One-Wife Pastor Question

[John Toppass]

Many folks are right, Paul was talking about polygamy but he was also talking about divorce and remarrying a different woman.

Marriage was first instituted by God himself not the government. If no man can put asunder what God has joined then in how can marriage to another woman while divorced from your wife not be the husband of more than one wife?

Most folks who claim it to be only polygamy that was being talked about are usually divorced and remarried to another themselves and what they really want is an exception to God's word for themselves. What stops this from being the "flavor of the month rule" or the year or the decade.

This was not intended to be a form of punishment but it is the way God wants His Church led. Why? Because He is God and that is what He wants.

How can a pastor, elder or deacon defend marriage when they have failed at it themselves?

Divorce is not the issue, it is remarrying another. Tho divorce could cause other qualifications not to be met.

Bottom line, 1 Cor 7 : 10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.
11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

There are many ministries available to all, but the offices of the church have qualification set by God. After all God sees the big picture , we don't.

 

[webdog]

This is double-speak. Can't have it both ways.

How so? My wife and I were considered a family prior to children, but on the flipside I've never heard a single man claim to be a family.

Fallacy. The normal usage of oikou is a dwelling. So what if the pastor has an apartment? :laugh: Contextually, the household is the familial structure of the man in question. Would you disqualify a man whose adult children are not exemplary believers?

I agree context is the key, that is why it has beeen translated family in english.
No, I would not disqualify a man who's adult children are not exemplary believers. They are adults and not under the father's authority as such.

There are logical implications of straining the text beyond its context that I fear are dire if we follow the explanation you offered.

I believe viewing polygamy as being the key is doing just that. The requirements are dealing with managing God's family hence the need for experience and a positive track record in doing so with their own family first. No idea how that can be beyond the text, that is the text...

Using your logic, yes. But he'd be broke and in a poor frame of mind, what with all those mothers-in-law

Actually, I was using the polygamy logic

 

[Salty]

If Paul meant divorce, why didnt he say divorced?

 

[John Toppass]

If Paul meant divorce, why didnt he say divorced?

Maybe because he was not talking about mere divorce as a disqualification in itself. He was talking of remarrying another after divorce and/or polygamy.

 

[freeatlast]

I've a question that's been nagging at me for a while.

Years ago, Wifey and I attended a baptist church that went through a change of head pastors.

One sunday, the new pastor (who was teaching our sunday school class) spoke of the qualifications of a bishop, citing:

I Tim 3:2- "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." NKJV

According to him, what is meant by husband of one wife in the original language means husband of one wife at a time. This verse applies to polygamy. To be divorced and remarried is not a disqualification.

We thought this had the appearance of being extrabiblical.

Has anyone heard of this before? I've neither the books nor the training to verify his claim, so help is appreciated.

Arbo
the Greek does not say what the translators wrote. The Greek says "one woman man" not the husband of one wife. It is not speaking about how many wives someone has or divorce either. The passage is speaking about his character. The man who holds the office of pastor must be one who sees no other woman then his wife. She alone is the apple of his eye and it is seen in his dedication to her alone. She alone meets all his needs and he looks no further. He is a one woman man in regards to his wife alone.

 

[Baptist boy]

I've a question that's been nagging at me for a while.

Years ago, Wifey and I attended a baptist church that went through a change of head pastors.

One sunday, the new pastor (who was teaching our sunday school class) spoke of the qualifications of a bishop, citing:

I Tim 3:2- "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." NKJV

According to him, what is meant by husband of one wife in the original language means husband of one wife at a time. This verse applies to polygamy. To be divorced and remarried is not a disqualification.

We thought this had the appearance of being extrabiblical.

Has anyone heard of this before? I've neither the books nor the training to verify his claim, so help is appreciated.

I actually do think it refers to polgamy but being divorce would still not allow him to be a pastor because it shows that he can't rule his house well which is another requirement

 

[amthomp17]

There isn't any special rendering in the originals that will add much to the discussion. The context (as I read it) refers more to the issue of polygamy in the contexts of Timothy and Titus than it does about the matter of divorce.

