Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The husband of only one wife? | Titus 1:6 | justme | 124655 | ||
EdB: I have never really felt it was the proper time to give anyone my belief about divorce and especially in reguards to a divorece man being a church leader, pastor, deacon or elder. However, after nearly two decades of prayer and study I will present to you my basis for my belief. I sincerely hope this will reflect an honest response, given in Christian love, kindness, and respect. What kind of person does the New Testament permit to be a church leader-pastor or deacon, or elder? The time of ordination brings this question into sharp focus and often to equally sharp contention. Some Christians assume that the clear teaching of scripture is our ungqestioned and unquestionable guide. But what constitutes that clear teaching is open to considerable question. The one question that almost invariably leads to the sharpest contention is the matter of granting ordination to one who has been divorced, whether he be remarried or not. The limited treatment that the Nes Testament gives this subject results in our being almost forced to depend directly on statements found in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12. Since the number of deacons and elders who serve, in every church exceeds the number of pastors who are connected with it, more debate arises over this matter that men eligible for the office of deacon, or elder than considering men eligible for the pastorate. Yet this question involves more than one issue. Christians would profit by giving as close attention to the basic function of a deacon or elder in the Nes Testament as given to specfic details of personal qualifications. (William Barclay, in The Daily Study Bible om 1 Timothy, gives a brief on thid mstter that would help most chruches.) Helping deacons and elders understand their true function could greatly vitalize the life of many churches. As for the deacon's or elder's qualifications, I can register some opinions on the meaning of the ! Timothy pasage, recognixing that this is anything but an authoritative statement. If you see fit to cite anything in this statement, please cite it as an opinion. Too, pleast be sure that you have given the true context of the statement. Many short statements, when taken out of context, sound like something far different from the meaning established by the context. One who wishes to study the subject must recognize that verses 2 and 12 cannot be isolated from the teachings of the entire passage, 1 Timothy 3:1_13. Too, the close similarity of the description of an acceptable bishop and acceptable deacon or elder demands that the interpreter consider the statements on each in light of statements on the other. The problems have arisen out of the translation of the Greek phrase (mias gunaikos andra in verse 2 and mias gunaikos andres in verse 12.) The context caused the number of the word for "man" to differ. Andra is singular: andres is plural. That is a meaningless point of granatical form. Traditionally this phrase has been translated "the husband of one wife." This specfic rendering opend the field to ridged interpretation and application. For most people that translation has made the phrase a standard for church leadership based on a man's marriage history. End of part one, see part 2 continued. |
||||||
2 | The husband of only one wife? | Titus 1:6 | justme | 124660 | ||
Part 2, continued. I do not think that Paul intended his words to be taken in that way nor to be applied in the manner that arises naturally out of this translation, particulary when it touches on divorce that occured before a man became a Christian. This view rests on three areas of truth. First, the area of grammar. Those three Greek words may be translated more properly as "a man of one woman' OR "a one woman man." The expressions could have several meanings; (1) a man MUST have been married to no more than one woman; (2) a man who has been married to only one woman; (3) a man who is now married to only one woman; (4) a man whose pattern of life limits his intimate relationships to one woman. Any one of these terms pictures a truly monogamous man as opposed to the "alley cat" approach to life, which characterized pagan society and increasingly characterizes our own. I do not know exactly which of the four thoughts Pai\ul had in mind. Yet by examining the two uses of the phraes in their contexts I believe that, of the four,numbers (1) and (2) are the least applicable. In listing standards of life quality for both a bishop and elder, deacon paul used along with a series of adjectives and ajective phrases. This puts a meaningful emphasis on two things: (1) The character of the Greek grammer gives this phrase a sense that this is parallel to a one-word adjectival discription, suggesting that "a one-woman man" is the most appropriate translation. This means that Paul intended the phrase to discribe the man's character and his overall pattern of relationships with the opposite sex, rather than to describe a man's marriage history. (2) All the other terms that accompany this phrase are marked by an unavoidable fact: they cannot be applied to any person in a fixed, set, or ridgid manner. Examine every other expression in both lists. All of them treat generally notable traits or characteristics of personal, family, and church life. No one can apply any of these traits to the life of persons in such a way as to show a clear didvding point to be on one side means acceptability