Results 1 - 14 of 14
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Raul Goulden Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Serious study on this passage | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 57357 | ||
You said- "I find it hard to believe that he would not have said, 'being the husband of one women at a time,' if indeed that was what he really meant." I reply- The phrase is a peculiar one, but the Greek language had readily available words to express "married only once," for which Paul clearly chose NOT to use. His decision not to use the readily available terms to express "married only once" is strong evidence that that is NOT what he meant. You said- "Adultery was the warning here... not polygamy. Where in Scripture does Paul spend energy writing to the Church concerning 'multiple wives'... polygamy? But many times he touched on the problem of unfaithfulness and immorality." I reply- Yes, I believe the peculiar phrasing is best understood in light of all the Scriptures teaching, and that it is a call to faithfulness in marriage and chastity in singleness. Raul Goulden "We reject ...subjective morality as articulated through WWJD T-Shirts, and embrace the objective and clear revelation of God's will for man." -Andy G 3-29-02 |
||||||
2 | Serious study on this passage | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 55914 | ||
I have compiled a list of works by highly respected interpreters of Scripture that reject the notion that "husband of one wife" means "married only once." They are generally listed in the order of the quality of their treatment or the respect with which I have of them on other topics. I hope they are useful. George W. Knight III The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Pastoral Epistles Eerdmans 1992 p.155-160, 223, 289 Cleon Rogers Jr. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the New Testament Zondervan 1998 p. 492 John MacArthur Jr. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1 Timothy Moody 1995 p. 104 to 105, 207 See also MacArthur Study Bible Spiros Zodhiates The Complete Word Study New Testament AMG 1991 Zodhiates has several works in print that address 1 Tim. 3:2, in addition to the work cited above see also his Study Bible Francis Turretin Institutes of Elenctic Theology P and R p.252-253 Charles Hodge Systematic Theology Vol. 3 (Henrickson Publishers, 1999), p. 389. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament: Concise Edition (Nashville: Holman Reference, 2000), p. 328. Ralph Earle The Expositor's Bible Commentary: 1 Timothy Zondervan 1996 paperback edition p. 138, 152 D. Edmond Hiebert The Expositors Bible Commentary: Titus Zondervan 1996 paperback edition p.204 D. Edmond Hiebert First Timothy Moody 1957 p. 64-65, 95-96 William D. Mounce Word Biblical Commentary: Pastoral Epistles Nelson 2000 p170-173, 287 Matthew Poole Commentary on the Holy Bible Several editions and publishers in print, see comments on 1 Ti. 3:2 (Charles Spurgeon on Poole- "If I must have only one commentary, and had read Matthew Henry as I have, I do not know but what I should choose Poole. He is a very prudent and judicious commentator . . . not so pithy and witty by far as Matthew Henry, but he is perhaps more accurate, less a commentator, and more an expositor.") R. C. H. Lenski New Testament Commentaries Hendrickson p. 579-582 John Calvin Commentary on 1 Timothy 3:2, numerous editions, also available online Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith Nelson p. 899 John Gill Exposition of the New Testament several editions and publishers, also available online at wwww.crosswalk.com see comments on 1 Tim. 3:2 Gordon H. Clark 1 Timothy Trinity p.54-56 NASB/NIV Study Bible Zondervan 2000 R. C. Sproul Ed. New Geneva Study Bible Nelson 1995 p. 1911 D. A. Carson Ed. New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition 1994 Adam Clarke, Clarkes Commentary: NT, vol. 6B Ages Software 1997, p. 138. J. R. Dummelow The One Volume Bible Commentary, J. Vernon McGee Thru The Bible Commentary Nelson 1991 A. C. Hervey The Pulpit Commentary Funk and Wagnalls 1911 p. 50-51 William Barclay Daily Study Bible Series: The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon Revised Edition Westminster 1975 p. 75-79, 110 Eugene Stock Practical Truths from the Pastoral Epistles Kregel 1983 previous edition Plain Talks on the Pastoral Epistles R. Scott 1914 p. 185-186 |
||||||
3 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 23024 | ||