I actually hold to the position that it is "one wife at a time" (which is not how I'd say it) wherein a divorce doesn't automatically disqualify a called man of God. That said I think each individual must be reviewed on a case by case basis. If the pastoral candidate went through a divorce because of reasons beyond their control (say a cheating spouse) and has since (and before) been faithful than i wouldn't have a problem. Of course each situation needs to be carefully weighed.

Divorce is a touchy subject. I have served under a senior pastor who was divorced. He is a wonderful minister. Just because someone is divorced doesn't mean they are automatically disqualified. I've never accepted that.

As I have studied these passages in the pastoral epistles I really do see these as speaking more to polygamy than divorce. Many disagree with me.

I agree with you on this. My Church believes differently though. My thing is this, if you're a murderer you can still be qualified, but if you're unsaved and go through a divorce, then you are disqualified? I just don't get that.

 

[amthomp17]

Many folks are right, Paul was talking about polygamy but he was also talking about divorce and remarrying a different woman.

Marriage was first instituted by God himself not the government. If no man can put asunder what God has joined then in how can marriage to another woman while divorced from your wife not be the husband of more than one wife?

Most folks who claim it to be only polygamy that was being talked about are usually divorced and remarried to another themselves and what they really want is an exception to God's word for themselves. What stops this from being the "flavor of the month rule" or the year or the decade.

This was not intended to be a form of punishment but it is the way God wants His Church led. Why? Because He is God and that is what He wants.

How can a pastor, elder or deacon defend marriage when they have failed at it themselves?

Divorce is not the issue, it is remarrying another. Tho divorce could cause other qualifications not to be met.

Bottom line, 1 Cor 7 : 10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.
11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

There are many ministries available to all, but the offices of the church have qualification set by God. After all God sees the big picture , we don't.

Very good points. I have never been divorced and have held to the thinking that Paul meant one wife at a time. I do see your points though. It's really hard for me to think someone would be disqualified if their wife committed adultery and left them. How is that the man's fault? Jesus said that divorce is permitted in a case of fornication.

 

[freeatlast]

I agree with you on this. My Church believes differently though. My thing is this, if you're a murderer you can still be qualified, but if you're unsaved and go through a divorce, then you are disqualified? I just don't get that.

Because in the example you are giving the church has misunderstood the word of God. There is no prohibition against the man you mention in scripture.

 

[freeatlast]

Very good points. I have never been divorced and have held to the thinking that Paul meant one wife at a time. I do see your points though. It's really hard for me to think someone would be disqualified if their wife committed adultery and left them. How is that the man's fault? Jesus said that divorce is permitted in a case of fornication.

No Jesus never said that divorce was permitted in the case of fornication, but that is another topic. Under the law, fornication brought death, not divorce.
As for the qualification of a pastor or deacon they must be a one woman man.

 

[righteousdude2]

How Can An Imperfect Man Defend Any Sin?

How can a pastor, elder or deacon defend marriage when they have failed at it themselves?

Any man who comes to the Lord to be saved, came because he recognized the fact that he was imperfect in the eyes of God. In other, sin caused him to "fail" at pleasing God, thanks to Adam.

I'm not able to wrap my heart and thoughts around this thought, "defend_????_because they failed at pleasing God in this area of their life?"

Regardless of the sin, all of us have in all ways "failed" to please God, and it is because of His Son; Calvary; the cross; the shed blood; His death; His resurrection; and the " gift of salvation" that all of us can now defend anything that is classified as sin.

A man or woman who goes through a divorce is no more a sinner than any other who has sinned. The truth, as I see it, is that all sin is the same. There are no differences in the act of sin.

Once we recognize our sin (or in your vernacular: failure), confess, and receive by His grace the blood bought forgiveness for that sin, we are now able to defend that particular sin, as well as other, because we have first-hand knowledge of what it is like to be in that particular sins hold.

To truly be set free from the death-like grip of any sin, makes us even more thankful and capable of defending the need to avoid that particular sin in our life and relaying that need to the life of others.

