Agreed.Also I would not consider the thought life unless it was continually dwelt upon and then only that person would know.We cannot know what is in the heart of another.However we do know what is in our own heart.If we are men of integrity then we would disqualify ourselves if lewd thoughts with other women were allowed to continually fill our minds and we were to allow it.We can chase these thoughts away.We are children of The Almighty God.
Husband of one wife
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by revdms, Nov 21, 2005.
Page 8 of 11
-
-
That you have a tendency to not be gracious and careful with your words. That you attempt to win by insulting others rather than dealing with the substance of what they say.
I don't have to psychoanalyze you... Your words speak for themselves. Is it necessary to go back and pull out a list of quotes that were condescending, disrespectful, and demeaning while adding nothing to the substance of the discussion?
Or are you willing to stop with the insulting language and show some Christian grace? -
We all need to play nice.
-
I am under no delusions about the fact that some sins take years to overcome even after salvation. If a person sank into the depths of depravity before salvation, sinful lusts may continue to be a problem for them for a long time or even their whole life. The appetites they cultivated may never be overcome to the extent that they can hold a leadership position.
Again, you think I am advocating a lower standard when I am not. A divorce would certainly be a flag. But since it is not specifically mentioned in the text, it should not be considered a disqualifier in and of itself. -
Tact and grace have not been a problem for you to date so there is no need for you to warn me that you are putting it "bluntly".
But, to put it bluntly to you, you have simply adopted a legalistic position and entrenched yourself. You refuse to recognize the inconsistency of your interpretation. You refuse to see that you are adding to the text when you force in the concepts of the violation of the marriage covenant or divorce.
[snip]
If you can't see your inconsistency on this then the beam is in your eye... so you can leave my mote alone. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, now……you’re not coming off prettily here! While chiding me for sarcasm and bluntness, you do the same toward me. Your charm and grace impresses me. :D I don’t think I have stepped over the line of acceptable decorum for a debate forum. However, you imply that I have although you are doing the same to me. Hypothetically, if I should be wrong then Scripture commands us not to give evil for evil. What have you done by chiding me for you are presently doing? There’s a word for this kind of thing if you can recall. Scottie, old boy, you have painted yourself into a logical corner. Be careful not to step on the wet paint now. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes... that word is "rebuke". I have asked you to stop using dishonest and ungracious words and tactics.
I am not offended that you would disagree with me. I am offended that you persistently use insulting language like "wimping", humanistic, et al.
I don't think anyone here would accuse me of either... but you have implied that I am for no reason apparently except maybe because you think it makes your responses stronger and obscures their weakness. We run into the same thing from evolutionists very frequently. If you can dismiss your opponent then you can excuse ignoring their position. -
A divorce can be forgiven and still leave a man unqualified if the flaws in the man remain. A "one woman man" standard is not a low standard at all. It goes to the behavior and attitudes that may cause a divorce and doesn't stop with just the superficial level. However, the fact that a man may not have always been a "one woman man" does not mean that he can never be one. -
-
Scott J, it's the re-marriage to another woman that disqualifies the man, not the divorce.
You implied that all divorces are the result of deviate behaviour on the part of the man. This is not always the case and I don't believe you did that intentionally.
Divorces are forgivable, just as all sin is forgivable excepting the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost BUT!!! the consequences of all sin still are effectual due to the digressive nature of all sin.
Divorce ends a living institution. It puts to death the marriage covenant, but not the first wife. She is still living, thus the man who re-marries would have two living wives and disqualified due to being the husband of such and therefore NOT the "husband of one wife". -
-
Tom, I'm sure you could, and I appreciate the offer. But at this point, this thread (not you) is beginning to wear thin and I don't think I will come back and read any more of it. Plus, I don't want to put the thought into it to find the right words to explain what I meant. It's been a long day and I'm tired. Thanks though.
-
OTOH, the offended party usually didn't directly force the offender into abandonment or fornication. Those are personal responsibilities before God that are not situational nor dependent on circumstances.
The literal reading of the passage in question is "one woman man". As TomVols has pointed out, the language indicates a present condition. A divorced man can be a "one woman man" in the here and now.
A biblically divorced man who has repented of his sin can demonstrate the qualifications mentioned in the Bible.
First, he is no longer the husband of the first woman. The Bible does define divorce implicitly as the end of a marriage though the NT restricts the cases where a believer may use it.
Second, "husband of one wife" is an interpretive translation. It isn't literal. "one woman man" is literal... and significantly broader than just marriage. -
The language DOES NOT indicate present condition. It INDICATED a condition in their society 2,000 years ago.
Nor is the phrase "one woman man" literal, unless you are arguing that Paul intended for each leader to live with one woman and not marry.
The phrase was a literal "one wife man". -
-
Actually, "one woman man" is not literal, because MIAS GYNAIKOS is in the genitive case meaning "of one woman" or "of one wife". In all three cases the Greek construction is used, the "one" is emphasized by its primary placement, with the meaning "a husband of but one wife", eliminating polygamous men from consideration. To say that Paul meant more than this is dangerous exegesis in my opinion.
-
Maybe this should be in another thread, but Matthew's "exception clause" may have only been for the current Jewish case to allow a man to put his "woman" away if it were found out that she had been previously defiled by another man. In this way Joseph would not have sinned by divorcing Mary had she actually been defiled by another man prior to their own marital consummation. Mark and Luke leave out this clause, possibly indicating that it wasn't even pertinent to the discussion, i.e., that divorce causes all people involved, if they remarry, to be in a continuous state of adultery. And a person in a continuous state of adultery should not be a pastor.
-
God's Word says, "husband of one wife" not one at a time. One, unless death parts them. Again, it says one. It means one, the woman at the well talking with Jesus, Jesus said that she had five husbands and the one she was with was not her husband. So, the divorce didn't stop the count of husbands. If a man divorces and remarries another he has two wives and if he does it again he has three, and so on, just as Jesus said. Which would rule him out of being a pastor/bishop or deacon according to I Timothy 3. Thank you all for being so kind as to share your imput!
-
Needless to say, "one wife man" only addresses polygamy and not divorce since a divorced and once remarried man only has one wife... biblically speaking.
I think however that more than that is intended. I think that a pastor or deacon should have right attitudes and relationships concerning women and sexuality. -
-
Remember, when Moses allowed divorce, polygamy was allowed. If the intent was not to end the marriage, no divorce would have been necessary since the man could take another wife anyway. The man's issuance of a divorce to the woman legally ended the marriage. She was then allowed to take another husband.
Jesus clarifies this as only being legitimate for the cause of fornication. Paul further expanded it to include abandonment of a Christian by a non-believer. -
Joh 4:18 For1063 thou hast had2192 five4002 husbands;435 and2532 he whom3739 thou now3568 hast2192 is2076 not3756 thy4675 husband:435 in that5124 saidst2046 thou truly.227
The numbers are from Strong's, if you care to check them out. The Greek work echo is not used in the past tense, it is used to state a fact that continues until the day she and Christ were talking. In the sense she had five husbands not one. When she got "another" one he was husband #2 and so on through #5. How is that one wife, if jesus had said that to a pastor, you have had five wives, does that mean that he only had one? I really do not get the teaching that teh former marriage just disappears, as if it never was there. Now when we confess sin that happens, but the consequence of it is still there, hence, five husbands not one.
Page 8 of 11