and to be on the other means non-acceptability. How would one draw such a line in making a strict application of "serious," "not double tongued," "not greedy for gain," holding "the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience," or managing "their children and their households well"? The way Paul wrote these paragraghs that he drew no distinction between the nature and application of these standards of "a one-woman man." Although Paul was no great Greek stylist, he knew how to draw sharp distinction in meaning. If he had intended to set this standard apart from others, several forms of expression that he used regularly were available to him. If he has intended to say what the traditional translation implies I believe firmly that he eould not have included this phrase as one of a list of trauts that wehave described above. Rather, he would have separated it and made it unqualifiedly specfic. At the same time I recognize that more cometent Greek scholars than I will ever be, have defended the traditional translation. The second area is the historical situstion. As good a breif discussion of this subject as you are likely to find is also in Barclay's work. Since in Paul's day all Christians were adults at the tome of their conversion, I find it hard to believe that a persons pre-conversion history of marriage had any place in Paul's thought. To Paul, the man in Christ has become new all over (2 Cor. 5:17). It sems obvious to me that a man's career in marriage agter his conversion becomes a matter quite distinct from his pre-conversion experience. And his his career in marriage after his conversion would have to be handled on its own merits. A thing that church people often tend to overlook in the fact that there are sorry women just as there are sorry men. Sorry men have devasted the lives of many good women. And sorry women have devasted the lives of many men. To lay down a strict rule based on objective, historical facts alone is contrary to Paul's entire approch to the workings of the Christian faith. Such a rule smacks of the Pharisee's and the Judaizers" approach to godly living. The third area is today's practical situation. This involves two distinct parts. the first is a practice that is indefensible. In Christian testimonies great emphasis has been put on what a new Christian has turned from. The more lurid, dramatic description of past sins one can give, the more glorious has his conversion seemed to be. To tell of gross immorality, vice, or crime and tell of how Christ turned one from it all, is a guararanteed way of producing many an emotional "amen" from an audience, unless one includes in that story the fact of a broken marriage. End of part two. Continue to Part three |
||||||
3 | The husband of only one wife? | Titus 1:6 | justme | 124669 | ||
Part Three, Continued. The common reaction to that story is much more stifled. It suggests, "What a pity that the Lord cannot use fully a person with such a powerful testimony!" This attitude makes divorce the only unforgivable sin, and it appears to me to be a parallel to Jesus' experience with the Pharisees and Paul's experience with the Judaizers. The second aspect of our practicle situation grows out of some convictions on how the Lord aperates. I believe that He inspired Paul in writing of! Timothy. (I am fully aware of the problems, critical and practical, that this statement will cause many people) I believe also in called ministry (leadership). (This fact underscores the importance of seeing the unity of the standards Paul set out for pastors and for deacond and elders.) Too, I believe that the Lord does not "stomble over his own feet, I cannot conceive of this kind of situation: The Lord set out a condition that automatically makes men in-eligible to serve as spiritual leaders; yet he keeps calling men who are inthat condition to accept such responsibilities. Therefore I believe that the nature of people's past and present experiences with God make impossible for all the following statements to be true; one must be false: (1) The lord inspired (gave active spiritual guidance in) the writing of! Timothy. (2) Mias gunaikos andra was intended to be translated and interpreted in the traditional way. (3) The Lord is still calling into the service of spiritual leadership men who have been divorced. Every person will have to choose which of the three he thinks is false. I have already affirmed number (1). As a result of dealing with numerous divorced men whose lives attest the reality of a call to some form of special spiritual ministry, I feel number (3) must be true. Therefore I must believe that number (2) is false. Some Christians can toss number (1) aside; so they can accept both (2) and number (3) with no problem. Some may even feel that any direct, personal call to ministry is a figment of the imagination. So each will have to work through this problem in light of his own view of inspiration and the way God deals with his people, as well as his view of how to interpret scripture. But one must never assume that the problem is not serious. It is a vital focal point in matters of both standards for personal, moral living and the bonds of fellowship in our churches. So deal with issue as thoroughly, carefully, and prayerfully as possible. Sometimes it may be necessary to follow Paul's admonition that grew out of a parallel problem in his time, eating food offered to idols. Some people's viwe is so bound by a kind of legalism that they cannot comprehend a departure from their strict standards. Paul