If divorced and filling the role as pastor, should other men of God back off and let

No, it doesn't. The word written in every single instance is the word "pneuma." It is wrong to have translated it different ways. It is the same word each time, and it means "Spirit."

NO, they didn't. They added to it, and denied part of it. When you add to Scripture, you are not teaching Bible content. That is what they did. And on top of that, they ignored it. They were hypocrites, demanding the people to do things they didn't do and making great show out of small things (tithing, phylacteries, etc.) while overlooking the other things (love, justice, mercy, etc.). Christ condemned them for not teaching the Bible but rather "teaching as doctrine the commandments of men." They taught the commandments of men rather than the word of God. That is not Bible doctrine, and it is not unlike those today who do the same thing.

But a man can disqualify himself, and some who think they are called are not called. That works on both sides. There are many "Holy Ghost preachers" (to use your words) that were never called. They are traitors to the word of God because they stand up and preach things that God never said.

 

Aw! Go buy yourself a good English dictionary and quit hating the KJV! That's on the other forum. This is absolute proof of my point that many never miss an opportunity to correct the KJV because it makes them feel so smart.

Ghost/Spirit has nothing to do with this thread. They are synonyms. And this isn't the translations forum!

Lacy

 

I don't believe a divorced man should pastor, that is, the divorce occuring after he joins the church, and goes into the ministry, the divorce being grounded for whatever reason. Now, some may say the Scriptures say adultery on the part of the woman is scriptural grounds, however, I feel the Scripture's true intent is reconciliation, and not divorce.

All the other things you said, being in the past, should not disqualify anyone from being pastor or deacon. However, one who is already in the ministry and still brawls for the slightest reason, or is a habitual drunk, is another thing.

 

Did not read all of the posts on this one so sorry if I repeat. Spent a lot of time on this issue, not for any personal reason, though. Many people change their view when it gets personal!

An Elder (Bishop) must be “the husband of one wife” (KJV). The word anar appears 215 times in the Greek NT and is translated as man (156 times), husband (50 times), sir (6), fellow (1), not translated (2). The Greek word guna appears 221 times and is translated woman (129) and wife (92). Either of these words for husband or wife could be understood as referring to any adult man or woman without reference to their marital status (Matt 1:16,19; 7:24,26; 1:20,24; 5:28). In the original Greek manuscripts (apographs), the word translated wife appears before husband. Literally the phrase is “a one-woman man”. Because of the fact that gunaikon (wife/woman) is in the emphatic position and is an attributive genitive indicating quality, the phrase would be best translated as “a one-woman kind of man” (Ed Glasscock, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 140 #559, Jul 1983, p. 252).

There are four common views concerning this phrase:
1. A Bishop must be married.
2. A Bishop must only have had one wife in his lifetime.
3. A Bishop may not have been divorced.
4. A Bishop must be a one-woman kind of man.

Before looking at these views in order, we should perhaps recall that God often does establish higher standards for his leaders than for the rest of the people. For instance, Ezekiel 44:22 forbids a priest to marry a divorced woman or a widow, unless the widow had been married to a priest before. Every where else in Scripture, the right to marry a widow or a widower is clearly established. Yet here, the priest is not allowed to marry a widow. Under the Mosaic Law, God set a higher standard for His priests than for the general populace. It is God’s prerogative to do whatever he chooses to do. However, the fact that God established this standard for the priests of Ezekiel’s day, does not mean that the same standard applies to elders in a New Testament church today. The Jews were also under the Sabbath Law (Exod 31:12-18). This was a covenant sign between God and Israel; the church is not part of this same covenant and is not obligated to keep the seventh day (1Cor 16:2; Rev 1:10). We must determine what God has said to New Testament Christians in this regard. It is not appropriate to insist that certain portions of the Old Testament should apply to the church – unless there is a clear link established in the New Testament (Acts 15:1,13,19-21; Col 2:14-17).
Keeping these principles in mind, we will look at the different views concerning the phrase “one-woman man” in the order listed:

The first view states that a Bishop/Elder must be married. If the man does not have a wife, how can he be a one-woman man? Some who hold this position also insist that Elders must have children (v. 4) to demonstrate their ability to manage a household and by application the church of God. Some would even go so far as to suggest that the children must be nearly grown so that the parenting skills could be observed in the final outcome. This is a “taste the fruit, to know the tree” kind of mentality. While these ideas may have some advantages and could be argued logically from some standpoints, the real issue is, “Does the word of God clearly say that Bishops/Elders must be married?” If this is the meaning of the phrase, it is in direct conflict with Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church (1Cor 7:7-9, 25-33). Further, if church leaders must be married, what are we to do with the fact that Paul was not married? It may be argued that Paul is not specifically called an elder. John MacArthur convincingly argues that Paul was an elder based on Acts 13:1 and 1Tim 4:14 w/ 2Tim 1:6. Also, since Paul’s position as an Apostle was above elders, any standard that applied to elders would most certainly have applied to higher levels of leadership, though it is not necessarily true that the same standards would have been required of lower leadership positions. The qualification of being “apt to teach,” did not apply downward to the deacons, but it most certainly fit the leaders of the church who were above the elders (Eph 4:11). It would be inconsistent with the rest of Scripture to insist that God requires Elders to be married while allowing an Apostle to remain single. Based on Paul’s singleness, his admonition to remain single for the sake of the ministry, and the fact that the Greek construction and case form suggests a quality of character rather than simply marital status, it is best to discount this first view as inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament. Any specific interpretation must fit the rest of Scripture as well.

