning women and sexuality.

 

It would seem that you are arguing that a divorced and remarried person can never attain genuine forgiveness. A continuous state of adultery is a continuous state of sin. A continuous state of sin... is being lost and in this case completely and hopelessly lost since there is no remedy for the sin that would satisfy your condition.

 

No. It says "one woman man" and does not speak to the subject of "one at a time" at all- pro or con. IOW's, I could just as easily say that the text says "husband of one wife", not only one wife per life.

Your inconsistent here. If one wife means one wife for life then it doesn't matter at all why the marriage ended only that it ended.

Woooooops, you might want to take another look:

[/qb] "Hast had"- past tense, not present. She had had five husbands but was now single since she wasn't even married to the man she then had. Single, as in not married.

No. By the definition of the word and the implications of both OT and NT scriptures... divorce means the end of a previous marriage.

Remember, when Moses allowed divorce, polygamy was allowed. If the intent was not to end the marriage, no divorce would have been necessary since the man could take another wife anyway. The man's issuance of a divorce to the woman legally ended the marriage. She was then allowed to take another husband.

Jesus clarifies this as only being legitimate for the cause of fornication. Paul further expanded it to include abandonment of a Christian by a non-believer.

Thank you for being so gracious on a topic that can get fairly contentious.

 

Joh 4:18 For1063 thou hast had2192 five4002 husbands;435 and2532 he whom3739 thou now3568 hast2192 is2076 not3756 thy4675 husband:435 in that5124 saidst2046 thou truly.227

The numbers are from Strong's, if you care to check them out. The Greek work echo is not used in the past tense, it is used to state a fact that continues until the day she and Christ were talking. In the sense she had five husbands not one. When she got "another" one he was husband #2 and so on through #5. How is that one wife, if jesus had said that to a pastor, you have had five wives, does that mean that he only had one? I really do not get the teaching that teh former marriage just disappears, as if it never was there. Now when we confess sin that happens, but the consequence of it is still there, hence, five husbands not one.