one wife

I would think it meant maybe to not have a couple of wifes running the roost. (A side note in my bible says you should prohibit both polygamy and promiscuity but shouldn't prohit a an unmarried man from becomming a leader or a widowed leader from marrying.) One wife is enough (thats what my hubby tells me).
But then theres Solomon had all those wifes...but yet he wrote the book on marriage. In Ecclesiastes he is known as the preacher.

Music4Him

 

It means:

A person must not be engaging in polygamy or adultery.

It does not mean:

A person must be married.
A person cannot be divorced.
A person must be male.

 

So a husband of one wife does not mean a husband of one wife?

It could mean "A husband (or wife) of one wife (or husband), or not a husband (or wife) at all."

 

Context, Context, Context. The purpose of this one verse was not to define a pastor's gender, and was not to assert that marriage was comuplsory fora pastor.

There may be other verses that discuss those items, but this verse was not intended to do so.

 

Sorry John, I don't see how anyone can just declare that the verse does not mean what it says. Hows does "context, context, context" come into play? He is discussing qualifications.

 

I believe that the phrase literally means "one-wife husband."
Polygamy was not a problem among Christians or Jews at that time, and I don't believe that that was the problem being addressed (though it is never sanctioned). Paul is addressing the problem of divorce and remarriage which was a problem. Remeber the pharisees testing Jesus: "Can a man divorce his wife for any cause?" Divorce was very common. Jesus rebuked them, and said "from the beginning it was not so." "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder."

Mark 10:11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Jesus taught that if you divorced and remarried that you were living in a state of adultery. That was the same as having two wives. I believe that this is the teaching behind "the husband of one wife." A pastor cannot be divorced and remarried.
DHK

 

I agree with Roger and DHK on this issue.

I will add this - in Paul's day - when he wrote the "one-wife husband" - many believers were slaves. And owners of slaves could do with their property as they saw fit - which included selling them to other owners - which often broke up families - and new owners would want more slaves - so they would pair "the best females" with "the best males" to get new slaves. So if Paul said - "One-wife husband" in those conditions - (and he did) it certainly eliminated many from the office of pastor.

Also - remember one of the qualifications is "one who rules well his own house."

Divorce (whatever the reason) - unruly children, etc. -- certainly is not indicative of ruling well ones own house!

 

How did this happen? I agree with DHK...


For, it seems like a millenia, the A/G had a hard fast rule that even a deacon/trustee could not be divorced and re-married...

Even if the first marriage ended *before* salvation...

So, I personally saw situations where a deacon who had never been divorced and re-married became a trustee even though his wife wore short skirts and children were un-ruly...

Yet, a man who had gotten married very young, then divorced, then got saved re-married could not serve in the church in *any* capacity.

Even though his wife was arguably the most Proverbs 31 of any of the women in church (even the pastor's wife) and his children were well-behaved...

Simply mind-boggling...

There is a tendency to translate the passage as 'one wife at a time'. And, while I lean towards that I feel it is dangerous for many reasons.

The only proviso, I personally feel inclined to allow, in addition to the foregoing prior to salavation, is abandonment.

For, in my view, a believer would not abandon his family, and if the unbeliever departs let them depart...

But, it gets real complicated and risky because you don't know if the 'remaining' drove the other party away!

(Most people are not in one place long enough to really be known well enough to make such calls, and many pastors simply don't know thie own people well enough even if they've been there long enough to be known.)

Abandonment entails not meeting the needs of one's own household which is equated to be *worse* than an unbeliever/infidel.

For a pastor to have had a divorce while a Christian is very serious, especially while as a pastor.

Can they be 'rehabilitated'? That depend upon the local church and denomination rules.

The A/G says no... So, it is out of my hands. (Thankfully!)

Not sure I'd want him working for me single though... Not in these days and times...

 

I never thought I would ever say this again, but I agree with DHK!!!

(on this particular subject).

Miricles still happen!!

as always,

Working for Jesus,

Tam

 

I really am surprised - I thought my view of "husband of one wife" meaning what it says was passé in most people's minds.

A "one-wife husband" is even clearer, even possibly allowing for a single pastor. I think it means he has only had one wife as well, but no matter what it is VERY difficult for a woman to be a "one-wife husband."

 

Back in those days it would never occur to them that a female would even think of being a pastor or a deacon, because of the traditional role of women.

So I'm inclined to say the intent here is disqualifying polygamy, and divorce and remarriage, and not setting the gender for the offices as male. The intent is a best-case description.

However, my church has deacons and deaconesses that have been divorced and remarried a long time ago, and it doesn't seem to affect their ministry now.

