Husband of one Wife

Now to address the only other opinion offered.

Was Paul speaking into Timothy's culture ... A Jew speaking into the Greek Culture ...

Welllll ... Timothy was a Messianic Christian. His mother was a Jew.

While, Paul may have been addressing polygamy:
that would require thinking outside of the normal priestly culture of the time ...
Neither, polygamy nor divorce were as wide spread then as divorce is now. However, I believe that divorce (and separation) would have been more of a problem during the first century than polygamy.

Paul was addressing the text to Timothy. I would have to believe that Timothy would have thought that Paul was speaking in line with the Law's restrictions upon the Priesthood.

Further, I do not see Paul expanding upon OT restrictions upon the Priesthood. I do see Paul re-applying the accepted Priestly standards from Judaism upon the early Christian Church.

[ March 15, 2005, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: El_Guero ]

 

Major problem is that Paul was not addressing the priesthood. The pastor of the NT church is not the NT equivalent of the OT priest. We already have a priest and he never got married. He died and is now in heaven for us. If anythign, the NT priest is the equivalent of the OT prophet, and more than one prophet had multiple wives, one even marrying a harlot (i.e., a non virgin). Which all means nothing since this phrase is addressing character, not marital status.

 

PL

First: He is not a priest ... He is the High Priest ... That was a different set of requirments ... And He Christ fulfilled His Law.

Second: We are not Jewish priests. But, Paul was writing about appointing the leadership of the Christian churches. Paul, a graduate of Jewish theology, wrote to his understudy, a Messianic Christian. Paul wrote that the Leader (Bishop) must be a one woman man ... with Jewish theology behind that statement, he would not have considered divorce a possibility(*).

Nor, should I ...

In Christ,

Wayne

(*)This is the same man that pointed out that circumcision (a requirement of the Law) was no longer necessary. If the requirments of Bishops was lower than that of the Priesthood, I really think Paul would have said so.

 

And the point of Hebrews is that we need no other priest. We are all priests of ourselves.

From Paul's writing in 1 Cor 7, he clearly did consider divorce a possibility. And when he pointed out that circumcision was no longer necessary, he did so in teh context of saying that the whole Law is no longer necessary for believers. His point was that if you insist on one point of hte law (e.g., circumcision), then you must follow the whole Law. So your point falls apart based on your own attempted proof passage.

Paul was requiring less of pastors than of priests. In fact, when you read the OT, you find that Paul was asking more. A priest was frequently immoral, but still a priest. A pastor cannot be.

 

PL

Paul wrote this to Timothy. In the context it was written, the clearest reading that I can do of the text would support the traditional view that Bishops (Pastors) should not be divorced, but should be husbands of one wife.

If you read that as he can be divorced (*) 10 times, ok. Then we disagree.

In Him

Wayne

(*)Note: A pastor that is left by his wife and does not remarry is not the same as one that remarries.

 

Our high priest is not married . . .yet, but praise God he is a one woman man!

Lacy

 

Lacy ...

I think there is inspiration in that ...

 

And doesn't believe in divorce ... and it He that makes us pure ...
... What evil times we live in ...

 

In the context it was written:

a) It says "one woman man" not "husband of one wife".

b) All of the other traits would be based on the man's present character.

c) Divorce is not mentioned nor implied.

You are relying on tradition rather than God's Word. This practice has always been a source of problems.

Who said that? It is a dishonest tactic to blow things out of proportion like you do here.

A man divorced 10 times would have have problems with virtually all of the requirements.


BTW, If a married man has a romantic relationship with a woman at work that is not physical, is he still a "one woman man"?

I disagree. It is at least an indication that his ability to rule his own house well is in question.

Amazingly (or maybe not), you are prepared not to apply the genuine implications of the passage while at the same time reading into the text a requirement that isn't there.

 

Neither, the passage literally says "one woman man". The character of the man as it pertains to sexual fidelity is in view.

If one tries to apply this portion to the whole life of the candidate then I see two insurmountable problems:

a) The other characteristics need to be applied to the whole life also. Meaning that just about everyone is disqualified on the first stroke.

b) "One woman man" would not be limited to a marriage relationship. Anyone who had ever done anything before marriage with someone other than his eventual wife that would be considered cheating after marriage would not be a "one woman man". Even things we consider innocent would be violations. A boy who kissed a girlfriend then married someone else- would they be a "one woman man"? If you are consistent then "no" they would not be since such behavior after marriage would be considered infidelity.

 

"The most strict interpretation and the one common among the earliest comentators (second and third centuries) includes each of the above but extends the prohibition to any second marriage, even by widowers. Their argument is that in the first century second marriages were generally viewed as acts of self-indulgence."
From The Bible Knowledge Commentary, NT, PG. 737, ed. Walvoord and Zuck

The "each of the above" refers to divorce and "one-woman man."

 

I certainly would not say he can be divorced 10 times. In fact, my personal position would allow almost no exceptions for divorce, if any. I can hypothesize a condition in which a divorce may be allowable for a pastor: A young man is married at 18 as an unbeliever. He gets divorced at 20. He gets saved at 25. He marries a Christian woman and raises a family. He is faithful in church for 30 years. At 55, he has a 30 year record of blamelessness. I would say he is qualified, based on the text. But that is an extreme hypothetical.

I can grant for liberty of opinion on this. My response last time was to address what I believed was an error in equating the NT pastor with the OT priest. I think that is an extreme error, not in this discussion, but in the larger doctrine of ecclesiology.

I don't think you can make that stand up consistently. But if you believe that, it is fine with me.

 

Thank you PL

 

Pastor Greg,

The three comentaries I looked at said about the same thing. Tho' to be fair, Calvin leaned towards polygamy ... But, he still acknowledged the divorce as an issue.

God Bless

 

Forgiveness doesn't necessarily bring about reconciliation in the marriage. It is possible to forgive the act of adultery but still divorce.

 

Then I submit it's not true forgiveness.

 

It very well can be. What if the offending party files for divorce anyway? Does that mean the other party did not truly forgive the offender?

 

That's twisting our discussion. The forgiving party is implied.

Where do you fellas draw the line? Two divorces? Four divorces? Five? What if you remarry the first one after number two and three?

Not a hit and run. I'll check in tomorrow morning. Hubby's home from his p/t job.

 

And your submission would be assumption. As much as you would like to, you cannot dictate a person's forgiveness based upon whether or not they divorce, citing the act adultery.

 

Since, no one is justifying divorce, you ask a moot question. We all know that divorce is horrible and does great harm. Nevertheless, divorce does happen and what we are discussing is how to handle it in the church. Which seems to demand a case by case analysis.