I do understand. In order to be the husband of one wife, one must be a husband and that husband must have a wife, making them...married.
You don't understand. The phrase is referring to sexual purity. As I have pointed out, your interpretation disqualifies the Lord of the church and her greatest missionary, it disqualifies men whose wives have died, and it qualifies men who have been sexually unfaithful but have not divorced. That is clear evidence that you are wrong.
Not once does the expression "one woman man" appear in the my Bible. If you say "God said, One woman man" then my Bible would have to be wrong in order for you to be right.
The phrase "husband of one wife" is the translation of teh phrase "one woman man." Have can you have such a dogmatic position when you do not even know what it says?
I did not say that Strong's was your authority.
You said to Tim, "You are establishing that your authority is the Strong's concordance." That sounds a lot like you are saying that those who agree with Tim are making STrong's their authority. I doubt your response would have been any different if I had appealed to BAGD, or LSJ, or MM.
Jesus Christ is the bridegroom of one wife.
Not in the terms spoken of in 1 Tim 3:2, and the wedding has not yet taken place as Rev 19 tells us.
Here I stand, until dissuaded otherwise by an effective argument and thus far, none have been forthcoming.
Your judgment is inadequate. It has been shown, both by exegesis and application that your view is wrong.
Here are some notes that will further answer your position and show your position to be incorrect.
This phrase in the list has caused perhaps as much controversy as any other. It has been given essentially five interpretations.
·[FONT="] [/FONT]The Wife is the Church
An overseer is to have only one wife, the church. He is not to be married to any other. This is the traditional Roman Catholic view that forbids married clergy. The problem with this view is that it is a very forced use of the phrase. Furthermore, it makes the false teachers who “forbid marriage” in 4:3 right to forbid marriage in certain cases.
·[FONT="] [/FONT]Prohibition against polygamy
This phrase prevents the multiplication of wives. Against this view is the fact that polygamy was against Roman law. If a person was following the law as Paul elsewhere commands (Rom 13) he is forbidding something that would never take place. Furthermore, it is forbidden by Scripture (1 Cor 7:2). A person involved in polygamy is involved in immorality. Therefore, it becomes a moot command, having no relevance for the church. There is the opposite phrase used in 5:9 (the wife of one husband). It obviously is not arguing against polyandry and therefore, this phrase should be read in that light as well.
·[FONT="] [/FONT]Prohibition against remarriage after death
This view is summed up by saying “Only one wife in a lifetime.” This is the view taken in some extrabiblical literature. However, such a view directly contradicts Paul’s writing elsewhere. Rom 7:1-3 teaches that death ends a marriage contract (cf. 1 Cor 7:39). 1 Tim 5:14, Paul commands younger widows to remarry. It is presumable that he would include men in that command as well.
·[FONT="] [/FONT]Prohibition against unmarried overseers
This is based on the use of necessity (
dei). Some say this would counter the false teacher’s commands not to marry. However, the command specifically says “one wife” not “a wife.” In addition, those who hold this view do not say that verse four demands children, only that it says something about children, should the overseer have them. Furthermore, it seems to contradict Matt 19:12 where it says that only some will be eunuchs for the kingdom of God. It does not imply that all will be or that some must be, simply that some will be. Furthermore, it would have disqualified Paul from being a pastor.
·[FONT="] [/FONT]Prohibition involving unlawful divorce and including marital infidelity
Divorce was a problem in the first century as indicated by other passages and extrabiblical literature. It was a reality in the church of the day. Furthermore, the grammatical construction (anarthrous) seems to focus on the character of the person in view. Therefore, it seems to carry the idea of a “one woman man,” one who is faithful to his wife. Most people (though not all) see two instances of “legitimate divorce” in the NT. One for immorality on the part of the spouse (Matt 19:1-12) and the other for desertion by an unbeliever (1 Cor 7). In such cases, most see the innocent party is free to remarry. With this view, a divorced person is not necessarily disqualified from the ministry on the basis of his divorce. He may have been divorced (possibly*—[note the strong qualifier]—possibly even at fault) but since established a track record of a good marriage as a one-woman man (perhaps 20-30 years). He may still be qualified as a one-woman man. However, the “above reproach” may never be regained in such a case. It is impossible to be dogmatic I believe. We can be dogmatic that marital faithfulness is an absolute must for the overseer.
I do believe the phrase is speaking of a character of life where one is faithful and pure in his relationship with his wife. This is an awkward way to say “no divorce.” All the other characteristics refer to the current state of a man’s life. Why not this one?