The second view of this phrase allows Elders to have only one wife in a lifetime. The rationale from this view comes from the fact that the text says “one woman” and from establishing a parallel between the Elder and his wife and Christ and the church. Since Christ only has one bride, the church, it is argued that His Elders are only entitled to one bride. Against this position we find the whole of Scripture. The right of a widow or widower to remarry is established without question throughout the entire Bible and confirmed by the Apostle Paul (Rom 7:2). Paul even commands Timothy to encourage the younger widows to remarry (1Tim 5:11,14) rather than remain as widows. Even though there were some limitations and stipulations, the Priests were allowed to remarry in the Old Testament (Ezek 44:22). It is certainly a far stretch to argue for this on the basis of typology between Christ and the Church and an elder and his wife. This view has no basis in the Word of God.

The third view alleges that a divorced man may not serve as an elder. Some would narrow this to a man who has been divorced and remarried. Some attempt to expand it to include the wife of the elder as well. In this case not only would the Elder have to be a one-woman man, but his wife would have to be a one-man woman, with the assumption that neither could have been divorced and remarried. This is clearly going beyond the words of the text, yet, such forced interpretation is common among many conservative groups.

Prior to dealing with this third view in detail, perhaps we should note that Paul does not say, “not a divorced man.” The concept of divorce nowhere appears in 1Tim 3 or Titus 1. Those who hold this position must infer that it is assumed by mention of the “one-woman” relationship. Yet, we must remember that it is not good practice to assume something that cannot be clearly established in the immediate text or by comparing with other passages.
Is it possible that a divorced man could be allowed to serve as an Elder? Or, an Apostle? If Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 8:1; 22:20) it is likely that he was a divorced man. Members of the Sanhedrin were required to be married and we know that Paul was not married at the time he wrote First Corinthians (1Cor 7:8; 9:5). Yet, this cannot be insisted upon for nowhere is it clearly stated, or even implied, that Paul was divorced. The silence of Scripture cannot be offered as support for either position. All we know from scripture is that Paul was single at the time First Corinthians was written.

Concerning the issue of divorce and remarriage:
1. God’s original plan was - one man, one woman, one lifetime (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6).
2. Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage on the basis of “immorality” (Matt 19:3-12; Matt 1:19).
3. Paul allowed divorce and remarriage on the basis of desertion by an unbeliever (1Cor 7:8-9, 12-15, 39).
Two further issues must be considered here:
1. Was the divorce justified, or allowed, according to Biblical teachings on the matter; and,
2. Was the divorce prior to salvation and has repentance taken place and reconciliation sought? One could also ask, if the divorce was after salvation, is the forgiveness of God less available for the saint than for the sinner? (Rom 5:8-10)

Some have also argued that the issue of polygamy (having more than one wife) is the subject of this phrase. Though polygamy was not legal under Roman law, there is ample evidence that is was practiced, at least in the outlying provinces of the empire. It is possible that this issue is addressed in the phrase, but not likely, because of the parallel phrase used in 1Tim 5:9 referring to widows.

The fourth, and most likely the correct view, is that Paul is stating that for a man to be an elder, his moral conduct and attitude must be above reproach. He must not be a womanizer and he must be “utterly single minded in his devotion to his wife. If he is not married, he is not the type who is flirtatious.” (MacArthur, Answering Key Questions About Elders, p. 14).
In Roman culture it was not only common, but considered socially acceptable for a man to have a wife for bearing legitimate children and “mistresses” for personal pleasure. Immorality was a part of pagan worship and was rampant throughout the culture. Both James and Paul charged the Gentiles to avoid moral misconduct (Acts 15:20; 1Cor 6:16-18). This understanding of the phrase avoids the two extremes of making divorce an unpardonable sin for church leaders and of lightly excusing moral lapses of leaders. A single, married, or divorced man must be considered on the basis of where he is in his relationship with God and his wife. The institution of marriage is still held high, yet it is kept in balance with the grace and forgiveness of God.

 

Good article RJPrince

 

Thanks guys. Spent a lot of time on it, in years past.