Thursday, July 2, 2009
GET ALL THE STORY.
There has been a lot said about divorce and re marriage. While discussion was in progress, Bro Brooks challenged the Messengers to look at all the restrictions of second Timothy 3:2-7. when I counted them up I found 17. and it looks as if they are of equal importance. Why is it that We only look at one? What do you think? Discussion please!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can a single Man be the husband of one wife, The KJV sez "MUST BE" the husband of one wife. It also sez "Having his children under subjection" Does He have to have children? Answers please.
ReplyDeleteWell... first off, I disagree with the idea that this phrase "man of one wife" means "man of one wife in the past", but rather things it means that he must be in the present a "man of one wife." Either way, you are adding a phrase. Either side of the argument suggests their is the MOST literal and logical and easiest understanding. Both sides believe this to the end. That being said, let me try to answer a few questions.
ReplyDeleteThe preachers I know and respect who hold to the "anti-remarried man" interpretation of this literal phrase do not just focus on one of the qualifications. They focus on all, of equal importance. The reason this one gets so much attention however, it is the only one under controversy. If these preachers say a church shouldn't allow a man who is a drug addict to pastor, nobody draws attention to their choice. The remarried issue, however, is one that is in the spotlight by the opposing view, so it seems as though this is the only one they pay attention to. So that answers one question.
As to my understanding, the most literal reading of this is a man who has one wife. Not has had in the past. If this refers to a remarried man, then we MUST assume that all remarried men are husbands of TWO or THREE or more wives. IF this is the case, then Jesus had NO CLUE to what He was referring when He told the woman at the well that she spoke TRULY and WELL in that she currently had 0 husbands, even though she'd had 5 in the past. You CANNOT get around the fact that Jesus agreed with her that she currently had NO husbands (read it yourself in John 4), but had had 5 in the past. Jesus viewed her as a woman of NO husbands, even though she'd been remarried 4 times. If you say God considered her a woman who had five husbands, then Jesus lied when he told her she spoke truth and well. So if she was a woman of NO husbands, then so too is a divorced man a husband of NO wives, and a remarried man a husband of ONE wife.
This leaves only one interpretation, the MOST literal and the easiest to understand, a man cannot be a polygamist. He cannot have multiple wives. This fits with the present tense of "must be" in the verse, as well as logic, it does not contradict the John 4 scripture, and finally it does also agree with History since this was dealing with an OFFICE of bishop, and the OFFICES of that day held men who felt themselves above the Greecian or Roman laws, such as Herod and had multiple wives. This was a clear statement that the office of bishop was not to be like the other offices in the world at that time, nor like Abraham or Jacob.
Lastly, I still respect and appreciate my brethren who disagree and the stand they take. I love them every one.
Here's my take:
ReplyDeleteThe controlling principle in the qualificatinos is that a man must be blameless. A single man who has never committed sexual sin is still "blameless" as the qualifications require. So is a man who was divorced from his wife because she committed sexual sin against him. Notice fornication is a generic term for sexual sin and can be committed by married persons. (2 Corinthians 7:2) Jesus made this exception for remarriage in Matthew 19. The reproach on a man comes when he commits adultery. (Proverbs 6:32,33). Again, if a man remarries under the exception Jesus gave, he is still blameless. A man who divorces his spouse and remarries commits adultery and is thereby disqualified because he is no longer "blameless." Notice that a man who marries a woman put away, except under such an exception, also commits adultery, so this strict qualification extends to the wife as well. I also don't believe a man promiscuous in his youth is qualified, because he cannot be an example of purity. (1 Timothy 4:12). This is the one aspect of the qualifications that once broken cannot be changed. A man may quit drinking but he either has been the husband of one wife or he has not. Bro. James is right. We do not treat the marriage qualification any different than the rest. Those are my two cents worth and they may not mean much.
It should say divorces and remarries for any other reason except the one Jesus gave.
ReplyDeleteRead Proverbs 6:34-35 in addition to 6:32 and 33, and you will find it refers to a man who sleeps with another man's wife, and the reproach never goes away, because the husband of the wife is going to always be jealous and full of rage. Notice the word "for" in verse 34 explaining verses 32 and 33. The reproach never going away is the husband being angry at the man who slept with his wife.
ReplyDeleteIf you truly do argue this from the "blameless" verse and not the "man of one wife" verse, leave the "man of one wife" verse out, and give me a complete list of what would forever spot a man as unblameless.
Jesus said (John 4:18) "Thou hast had five husbands." (to her way of thinking) and "He whom thou now hast is not thy husband." (to God's way fo thinking) Why? Only the first was her husband in God's eyes.
ReplyDelete