Ed, you are correct, you did back your assertion with this list. If the qualifications aren't met, they aren't eligible, period. There is nothing on the list that is an automatic disqualifier to someone who has been divorced. One of my best friends ( a Vietnam vet) was married a couple years when he was very young. He has since been married 20yrs plus to the same woman and their marriage is exemplary in every way, one people look to as a model, your list doesn't apply to him. As for divorce being a disgrace you might want to get a wider perspective. The church for much of its history considered it a disgrace to NOT get divorced from and unfaithful spouse. See below. RG "In fact, among the Jews of the time divorce on the grounds of adultery was not simply permitted- it was required." ( Leon Morris, PNTC The Gospel According to Matthew p. 484 ) 122. "The penalty for proven adultery, when the capital punishment was abolished, was mitigated into the divorce of the woman (the husband having no other option)" (Israel Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, 1st ser. [rpt. New York, 1967], p. 74) So also G. F. Moore, Judaism, II [Cambridge, 1958], p. 125). The Mishnah provides that if a woman was found "..unchaste... he may not continue [his union] with her" (ketub 3.5). Bockmuehl cites Qumran and other evidence that "adultery (and rape) requires divorce" (NTS, 35 [1989], p.295). See also Mishnah, Sota 5:1. Footnote from PNTC on Matthew by Morris p. 21 "to retain the adulterous Person is scandalous (as in the Primitive Church it was esteemed so in Clergymen)"- [ from The Worthy Communicant by Bishop Jeremy Taylor Chap. 4 ] |
||||||
4 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 22995 | ||
You said- However that does not change the fact that God did call some to be pastors and from this list He seems to have excluded divorced or unmarried men. I reply- Bare assertion again, the text doesn't support your private interpretation. You said- Quite frankly maybe I read more into your reply than you meant but I really don't like the tone of your reply. I never attacked you I merely stated what it is I see in this scripture. You on the other hand seemed to want to question my basic doctrine, possibly my salvation and implied I needed to explain myself. -EdB I reply- Just trying to sniff out what you mean, I was starting to get some 'sinless perfection' vibes from you and just wanted ask questions before shooting... so to speak. RG |
||||||
5 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 22946 | ||
You said- I think the facts remain God’s desire for man was to get married stay married and have lot of kids. Ok You said- Sin entered the picture and changed this. ok You said- But don’t try to tell me God then included provisions to live with sin’s turmoil. I reply- You might want to explain yourself here. His very name is Jehovah-Jireh, the God who sees beforehand and makes provision. You said- He provided His son to remove the sin in our lives. I reply- Hmmmmm, maybe you should explain what you mean here too. You said- Also I’m not saying a divorced or unmarried person doesn’t have use to God and can not be used of God. I’m just saying they should not become Pastors. I reply- protestants believe in the priesthood of the believer, and completely reject a lay/clergy distinction, and this list in this chapter only reinforces that position. RG |
||||||
6 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 22943 | ||
You said- "It has been my experience that..." I reply- That is all very interesting, but it has little to do with the issue at hand. Does this qualification have anything to do with marrital status, or is it a present moral qualification. If your point is that we are all sinners you would be correct. RG |
||||||
7 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 22898 | ||
You said- You have posted an imposing list of "witnesses" -- and for the several with whom I'm acquainted I have an enormous amount of respect and admiration. I respond with a favorite quote- "There is hardly anything more gratifying to the pious mind than to discover agreement between its own conclusions and those of great and good men, who had lived in former generations. They may indeed have been mistaken, and so they are no standard to us; yet when their number is large, when they lived in different ages and countries, and yet they were led by honest inquiry and much prayer to the same results, and when their well-earned reputation for piety, love of truth and diligence in study, create a strong presumption in favour of their united testimony, a good man will very carefully examine the grounds of his conclusions before he will refuse to adopt their sentiments, especially where they have all put much honour on God's holy word." -[ Excerpt from 'Grace Of Christ' by William S. Plumer D.D. Sprinkle Pub. Edition page 228 ] |
||||||
8 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 22895 | ||
Martin Luther offered some good instruction once-"If words (of scripture) are obscure in one place, they are clear in another" ( Bondage of the Will; Luther, Ch. 2, Sec. 2 ). When Gordon H. Clark wraps up his treatment of this verse in his commentary he basically says this very thing, "If not everything is said in this verse, there are other passages where a husbands obligations to his wife are clearly spelled out." Folks, this is good advise when studying all areas of doctrine and practice. RG |
