Husband of one wife

[John I Morris]

But again, please allow me to say, let everyone be convinced in his own mind. We are not all right, but we are allowed our own opinion.

 

[Scott J]

"Have had" translates a single word. The english wording approximates and indicates the Greek verb grammar.

"Have" is the word referred to by Strong's. "Had" modifies it to show the tense... which indeed appears to be past tense since that is the way the KJV, NASB, Young's, Amplified and NKJV all translate it. But I will look into it more deeply later when I have access to more resources.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
"Have had" translates a single word. The english wording approximates and indicates the Greek verb grammar.

"Have" is the word referred to by Strong's. "Had" modifies it to show the tense... which indeed appears to be past tense since that is the way the KJV, NASB, Young's, Amplified and NKJV all translate it. But I will look into it more deeply later when I have access to more resources.

I know that I risk being called condescending (actually smug would be better word choice) again, but here’s a little help:

πεντε γαρ ανδρας εσχες και νυν ον εχεις ουκ εστιν σου ανηρ τουτο αληθες ειρηκας

Literally it translates something like:

for five husbands you have had (εσχες) and now he whom you have (εχεις) is not your husband this have you said truly

Look up εχω (transliterated echo) in your Strong’s for the meaning of εσχες; it is a verb in the second aorist tense (simply a different spelling of the normal aorist), in the active voice, in the indicative mood and in the second person. The term εχεις (translated have) is a verb of the present tense in the active voice and indicative mood of the second person singular.

 

[Charles Meadows]

I don't think Scott is totally off base here.

The first in an aorist and the second a present.

The aorist signifies perfective aspect. Jesus is using it as a narrative background. His point is that her husband now is not really her husband. The first part of the sentence functions as a background and thus the use of the aorist tense.

Use of the perfect tense here might seem to approximate what we would have in English - but use of the perfect tesne would be out of place here because this is a background statement and not the crux of the sentence.

So I guess my point would be that the grammar here (as usual) does not tell us whether John intended to show that the HAD five husbands in the past or still has them now in some sense.

 

[Brother Ian]

I am not convinced that a man cannot be divorced to be a deacon. Since I am not convinced from my own study, I err on the side that he cannot be divorced.

One thing for sure, he can only have one wife right now.

According to the Scriptures, he should have kids too. That's something we often dismiss.

I do believe it is unscriptural to have a single pastor.

 

[bapmom]

Brother Ian,

not to get too picky here, but theres alot of people who can't have children. I don't think we can exclude them from the pastorate because of that. So I don't think that we can say a pastor has to have children, but the Bible just says that he ought to rule his household well. That can be done with or without kids.

 

[izzaksdad]

Does the Scripture speak on a man who has never been married/divorced yet he marries a woman who has- what saith the Scriptures concerning the office of Pastor and deacon for this man? Just curious what think ye.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by izzaksdad:
Does the Scripture speak on a man who has never been married/divorced yet he marries a woman who has- what saith the Scriptures concerning the office of Pastor and deacon for this man? Just curious what think ye.

No, the Scripture do not specifically address this permutation but it doesn't proscribe every detail of our lives. There are things that we must discern from the principles of Scripture along with the leading of the Holy Spirit. This depends pretty much depends on one's view of divorce and remarriage. Those you believe the divorced and remarried man is in a perpetual state of adultery would say he is not qualified; otherwise, there are all shades of acceptance up to and including a complete approval.

 

[paidagogos]

TomVols posted:
Most importantly you didn't address my most pressing question:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
(I can't get the Greek font to appear. How do you do that?)

</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry Tom. Perhaps I ought to keep this a secret and use it as an advantage in debate. What do you think? I’m not that much of a rascal.

I simply composed my reply in a word processor with Greek and Hebrew fonts. Then, I cut and pasted. I do occasionally have a little problem with some of the letters such as ς that I have to insert as an object sometimes. The simplest plain Jane text-processor with the least formatting is the best to use as long as you can import a Greek font into it. It probably will work with MS Word if you have Greek and Hebrew fonts for it.