 

I can't accept that any part of the Bible only applies to that culture.

God is not limited by culture, His words are for all time.

 

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

God has clearly assigned the leadership in His church to men. Men are to be preachers and deacons, not women. That does not mean women are subservient or unnecessary to the viability of the church, but only that the roles they are to assume are different than the roles men are to assume. Surely, if God had ever intended women to assume preiminent roles in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, He would have made it known in His word? God is not the author of confusion, so why entertain anything but the obvious?

The husband of one wife issue has been debated over and over again, but it is still good to discuss it. Truthfully, both sides of the argument are correct from all I have studied. Polygamy was rampant and Paul's admonition may have been simply to affirm monogamy, or he may have been reminding them that breaking God's original marriage model disqualified those who would be preachers or deacons.

Regardless, what seems clear is that a man who has been ordained as a pastor or as a deacon, should be blameless so that reproach will not fall on them and, as a result, on the church they serve.

That is equally true for the other qualifications Paul relays. Pastors and deacons are to conduct themselves in a manner consistent to the offices they represent. If they are to be influential within their congregations, if they are to be effectual servants in the church, if they are to be effective representatives of the church in their communities, how can they be permitted to do otherwise? The personal examples they portray is far greater to the world outside the church, than it is to those who show up for regular services. Pastors and deacons are measured by a different standard, and we should not attempt to rationalize this difference or minimize its necessity.

The position seems unforgiving, but perhaps a personal example will help. I suffered a pretty serious stroke a few years ago. But, by God's grace and mercy, I have recovered to a degree, that the effects are invisible to all that do not know otherwise. However, I feel the effects continually. My right hand is partially numb, I tire more easily, and occasionally I limp slightly. You see, although you may not readily see how the stoke affected me, I still feel the effects they are with me continually. It forever changed me.

The same is true for the brethren who have been divorced, regardless where the fault for divorce may rest. Even though they may have recovered, they are in some respects, still handicapped by the experience, and they will be forever. However, they should go forward, seeking God's will and then serving Him in other areas of the church where their service can be utilized. Pastors should resign, continuing to serve as evangelists (if permitted) and deacons should resign. This is not punitive, and it is not a question of extending forgiveness. It is simply preserving the integrity of the offices in the Lord's church.

 

To get a clear understanding of scripture, we need to look at the Greek. The Greek text reads mias gunaikos anêr, which here literally means "man with one woman", or, in the English slang, "one-woman man".

Paul's letter to Timothy was written for a Greek gentile audience. One of the major concerns of the Greeks of the region was not multiple marriages per se, but polyamory (the taking of miltiple lovers). While adultery was not officially sanctioned by society, it was a common enough "don't ask don't tell" practice. Also of issue was the conception that, if you were a married individual, and you had a "casual fling" at the local bath house with a person of the same gender, that it wasn't considered adultery. Understanding these societal concerns gives a greater grasp at the issues Paul was tackling. He's saying, "sorry, but if you're gonna be a church leader, you can't weasle your way out of the one woman/one man rule".

Elective divorce was an issue with the Jews, partly because the Jews of the time still considered women as property. They could not own property or speak in public. However, Paul is speaking to a Gentile audience. The Greek women were not considered a man's property. Women could own property, accumulate wealth, and speak in public. Divorce was not rampant in Gentile societies like it was in Jewish societies.

 

But clearly NOT one man woman.

 

While that may be true, you're saying that phrases like "man of God" can only apply to males. If that's correct, we have a real problem, because we often interpret scriptures to refer to humankind in general, not a specific gender (nless context indicates). For example, "peace on earth, good will towards men" is presumed to refer to men and women. "Man shall not live by bread alone" is presumed to refer to men and women. "What is man that you are mindful of him?" is presumed to refer to men and women. The OT phrase "sons of God" doesn't refer only to male followers of God, but all followers of God.

 

Of course not, but in this case the obvious sense is that of a man, not a woman. It is even clearer in the case of a deacon where the roles of the wives is given.

 

Hmmph. You guys never heard of the "generic use of the term" interpretation?

you think that because the scripture says "it is appointed unto man once to die and after that the judgement" that women have an escape clause and might get to live forever?

When the Samaratan Woman met Jesus, He asked her to go get her husband and she said "I have no husband".

Jesus said

( ) You answered wrong

( ) You answered right

Because you have had 5 husbands and the man you now have is not your husband


IF THE LANGUAGE PAUL USED MEANT you could never have a divorce in the past, why could JESUS say the woman answered RIGHTLY when she said she had no husband?

 

Well she definitely wasn't "the husband of one wife" was she?