saw such people as "weak in the faith," although true believers in Christ. He counseled those who saw things at a higher level to deal considerately with such weakness (see Romans 14; 1 Cor. 8-10). Such graciousness may mean that a man spiritually qualified to serve in some capacity may forego the opportunity, at least temporarily, for the benefit of those who are truly weak in the faityh, thus keeping strong the ties of fellowship in the church. R\Thus, too, is a form of ministering in God's grace anong those who must be served. This has taken many years to collect my thoughts, and put them together in a understandable way, to the best of my ability. Nothing is ever orginal and many sources have I used to gather my thoughts. Seminary was also a place for gathering this into a work that I thank so many for extending to me clearer understanding on such a serious subjest. A special acknowledgement to Dr. William Coble, who is now with the Lord, without him I would be of "weak faith". With blessings I send this in the hopes others my also search their hearts for better understanding. justme |
||||||
4 | The husband of only one wife? | Titus 1:6 | EdB | 124706 | ||
Justme I don't think we can interpret God's word by what seems fair to us. I also don’t think we can poick the best of four nor do I think we should judge what is right or wrong by which has the most powerful testimony. I also don't think limiting a man from serving as a deacon, elder, overseer or pastor is the end of his use to God or his fellow Christians. I believe God established these qualifications for reasons thatI think of that are valid. However whether I can justify their validity or not is not the point. The point is what did God say here. He said a 'one women man.' What is a one woman man? A man that has two women? Has been married to two women? had a lousy first wife and got an excellent second wife? I don't think so I think it means exactly what it says a "one Women man" Is that fair to the poor guys that married a lousy wife who ran off with the local football team. It sure doesn't seem fair to us but then we are not God. Maybe God's view of this guys ability to make life choices is so bad he should never pastor a church but he would make a great Christian conference speaker, Sunday School teachers, chaplain, missionary and evangelist. Let us say this same passage was written in a way that nobody could Wordsmith it, let’s say the passage clearly said no divorced men in any church office. Would you then call that unfair, unjust or even the unforgivable sin? No! You would say divorce is a sin that can be forgiven but carries a consequence that you can’t hold church office. Would we try to condition it by saying whether it mattered if the divorce was before or after salvation? No again we would say the consequence of divorce is you can’t hold a church office. Would we call God unfair? No more than we would call God unfair if someone jumps off a building and prays the sinners prayer on the way down and still dies. We would say it is the consequence of the action. Look at God’s call on man. Is it to glorify man? Is it to give the person a job or something to do? Is it our right? Who decides who God will call, us or God? Why does God put a call on a person? When God calls a person God has a job for the person to do, that will bring glory and honor to God. It is not about that person but rather about what God has for the person to do. God and God alone decides that call and sets down the criteria for that call. We are to follow that criteria to insure we don’t place a person in position that God wouldn’t call him for. This whole thing is about God not us or our qualifications or the lack thereof, it is scripture defining what God calls acceptable criteria for a person to serve him. EdB |
||||||
5 | The husband of only one wife? | Titus 1:6 | justme | 124756 | ||
EdB: Your responce was welcome. I think we understand how the other has come to the conclusion the other has about this huge issue. I think that unless we have reasearched this to what say is the "priesthood of the believe" and can back our view with a solid Biblical answer than we are only shooting off the hip, of emotional feelings. In my observation this issue still goes back to the orignal intent of Paul, and how the Greek reads. I was hoping you might address is a divorce takes place before becoming a Christian, would you view still be the same? Do you see any circrmsatnce that would be an exception? I believe Scripture points to the liberation of people from sin, and freedom to serve the Lord. I also believe and have observed that religious people are eager to preach (2 Cor.5:17) becoming a New Creature in Christ, and behold all things become new. However not for anyone who has beeen divorced! In other words God sets free, and liberates, then the religious not only keep one bound, but have a different satndard for the divoced, a higher standard than for someone who has murdered, sold drugs, been involved in every sexual sin you can name. I cannot find this understanding anywhere in Scripture. Ed, is not all sin firgiven exactally the same way? Is there any sin God does not forgive and cleanse with the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? If we add stipulations to the limitations Christ's justification and forgiveness, we make confession and repentance inadiquate as a requirement for forgiveness of sin. 1 John 1:9,10. To refuse to recongnize a genuine call of God on ones life, perhaps due to our wrong understanding of Scripture, do we not make a very serious error? I wonder how many have been refused to be allowed to minister, because of bad theology, and not understanding the true meaning of Scripture. In no way do I justify divorce. I find divorce when someone is a Christian very disturbing, heart-braking, and distructive to ones testimony. Often divorce takes a lifetime to restore relationships within the faimily, and children of that marriage. Finally may no where does the Bible say the word "qualifications", however "character" is mentioned several times. There is a big difference in lifestyle character, and qualifications. I hope thsi give some more imput for consideration. Blessings. justme |