As a pastor, ordained after my divorce and remarriage, I am more capable of fiercely defending the need to try every Avenue available to make that marriage successful. In fact, I have used my personal failure (in marriage) to help at least a hundred couples remain married.

Through my testimony, I've helped an unknown number of couples,in a second or third marriage, fight to make their new chance at marriage work for the glory of God.

I can do this because I have not only been divorced, and remarried, I have been married to my present wife for nearly 32 years now. Nothing lifts up Jesus more than making the best of your new life and second chance.

So, I have to say that any pastor that has successfully remarried, is not only able to defend marriage, but they are a living witness of the healing power of Jesus Christ in their life and marriage.

As a social worker, counselor and pastor, I have seen many situations where divorce was the best Avenue to take for women who are beaten to within an inch of death; being treated like a doormat and having to worry about her unfaithful spouse bringing a sexually transmitted disease to the marriage bed, or, worse yet, bringing them Aids.

I've seen men who were in marriage situations that were unsalvageable. To remain in the marriage would have been not only physical detrimental, but spiritually damning.

I would have to say divorce, as a sin, should be treated like any other sin, no larger or smaller than another sin, and not capable of carrying more weight that the next one.

There is NO sin too big, so unforgivable, that God, through the sacrifice of His Son, can't forgive and wipe that slate clean.

This is my opinion, but I've got first-hand experience at failing in the realm of marriage, and first-hand experience at receiving the forgiving power of the blood in my life, and in my new marriage, and I'm not about to make the same mistakes again.

When it comes to divorcing and remarriage, I see the couple being brought to Jesus, by an angry crowd (wanting to stone them and throw them out of the fellowship) and asking Jesus what He would do with these reprobates? I see Jesus bending down, and making the sign of the agape like fish in the sand, and looking up at the crowd and telling them that any among them who is without a sin to throw the first rock, or drive the couple to the edge of the town and tell them not to return. :wavey:

Shalom,

Pastor Paul :type:

 

[Salty]

I agree with you on this. My Church believes differently though. My thing is this, if you're a murderer you can still be qualified, but if you're unsaved and go through a divorce, then you are disqualified? I just don't get that.

The Baptist "joke" is if a pastor wants to get rid of his wife, its okay to murder her as he will be forgiven by the church, but divorce - NEVER:saint:

 

[John Toppass]

Any man who comes to the Lord to be saved, came because he recognized the fact that he was imperfect in the eyes of God. In other, sin caused him to "fail" at pleasing God, thanks to Adam.

I'm not able to wrap my heart and thoughts around this thought, "defend_????_because they failed at pleasing God in this area of their life?"

Regardless of the sin, all of us have in all ways "failed" to please God, and it is because of His Son; Calvary; the cross; the shed blood; His death; His resurrection; and the " gift of salvation" that all of us can now defend anything that is classified as sin.

A man or woman who goes through a divorce is no more a sinner than any other who has sinned. The truth, as I see it, is that all sin is the same. There are no differences in the act of sin.

Once we recognize our sin (or in your vernacular: failure), confess, and receive by His grace the blood bought forgiveness for that sin, we are now able to defend that particular sin, as well as other, because we have first-hand knowledge of what it is like to be in that particular sins hold.

To truly be set free from the death-like grip of any sin, makes us even more thankful and capable of defending the need to avoid that particular sin in our life and relaying that need to the life of others.

As a pastor, ordained after my divorce and remarriage, I am more capable of fiercely defending the need to try every Avenue available to make that marriage successful. In fact, I have used my personal failure (in marriage) to help at least a hundred couples remain married.

Through my testimony, I've helped an unknown number of couples,in a second or third marriage, fight to make their new chance at marriage work for the glory of God.

I can do this because I have not only been divorced, and remarried, I have been married to my present wife for nearly 32 years now. Nothing lifts up Jesus more than making the best of your new life and second chance.

So, I have to say that any pastor that has successfully remarried, is not only able to defend marriage, but they are a living witness of the healing power of Jesus Christ in their life and marriage.

