Husband of one wife

Absolutely. I take that part to mean what it says and consider it of utmost importance to be a leader.

No but the other deacons listened to him and caused me great trouble.

 

In the conext of the OT question He was answering, that is even broader than just adultery- not more narrow. </font>[/QUOTE]Read gb93433’s post. He articulated it well and there’s no need for me to replicate his argument. Furthermore, if you had read the books that I recommended rather than disparaging me for recommending them, then you would know this the problem with the interpretation of porneia. </font>[/QUOTE] I didn't disparage you for recommending anything. I said that when there is disagreement... I think the best thing to do is go back to what God actually said.

How is that disparaging you?

If He had intended divorce/one marriage rather than "one woman man", I think He would have used those words. I do believe He knew the difference between the words, don't you? </font>[/QUOTE]No, the cases are different. In Matthew 19, Jesus said porneia meaning one thing and immediately used moichao meaning something different. You cannot make a legitimate parallel between Matthew 19:9 and I Timothy 3:2.</font>[/QUOTE] To the extent that this is true it actually works in my favor. If Jesus using two different words to indicate two different meanings suggests what gb says (though I am not convinced) then the complete and total absence of "divorce" or "marriage" or "covenant" in 1 Timoth 3:2 should be ironclad. But, it doesn't go far enough for some people. So whereas in Matthew we can have a legitimate argument about the words used... in 1 Timothy we are left arguing about the silence that you and others think should have been filled with the ideas of divorce, marriage, and covenant.

Your conclusion that my reasoning is spurious... is spurious.

It is a legitimate point more correctly applied. In 1 Timothy, God used a phrase to mean something and specifically didn't use the word needed for your interpretation.

[ November 28, 2005, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

And in Mark and Luke where the "exception clause" is absent, Jesus' statements on divorce are much more narrow. Perhaps Matthew included Jesus' statement for a specific reason only to his primarily Jewish audience that did not apply to other audiences. Otherwise, for Mark and Luke to leave out so broad an exception to an absolute rule is disingenuous reporting at best.

 

BlueFalcon wrote:

I'd like to hear you expound on the last sentence.

 

Someone asked what the four views on divorce/remarriage are:
</font>

• Divorce is not Biblically permissible, thus remarriage is not Biblically permissible</font>
• Divorce may be Biblically permissible, but remarriage is not Biblically permissible</font>
• Divorce may be Biblically permissible, and remarriage may be permissible under one or two conditions (Adultery and spiritual desertion)</font>
• Divorce may be Biblically permissible and remarriage Biblically permissible for various conditions based on Scripture</font>

All these would argue that divorce is sin, btw. The majority conservative position seems to be number three above.

rlvaughn asked how a single man can be a "one-woman man." Scott stated this a bit. It has to do with how one conducts himself in relation to the opposite sex. A one-woman single man is not a "ladies-man," casually going from relationship to relationship. He is not a flirt. He is sexually pure. He engages in no sexual immorality. He is above reproach in his dealings with women. Essentially, same way a married man is a one-woman man. I could give you many examples of single men acting in such a way that would disqualify them under that character requirement. I could also give examples of married men, too.

 

Your hermeneutic is faulty. You are requiring an explicit statement where no explicit mention is required if the idea is implicit in the discussion. The phrase “one woman man” or “the husband of one wife” in the KJV is much broader than divorce but it includes divorce. However, it includes other things such as polygamy, marital infidelity, etc. as well. It also implies that the husband must be fulfilling his covenantal duties to his wife. A divorced man cannot be a “one woman man” because he has broken a covenantal relationship with one woman and promised the same to a second woman. Yes, divorce is antithetical to the concept of a “one woman man.”

There is much more to this problem than has been discussed on this thread. No one has considered or plumbed the ramifications of a divorced pastor. Did he divorce for a Biblically allowed reason? Now, one’s view on whether divorce is allowable and on what grounds comes into play. How does he counsel his congregation on divorce? ad infinitum </font>[/QUOTE]I hope God spares you the pain of your wife running off on you and marrying another man. The only good that would come of it would be you abandon of this roman catholic rubbish you are teaching.

 

Paidagogos wrote:

Check your teeth, brother It's exegesis to note that the character qualifications in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 are all in present tense (Present Infinitive, to be exact, which does not denote time but continual action/character) to denote the sexual purity of a people living amongst a culture filled with sexual debauchery. (I can't get the Greek font to appear. How do you do that?) As you said, it would take pages to explain in a full way how this interpretation is anchored, but I'll try the Cliff Notes. There seem to be four interpretations regarding this requirement: </font>

• He must be married</font>
• He must not be a polygamist</font>
• He must be faithful to his wife</font>
• He must not ever be divorced</font>
• He must not ever have remarried after the death of his wife</font>

View 1 is unlikely becaue Paul praises the single state (Cf 1 Cor 7) for service. View 2 is the historical consensus position, but I don't see overwhelming evidence that polygamy was an accepted practice among believers. View 4 is impotent for several factors: construction of mias gunaikos, lack of the word apoloyo, pres inf construct, context of character rather than status, etc. View 5 dies at 1 Tim 5:14; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:39, etc., where remarriage after spousal death is not condemned, and may even be encouraged.

