1 Timothy 3:12

That is his interpretation of what the verse is saying. Same as another preacher may interpret it as "no divorced man." I wouldn't say it's adding to Scripture.

 

It's kinda difficult to understand what you're saying when you do not punctuate or capitalize.

There are many men, Bible scholars, who have intepreted the verse one way, some another. Check out some commentaries to see if this isn't so.

My intepretation of the verse is, it says what it means - the husband of one wife. If a man divorces and doesn't remarry, he is single. He is no longer married. He is not 'the husband of one wife.' He has no wife. On the other hand, if a man divorces (no longer married to the woman) and remarries, he is the husband of one wife.

 

It could also clearly mean that one has to be married in order to be qualified.

Adding one's interpretation and holding it to the same level as scripture is "adding" to scripture, as is taking scripture out of context.

 

itcouldgetworse

 

"itcouldgetworse"

 

If one wife meant, "one wife in his lifetime", then why would five (divorced)husbands mean (WELL SAID) "no husband"?

Lacy

 

That's a very good point, Lacy - I'd never thought of that before. What do you think the commandment about "husband of wife" means, then? I'd always thought it meant just that: if you're not married, or if you're married to more than one person, you're disqualified. Any thoughts?

 

I agree. A Deacon cannot do his job without his help meet.

 

Does that exclude singles?

 

ok looking at this verse and thinking on the times in which it was written. Do you think that maybe just maybe this was referring to polymagy? The practice of having more than one wife at a time? I think it was still occuring when Timothy was written. To count out a deacon becuase they are divorced might VERY well stop a blessing to your church. You must remember we are all human we all make mistakes, and we all get into situations that we need to get out of. I'm not saying that divorce is a good idea. But, there could be a very Biblical base for that divorce.

 

I am very old fashioned on this issue I think it means "the husband of one" wife, not one at a time. Wouldn't that mean that he could have gone through a whole series, and even change wives while he was pastor/deacon?

 

First off the passage in the greek does not say husband of one woman. It is not about how many ytimes the man has been married. It says a "one woman man." it is aboiut character as is all the qualifications for pastor. The man who hold thta office is to be a man of such character that he sees no other woman then his wife. There are many men in the pastor position who hav ebut one wife and yet have desires for other women in either liking to look or being touchy with them. This man must be a one woman man according to scripture. One could push this to the idea of no divorced man holding the office, but that is not the intent of this part of the passage at least in it context.

 

In the Word of God, He says "these two shall be one flesh."
Nowhere does the Word say that these two are no longer one flesh. This man and woman are tied together by spirit with one another. For life!
I believe all who have been married have these soul ties with one another, they "cleave unto" each other. Even in divorce, they still have spiritual ties to one another, especially if there are children.
This whole passage here also says "ruling their children and their own houses well. If a man has been divorced, how has he ruled his own house well? He hasn't!
Do I believe in Revelation where it says " do not add or take away from?" ABSOLUTELY!
A church I was in in the late 70's had this same problem and my wife and I left because of it. Why?
Doctrinal error!

 

What about the brother who loses his wife because he IS ruling his house well!? What if she says, "You compromise, or I'm outta here?"

Matthew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.


He gets a reward! That's what!

Lacy

 

Like I said it does not say husband of one wife. The translators changed that to read that way. it says one woman man. You can be the husband of one wife and not be a one woman man. The text is much stricter then just speaking about being married to one woman.

 

For the most part, this debate has been about words to no profit. The details are being debated while one of the most important points has been ignored. In Ephesians 5, the relationship of husband-wife is a picture of Christ and His church. If a man, who is a pastor, is divorced and remarried, what does it say about Christ and the church? Can Christ divorce His church? Furthermore, marriage is a covenant, not a sexual relationship* (RC view). The covenantal relationship here is what’s important. Covenant-keeping, as you well know, is central to the character of God. (Hint: Look at the names of God, etc.) Furthermore, it is a matter of qualification, not sin and forgiveness. It appears that we are arguing about marriage, one-flesh relationship, etc. without having a clue about the Biblical teaching on the same. We are debating common sense and cultural norms which are relative.

*RC teaching is that marriage is consummated by the sex act. Wrong! Joseph and Mary were married[\b] before the birth of Jesus even though the Bible specifically states that Mary “knew not a man” (i.e. did not participate in sexual act) before the birth of Christ. Marriage takes place at the altar, not in bed.