As a social worker, counselor and pastor, I have seen many situations where divorce was the best Avenue to take for women who are beaten to within an inch of death; being treated like a doormat and having to worry about her unfaithful spouse bringing a sexually transmitted disease to the marriage bed, or, worse yet, bringing them Aids.

I've seen men who were in marriage situations that were unsalvageable. To remain in the marriage would have been not only physical detrimental, but spiritually damning.

I would have to say divorce, as a sin, should be treated like any other sin, no larger or smaller than another sin, and not capable of carrying more weight that the next one.

There is NO sin too big, so unforgivable, that God, through the sacrifice of His Son, can't forgive and wipe that slate clean.

This is my opinion, but I've got first-hand experience at failing in the realm of marriage, and first-hand experience at receiving the forgiving power of the blood in my life, and in my new marriage, and I'm not about to make the same mistakes again.

When it comes to divorcing and remarriage, I see the couple being brought to Jesus, by an angry crowd (wanting to stone them and throw them out of the fellowship) and asking Jesus what He would do with these reprobates? I see Jesus bending down, and making the sign of the agape like fish in the sand, and looking up at the crowd and telling them that any among them who is without a sin to throw the first rock, or drive the couple to the edge of the town and tell them not to return. :wavey:

Shalom,

Pastor Paul :type:

Your last paragraph does not make sense if you read what I wrote.
I understand and I would not be in that angry crowd. God forgives all sin and none is bigger than another. Like I stated (this is where most folks quit reading and start defending their thoughts over Gods). The qualifications that God states for the offices of the church are not intended to punish. It is just the way God says He wants it. To justify anything else is to ignore His word to make one feel better about himself, in a way, we are trying to justify sin. I think at one time or another all of us try to justify our sin/s.
Praise God that He forgives us always!

 

[revmwc]

I've a question that's been nagging at me for a while.

Years ago, Wifey and I attended a baptist church that went through a change of head pastors.

One sunday, the new pastor (who was teaching our sunday school class) spoke of the qualifications of a bishop, citing:

I Tim 3:2- "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." NKJV

According to him, what is meant by husband of one wife in the original language means husband of one wife at a time. This verse applies to polygamy. To be divorced and remarried is not a disqualification.

We thought this had the appearance of being extrabiblical.

Has anyone heard of this before? I've neither the books nor the training to verify his claim, so help is appreciated.

mias gunaikos andra

mias meaning one or first gunaikos a woman of any age including a unmarried virgin or widow, but also a wife. Andra a man as in distinction from a boy and a male or a husband.
So that the greek says "first woman man" or "one woman man" so that the bishop and deacon were to be a "one woman man" that would be dedicated to one woman not many. So he must de dedicated to one woman in marriage.

 

[TomVols]

How so? My wife and I were considered a family prior to children

Go back and read what you wrote. One simply cannot say that one must have experience in all areas of family life yet one can get that without the mandate of children.

I've never heard a single man claim to be a family.

Now you're changing terms. Is it household or family? One person is a household of one. You also stated that there is no Biblical concept of singleness as a household. Please cite Biblical evidence. Contra evidence is easily seen in 1 Cor 7. How would Paul justifiably praise singleness as a status, yet (in your view) now render it as a disqualifier in service as an elder or deacon? Seems incongruous.

No, I would not disqualify a man who's adult children are not exemplary believers. They are adults and not under the father's authority as such.

Why not?

And what about a man's children whom he allows to live with another person, say, a brother or sister (the uncle/aunt of the children)?

I believe viewing polygamy as being the key is doing just that.

This is the underwhelming view in the history of Bible-believing Christians.

The requirements are dealing with managing God's family hence the need for experience and a positive track record in doing so with their own family first.

Circular logic. Assumes facts not in evidence. And it violates the text.

How can a pastor, elder or deacon defend marriage when they have failed at it themselves?