I beg to differ. Verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture and literal interpretation demands we consider historical-grammatical matters in order to properly exegete the text. Yet you say:

Not sure what you mean by varying degrees, but I can go with this. Problem is, the interpretation you hold doesn't. It is eisegetical because it reads an intepretation back into the text that is birthed from at best, a noble desire to uphold the Bible and its teaching of the sanctity of marriage, and at worst a modern standard of character that is born out of emotional tradition. Or both While I admire that the holders of this position desire to maintain the sanctity of marriage, one need not wrestle the text of Scripture from proper literal interpretation to do so.

You contended that the "no divorce" interpretation for elder/deacon is partially derived from a covenental argument reflecting the Redeemer and the redeemed as picturing the elder and the church. I'd briefly say (1) I have not seen you validate this from clear teaching of Scripture. (2) If plural eldership was the norm for church leadership, couldn't your covenental argument break down since there is but one Redeemer? Yes, in three persons, but an elder is not a trinity He is one person. (3) Wouldn't context require that the covenental Redeemer-redeemed template be applied to the other character requirements? Other covenental Redeemer-redeemed imagery/language is used throughout Scripture. Must the candidate fulfill all these?

I look forward to reading your response. I know you and I are constrained by time, so a lengthy back-and-forth is probably not possible. Besides, as you alluded, we've hashed and rehashed this a lot before. (Not you and me as "We", just the Board in general)

 

Me, too.

I'd agree and add Keener's "..And marries Another", John Owen's "On Remarriage After Divorce." There's a work by Henry DeMoor, but the title escapes me.

 

I'd like to hear you expound on the last sentence. </font>[/QUOTE]I.e., Mark and Luke may have left nothing important out when they left out the "exception clause". The exception clause included only in Matthew may only be meant for Matthew's original cultural hearers, not for the general (Gentile) audience which Mark and Luke wrote for. This may be a possibility.

 

Dear Paid,
Then following your logic anyone who had committed adultery woulld be disqualified because he could not cousel or preach on adultery.Anyone who lusted could not counsel on lust and would be disqualified.Niether of the above are now one woman men having longed and lusted for another woman committing the sin in his heart and naturally the one who actually commits the adultery cannot uncommit the adultery so he to is disqualified.In addition anyone who has murdered or stolen,had an unruly household,been a drinker or a bawdy and contentious person is disqualified because they cannot undo what they have done.Do I understand this correctly?

 

Thanks, Tom and paidagogos. That's what I'm looking for, the four positions discussed in the book.

Thanks Scott and Tom for explanations of this. Since I come from the perspective of "husband of one wife" as the correct translation, sometimes I have trouble being sure what people mean when they are talking "one-woman man". To me an unmarried man seems like he should be a "no-woman man" (unless engaged perhaps) instead of a "one-woman man". When you and Scott put it as you did, it seems you are making the meaning of "one-woman man" to be something like "right in his relationships to the opposite sex". But, Tom, that seems to cause a problem with the likely meaning, which you address in your first post on page 8 - "He must be faithful to his wife". ?

 

No, you don't understand correctly. You are extrapolating my statements to infinity resulting in error. Please don't carry my statments further than I do. There is no compelling logic that forces you to go further. Thanks.

 

[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]I hope God spares you the pain of your wife running off on you and marrying another man. The only good that would come of it would be you abandon of this roman catholic rubbish you are teaching. </font>[/QUOTE]IMHO, this vitrolic emotional outburst does more harm to your position than good.
Firstly, no person's circumstances should be used in formulating doctrine. Doctrine is forged from Scripture. However, some have observed that men who formerly held a no divorce position have adopted divorce for certain reasons when they were divorced. One can hardly be blamed for raising an eyebrow. I wonder why you tried to make this personal to me. The doctrine is true regardless of my own personal situation. Truth is not relative to the individual.
Secondly, it would appear that another's actions could disqualify a man from the pastorate. For example, the pastor with a rebellious teenager is no longer qualified to pastor according to the qualifications under discussion. One can easily see the parallel to the wife leaving.
Thirdly, your propogandra technique of guilt by association is cheap. The virgin birth is taught by the Roman Catholics too but it is not exclusively a RC doctrine. Just because they teach it doesn't necessarily mean that it is tainted or not true. I think you are a little lean in your historical knowledge of this doctrine.

I trust you feel much better after venting your spleen.

 

Check your teeth, brother It's exegesis to note that the character qualifications in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 are all in present tense (Present Infinitive, to be exact, which does not denote time but continual action/character) to denote the sexual purity of a people living amongst a culture filled with sexual debauchery. (I can't get the Greek font to appear. How do you do that?) [snip] </font>[/QUOTE]I’ll have to disagree with you here. The present infinitive can denote a past action as if one was viewing it in the present. The present infinitive indicates, if anything, that these are conditions or states that came into being at some point in the past and continue into the present. Most certainly, it does not mean action of the present—this would be like saying, “I quit smoking since I had my last cigarette ten minutes ago.” IMHO, we are confusing the Greek tense a little with the English. If the sense was “not a divorced man,” what would be the tense? My point is that the verb tense would be no different for either interpretation. Hence, it has no significance for delineating the precise meaning.