 

[El_Guero]

Brother Ian,

Watch it there.

 

[El_Guero]

So why do some think it is proper for a pastor to live with a woman outside of marriage?

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Who would think that?

 

[John I Morris]

I have never heard of anyone saying that that was okay, let alone proper.

 

[Brother Ian]

Originally posted by bapmom:
Brother Ian,

not to get too picky here, but theres alot of people who can't have children. I don't think we can exclude them from the pastorate because of that. So I don't think that we can say a pastor has to have children, but the Bible just says that he ought to rule his household well. That can be done with or without kids.

You're right Bapmom. Some cannot have children. I was simply pointing out that is part of the qualifications as listed in Scripture. I'm not certain a pastor without children can effectively help parents struggling with child issues. It seems that children are part of the Scriptural requirements. Let me look at it again.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
Scott J, it's the re-marriage to another woman that disqualifies the man, not the divorce.

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. Adulteress affairs are sin, but are not vows of matrimony. The difference is the vow of marriage.

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.

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. No, not necessarilly. A friend of mine is a preacher, divorced by his cheating wife. She gave birth to the other's illegitimate child. This other man had been seeing her before during and after their marriage before the divorce, She is a harlot. Has been "churched". Still attends every once in a while. Living with the other man.

The responsibilities of the sinner are situations the person allowed themselves into: they are solely responsible. So the divorce isn't a "yes and no". The man had no control over his wife's illicit desires, he was just the victim. I know this personally, and after much conferring with both: she is a harlot.

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.

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.

Divorce ends a living institution. It puts to death the marriage covenant, but not the first wife.

Yes.

She is still living, thus the man who re-marries would have two living wives

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.

and disqualified due to being the husband of such and therefore NOT the "husband of one wife".

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Only problem is that once they become one flesh no man can put asunder; they are one living being in two separate bodies. Both individual lives are forever effected by the marriage, and both are always negatively effected by the divorce.

The spirit of the law is become broken at the divorce, death ensues of the marriage covenant, all parties involved are corrupted by the negative conotations. The only cure is forgiveness and re-marriage w/o ever being given to another man in marriage; which becomes adultery at the re-marriage of her that has been put away, which God hates; He'd rather see forgiveness than an act of the flesh usually involving hatred towards the other.

Divorce disqualifies the man only if he is in the wrong, no matter the percentage of wrong.

A "one woman man" is a husband of one wife, and not one wife at a time either, becuase of the importance God places on the marriage institution as a holy covenant. {Snip}

[ December 05, 2005, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[Scott J]

It is not "liberal" to accept what the Bible literally says. It is more liberal to a) add to what it says and b) to deny its words mean what they mean... and that is the side of this debate you have camped on.

[ December 05, 2005, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[TomVols]

Two quick notes:
1. Inflammatory language directed at people is not acceptable on Baptist Board, and adds nothing to the debate/discussion. It's ad hominem nonsense.
2. Please observe proper formatting when posting. Be sure you are quoting exactly, and be sure you are not posting in all caps or in bold. That is against Baptist Board policy.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
It is not "liberal" to accept what the Bible literally says. It is more liberal to a) add to what it says and b) to deny its words mean what they mean... and that is the side of this debate you have camped on.

I concur with Scott J here. Though, I would phrase it as such:

It is not "liberal" to accept what the Bible says.

It is liberal to:

1 - Add to text of what is written.
2 - Add to the context of what is said.
3 - Add to the intent of what is said.

 

[paidagogos]

Now that the Greek pundits have exhausted the meaning of “one woman man,” let me introduce a novel thought into the argument. What is the meaning of “one man woman” in I Timothy 5:9? Can this widow be a divorced woman?

 

[Bluefalcon]

Excellent point, paidagogos, and helpful to your case.