This is the most mystifying of the arguments. First, present tense verbs are used here, which is often overlooked. Second, if you have ever violated the hospitality clause, or the apt teaching clause, then you're similarly disqualified. No, you say? Then you've elevated one qualification over another, a strain of the text.

 

[JesusFan]

The text does not have an "if", it has a "must". They must manage their children and household well. It was a given that in this union children would be present, it was the norm. The text doesnt say must have children , btw...but it does say they must manage their household well. Go look up what household meant. Never means a single man. How can a man manage an extension of Gods family with no experience with their own earthly family? I can tell you right now having a wife and children I would have no clue what this meant without having my own family, including the natural desires to find a mate.

A Single man, Apostle paul?, would be qualified to be a pastor/treacher ANY of the official roles in the Church though...

Its just that IF he was married, that those other rules would be applying...

Bible has it equally valid for single/married, just additional requirements IF married!

 

[webdog]

A Single man, Apostle paul?, would be qualified to be a pastor/treacher ANY of the official roles in the Church though...

Its just that IF he was married, that those other rules would be applying...

Bible has it equally valid for single/married, just additional requirements IF married!

His calling was as an apostle, not as a pastor.

 

[webdog]

Go back and read what you wrote. One simply cannot say that one must have experience in all areas of family life yet one can get that without the mandate of children.

Just re-read it...and I never said anything regarding all areas of family life, I just echoed what Paul said... "4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

Now you're changing terms. Is it household or family?

What's the difference? The above passage from the NIV states family.

One person is a household of one.

Odd logic considering the term is coined from the inmates of a house.

You also stated that there is no Biblical concept of singleness as a household. Please cite Biblical evidence.

I did...the translators translated it family (and you know you cannot prove a negative, if anything your comment above needs to be proven that a household or family consists of one). Why would Paul state what he did in v. 5 if he were talking about taking care of his physical dwelling?! Managing God's family is interpersonal, dealing with individuals and their spiritual conditions, not the maintenance and bills of their building.

Contra evidence is easily seen in 1 Cor 7. How would Paul justifiably praise singleness as a status, yet (in your view) now render it as a disqualifier in service as an elder or deacon? Seems incongruous.

Apples and oranges. Specific requirements for pastoring a church, not spreading the Gospel.

Why not?

...because they are adults not under the authority of their faither.

And what about a man's children whom he allows to live with another person, say, a brother or sister (the uncle/aunt of the children)?

Why bring arbitrary circumstances? Why did the father allow it? Why are they living with their uncle / aunt? That would throw up red flags as to being able to manage their family, would it not?

Circular logic. Assumes facts not in evidence. And it violates the text.

I disagree. It cannot violate the text when it is IN the text (v. 5)

 

[John Toppass]

This is the most mystifying of the arguments. First, present tense verbs are used here, which is often overlooked. Second, if you have ever violated the hospitality clause, or the apt teaching clause, then you're similarly disqualified. No, you say? Then you've elevated one qualification over another, a strain of the text.

Read the whole post, or choose to be mystified.

 

[JesusFan]

Just re-read it...and I never said anything regarding all areas of family life, I just echoed what Paul said... "4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
What's the difference? The above passage from the NIV states family.

Odd logic considering the term is coined from the inmates of a house.
I did...the translators translated it family (and you know you cannot prove a negative, if anything your comment above needs to be proven that a household or family consists of one). Why would Paul state what he did in v. 5 if he were talking about taking care of his physical dwelling?! Managing God's family is interpersonal, dealing with individuals and their spiritual conditions, not the maintenance and bills of their building.
Apples and oranges. Specific requirements for pastoring a church, not spreading the Gospel.
...because they are adults not under the authority of their faither.

Why bring arbitrary circumstances? Why did the father allow it? Why are they living with their uncle / aunt? That would throw up red flags as to being able to manage their family, would it not?
I disagree. It cannot violate the text when it is IN the text (v. 5)

So If a man is called by God to pastor, would have to get a wife, and than wait until they have children before able to start his ministry vocation?

Do you consider priests who choose to remain single/celibate in say Espisople churches or Lutheryn churches as being valid?