I beg to differ. Verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture and literal interpretation demands we consider historical-grammatical matters in order to properly exegete the text. Yet you say:

Not sure what you mean by varying degrees, but I can go with this. Problem is, the interpretation you hold doesn't. It is eisegetical because it reads an intepretation back into the text that is birthed from at best, a noble desire to uphold the Bible and its teaching of the sanctity of marriage, and at worst a modern standard of character that is born out of emotional tradition. Or both While I admire that the holders of this position desire to maintain the sanctity of marriage, one need not wrestle the text of Scripture from proper literal interpretation to do so. </font>[/QUOTE]I know perfectly what eisegesis is. In fact, you have given a beautiful illustration by reading one’s motives (i.e. desire) back into the post. Forget the psychoanalysis and stick with Biblical exegesis—it fits you better.
My point is that linguistic analysis does not always illuminate the meaning of the text. Some folks who know the original languages try to make every interpretation hinge upon the nuances of language. This is the unwise misuse of the tool. Depending on the text and the context, the astute expositor will weigh and use the proper tool. He doesn’t look for linguistic clues when none exist. There are times when the theological interpretations from other clear teachings of Scripture must weigh in. Good exegesis, IMHO, depends upon the careful balancing of all the factors to arrive at an accurate conclusion that fits with the whole of Scripture.

Paul obviously made the connection. However, I don’t think you understood my point. Christ’s relation to His church is a image of the married estate. Christ’s relation to His church pictures the husband’s relation to his wife. Hence, the pastor’s (i.e. elder) marriage should be a true picture of that relationship, not a broken covenant. One’s acceptance of a divorced pastor is largely contingent upon one’s view of marriage and divorce. It would take a book to make all the connections and explore all the fine distinctions.

 

So then adultery is not a disqualifier and you need not be a one woman man.If you have committed adultery you are not a one woman man by your own actions.Is that correct?

 

Here is another scenerio:a man lives his life as a whoremonger then gets saved.He obviously is not a one woman man but is now married to his first wife.Is he qualified to become a pastor?

 

Remarkably, Paidagogos dismissed the notion that premarital sexual activity was related to this qualification. Ostensibly, an unmarried man could secretly lust after another man's wife, self gratify, privately view pornography, etc but not be disqualified since these sins don't fit well under any of the other qualifiers.

However such a man would be disqualified if the standard is being a "one woman man". A man with a godly attitude toward sex, relationships, women, and manhood.

 

Bill, you are trying to make the same point that others tried and I answered their objections—it wears on my patience after awhile. This is not a yes or no answer. The point is that it is not the sexual act that is the disqualifier but rather it is breaking the covenantal relationship of marriage. How can two who have become one flesh become two again. Does a divorce decree do this? (BTW, the one flesh relationship is not just a sexual union; it is more than that.) Marriage is not consummated in the sexual union, a Roman Catholic teaching, but it is accomplished in the marriage covenant. For example, the Bible specifically refers to Mary and Joseph as being married although no sexual act occurred until after the birth of Jesus. They are husband and wife in the full and complete sense without any sex.

Without a doubt, adultery is vile sin but fornication or adultery does not make the two sinners married in any sense of the word. Sex can be a purely physical act without any commitments or covenants. Therefore, it is pure eisegesis or reading back into the text to include fornication or adultery at any time as falling under the “one woman man.” Part of the problem lies in using this phrase rather than the husband of one wife; it confuses the English reader. I will argue contextually that “husband of one wife” gives the better sense of the passage than “one woman man” which is an ambiguous and awkward construction in English although it is a permissible and literal translation. (Now, there’s dynamic equivalence for you!) Of course, it could be translated literally as “one wife husband” since aner and gune are correctly translated as husband and wife respectively according to context.

How can you justify your statement that anyone who has ever committed adultery is not a “one woman man”? What does this phrase mean? Define and delimit it! How are you using the term adultery? Does this include sex before marriage? Why do you bring the sex act into this qualification? Do you equate sex with marriage? Marriage is not a license for sex. Defend your assertion. Dig a little deeper and think through the ramifications.

 

Now you’re confusing getting caught with being qualified. Some things are left in God’s hands for Him to judge. Premarital sexual activity has nothing to do with this requirement but it may fall under other requirements such as having a good report. You seem to be hung up on sex and you have missed the point that this requirement is about breaking a covenantal relationship, not your sex life. Read my earlier post to Bill.

No, you’re wrong. I never said this and there is no compelling logic from anything that I did say. This is your misconstruing my arguments; you seem unwilling or unable to grasp my points without twisting them into some craziness.

 

Yes if he qualifies in the other points. He has broken no covenant to his wife. However, I do think the requirement implies more than simply staying married to his wife. There is a question of keeping the other aspects of the marriage covenant.