There is a good discussion going on about divorced pastors...
I would like tho keep this thread on one portion of the subject.
When Paul told Timothy ...the husband of one wife.. why did he not include the word divorce?
Why didnt Paul use the word Divorce?
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Salty, May 15, 2010.
-
-
1. There is no one word for divorce. Divorce is an idea that is represented by a number of words in the NT, all of which can refer to things other than divorce. (Look it up.)
2. Because the issue is bigger than divorce/marital status. It is about character. A man can be undivorced, but still be a man who is not a "one woman man." If Paul had said divorce, he would not have been excluding a man who commits adultery. If Paul had said divorce, he would not have been excluding a polygamist.
As I have said several times (and been largely ignored, it seems), the issues is bigger than divorce. To narrow it down to that is inadequate. "One woman man" is a description of a man's character in relationships. It is not a statement about his marital status per se. The question is not "Is the man divorced?" The question is, "Is the man blameless in his relationships with women?" Divorce certainly impacts that in multiple ways. But "one woman man" is far from excluding divorce as a qualifier, or being a synonym for divorce.
"One woman man" certainly has implications for divorce, but there are other qualifications in the list that deal with his marriage and family as well. -
-
There was also a form of polygamy in the world (especially Roman culture which was technically "monogamous") called concubinage where one or more women were kept in the household as undocumented wives. The biblical semitic culture as well.
Roman citizens were allowed by law to have concubines.
A concubine and even her children had limited rights while under the roof of her benefactor.
A man with concubines (present or past tense) could, strictly speaking, claim to be monogamous.
But Paul's term a "one-woman-man" covers it all.
In today's society many "monogamous" men (and women) have or have had "concubines" or multiple partners.
So, I agree with Pastor Larry, although I suspect any such "snooping" on the part of an ordination committee into past indiscretions of the candidate (though never having been divorced) would be met with outrage.
It is a complex issue. e.g. What about those pecadillos committed before salvation.
The bottom line is that in today's society, if we stick to the letter of the law (epistles), many men would be disqualified from the pastoral-deacon ministry though never divorced because of the term "one-woman-man".
IMO.
HankD -
How sad. -
If someone were a murderer (before salvation), it would take years/decades before anyone would - if ever - trust them to be "above reproach".
The issue isn't Paul talking about "divorce" (I Tim 3, Tit 1 do NOT speak of that). It is talking "reputation" from both the believers and the outside world. And divorce - neither party is innocent - is a very real issue in the matter of reputation. -
Are you serious?
According to the Jewish Scriptures, marriage to a divorcee was unacceptable for religious leaders. -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I looked up the history of interpretation on this one. Most historical
commentators (Calvin, Chrysostom, Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, etc) all mention that Paul was using general concepts to cover a multitude of issues.
Specifically in this passage he is speaking to several issues at once. He didn't need to mention divorce (probably because he didn't mean it explicitly) becuase the idea is fidelity to one's wife (singular.) -
Because he was probably talking against polygamy, in spite of what is currently the most popular view on this passge. -
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
He probably was not thinking of divorce as we do in this day and time. I believe he meant that a man was not married to more than one woman at a time. Otherwise a man whose wife had died would be disqualified to be a leader.