||||||
9 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 22891 | ||
Now we are making progress. You said- "I contend that a divorce shows the household was not always managed well." I reply- So a promiscuous spouse automatically shows some ineptitude or shortcoming? God says His spouse was adulterous, do you want to call His character and management skills into question? I suppose you believe that the victims of spousal abuse or rape do something to ask for it too? You said- "I believe the only divorced person that could fit the standard in 1 Tim 3 would be a person that was divorced and remarried before their salvation." I say- Is this something like the ancient heresy that post-baptismal sins are harder to get forgiven? Don't get me wrong, I do not think that divorced men should be given a pass on their divorce when being considered for leadership. I just see absolutely no Biblical case for a blanket disqualification. We do care what the Bible has to say, right? RG |
||||||
10 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 22853 | ||
Brother Spurgeon has some strong words for those who deny the Holy Spirit has been doing his job- "In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. " - C. H. Spurgeon |
||||||
11 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 22851 | ||
Bare assertion again. Since you don't want to provide a reason for your interpretation I will back up mine. The greek doesn't support your position, for the greek language had readily available words for "not divorced" or "not remarried," those words were not used. Also, the qualifications listed in that verse are all positive qualities, which contextually gives support to the "faithful" interpretation. Re: your comments on 2 Peter 1:20, scripture interpretation is not legitimate when it is based on what you think or what you feel. The scriptures teach immutable truth, your interpretation is either correct or incorrect. If you are unwilling to be a good Berean and search to see whether your interpretation is valid you are doing what is forbidden, that is, holding a private interpretation. My interpretation is based on the plain reading of the text, context, study of the original language of the text, the opinions of the best exegetes and greek scholars. While it is possible for you to come to another conclusion having carefully considered the Word of God, you have offered nothing but an opinion (i.e. private interpretation). To hold a private interpretation, especially one without the support of 2000 years of Christianity, is to de facto deny the existance or work of the Holy Spirit. RG |
||||||
12 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 22817 | ||
You said- "I do not care what the 'experts' say." To which I reply- "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." -2 Peter 1:20 Unless you can show from the passage itself (God's Word) how this qualification automatically bars divorced men you are espousing a private interpretation. Your standard has, "to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion," but it is not from the Word of God. If you consider Mr. Stanley to be an eminent theologian feel free to add him to the list. RG |
||||||
13 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 22816 | ||
Of course you are right. RG |
||||||
14 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Raul Goulden | 22778 | ||
No? You're going to have to explain how you feel the context supports your assertion. The following exegetes state it amounts to one who is not engaged in sexual immorality (faithful to their wife)- George W. Knight III, John MacArthur, William Barclay, Gordon Clark, R. C. H. Lenski, Spiros Zodhiates, A. C. Hervey, Ralph Earle, See also the following works- New Bible Commentary 21st Century Edition (D. A. Carson Ed.), NASB Study Bible, New Geneva Study Bible (R. C. Sproul Ed.), The New Liguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek Testament by Rogers and Rogers (cites several scholarly sources). William Mounce cites the following in favoring this understanding- Lyonnett, Trummer, Houlder, Dodd, Fee, Keener, Towner, L. T. Johnson, Saucy, Scott, and Oberlinner. The following believe it forbids polygamy- Justin Martyr, Lock, Robertson, Easton, Simpson, Dibelius-Conzelmann, D. Edmond Hiebert, Grudem, and Caddeo. Others holding this view include John Gill, and J. Vernon McGee. Not only do the best greek scholars reject that this automatically prohibits divorced and remarried men, the whole idea of setting up a separate clergy standard goes against the fundamental protestant doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. There is nothing in this list that isn't for all believers. No believer is excused to be a drunk, and neither are they excused to be sexually immoral. RG |
||||||