||||||
6 | The husband of only one wife? | Titus 1:6 | EdB | 124833 | ||
Justme You said, "I believe Scripture points to the liberation of people from sin, and freedom to serve the Lord. I also believe and have observed that religious people are eager to preach (2 Cor.5:17) becoming a New Creature in Christ, and behold all things become new. However not for anyone who has been divorced!" Again I say it is not a SIN issue. If the person is in Christ Jesus his sin is forgiven. However all of our actions carry consequences aside from the sin issue. If a person practices fornication he is sinning, if he then stops and asks Jesus into his heart he is forgiven. However he then finds out he has genital herpes which cannot be cured. Does that mean his fornication can never be forgiven? NO! However his actions/behavior did carry consequences that will live in him the rest of his life. If a person robs a bank, shoots a guard and is captured, tried and found guilty and sentenced to death then finds Jesus is his death sentence commuted? His eternal death sentence is, however in all likelihood he will still be executed. Does that mean he is not forgiven? NO! It means his actions/behavior carry consequences that will cost him his earthly life. A person is married and divorces, commits adultery and then finds Jesus. However according to 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 he can’t be a elder, deacon, overseer or pastor. Does that mean he is not forgiven? NO! However his action carried consequences and one of those consequences is he can’t be a elder, deacon, overseer, or pastor. Does that mean he has not value or that he can’t serve God? NO! It simply means he does not meet qualification for one of those offices. However there are thousands of other jobs God has for him that he can do. We put such a premium on titles and that no ought to be. Some of the most effective and most productive (if you will allow me to use that word) people in the work of Christ carry no title other than servant of the Most High God. They share Jesus not because they are getting paid or have job title but because Jesus has placed in their heart a desire to serve. We look at 1Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 as a limitation or handicap, perhaps it is a blessing. People that don’t meet these guidelines for church office are now free to minister as servants of God rather than servants of the church. Any one can do the work of the deacon without the title, any can do the work of a elder without the title. Any can minister the word of God without a title. You ask is it wrong to deny a person a call to minister? I say yes. However this discussion is not about denying a persons call to minister but rather about denying that person a specific title or position. I have a very dear friend that was married and divorced and remarried and divorced and then saved. He is now married to a dear Christian woman. He felt he had a call to preach. He went to Bible college and seminary. He applied to credentials and was rejected. He was crushed. I was crushed for him. Instead of getting bitter or arguing that this wasn't fair he simply said God must have something else for him. Shortly thereafter God opened doors for him to minister to Senior Adults in a Assisted Care center. He became their Chaplain and is ministering to patients, patient families, staff and staff families. He holds services throughout the week and ministers to hundreds. I can tell you most pastors would kill for his ministry. He has none of the cares of church buildings, boards and church in fighting. Today he will tell you he would have never done it, if he had gotten his credentials. He would have tried to start a church and these precious people he is now ministering to would be without the someone to love them and care for them. It is not that God doesn't love people that have been divorced it is just that God wants to use them in different ways. We always try to decide if what God says is right or not by judging if it seems fair to us. God said His ways were different than man's ways. EdB |
||||||
7 | The husband of only one wife? | Titus 1:6 | justme | 124911 | ||
EdB: I erspect you views, but we do understand things differently. I choose love or all. Nothing has been said to cause any ill feelings amd with genuine love I call you my brother. Blessing EdB. justme |
||||||
8 | The husband of only one wife? | Titus 1:6 | EdB | 124913 | ||
justme I agree no hard feelings. And I too love all. I don't see this as a love issue, a sin issue or some sort of stigma. I see it simply as a fact just like the fact the person is a divorced. I certainly don't see this standing in the way of serving God or even ministering His word. There are many many other ways to do that. Be blessed my friend and I'm praying for your health. EdB |
||||||