You are going to have to be more precise in your speaking, I am saying this passage commands marriage, what do you mean by bringing up idolatry? Are you saying there was or may be more evidence to support or discredit my assertion, but it was destroyed because fanatical Christians in the past consider the medium idolatry?
A husband of one wife...
- Thread starter Josepus86
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Even if Paul was talking to a different culture, he is talking from a culture that followed rabbinic traditions and Jewish law, but even still if the culture whether from or to the message held a norm, it doesn’t change the fact that this is what it says “an overseer must be…the husband of one wife.”
not sure what your objection is.
- can't be unmarried and be the husband of one wife
- can't have three wives and be the husband of one wife
- if this is establishing a principle of monogamous marriage then the same should be the case for a woman being married to only one husband being a qualification
- if something else tells us women cannot possibly be deaconesses then of course that something else stands
What I am saying is that as the verse is worded, an overseer cannot be unmarried, so only monogamous men and polygamist men can hold the office, to be blunt. It doesn’t say “must not be a polygamist” it “a husband of one wife.” That is a command, we can go in the direction of polygamy, but the way it is phrase requires an overseer must be the husband of one wife, disqualifying bachelors, widowers, and divorcées.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Well, technically what it says is "heis gynē anēr", which is just as easily translated "one woman man". You can decide for yourself what a "one woman man" would refer to, that is your business. 😊
However, if you decide that "gynē" should translate "wife" rather than "woman", then it's only fair to also assume that "let your gynē keep silent in the churches" is actually a command for wives to be submissive to their husbands in church. And that gonna upset a whole lotta dudes who like to think their Y chromosomes alone make them spiritually superior to half the congregation. 😬
However, if you decide that "gynē" should translate "wife" rather than "woman", then it's only fair to also assume that "let your gynē keep silent in the churches" is actually a command for wives to be submissive to their husbands in church. And that gonna upset a whole lotta dudes who like to think their Y chromosomes alone make them spiritually superior to half the congregation. 😬
-
1
- Show all
You would be wrong IMO. In those days, it was not uncommon for men to have more than one wife. The Apostle realized that a wife can have influence on their husband, and this could distract him from his Church duties. Having more than one wife would just double the distractions. As well, as some believe, this Scripture does not mean an Officer of the Congregation could not be divorced. It simply means they should just have one wife.
Whataboutism argument, but yes if we read Paul literally, women cannot speak in the service, but those that hold to this view make an exception for women singing, which would contradict such a command. I see the section in 1 Corinthians as an example of a circumstance present to the people of Corinth, not a universal standard for the church.
But my argument is the same for both, what Paul is saying is too rigid to apply to us, and should be applied through liberal exegesis. I am not saying that an elder must be married, I am saying that this is what Paul says in Titus and 1 Timothy.
I am saying that an overseer should meet a ballpark example of the criteria.
But my argument is the same for both, what Paul is saying is too rigid to apply to us, and should be applied through liberal exegesis. I am not saying that an elder must be married, I am saying that this is what Paul says in Titus and 1 Timothy.
I am saying that an overseer should meet a ballpark example of the criteria.
My assertion was not that you are arguing polygamy, however, you shared your view of the possibility of "one" may not be exclusive, with the reservation that it is also is not necessarily all-inclusive as it cannot include "o." I'd just like to know, so exactly, how have these perimeters within your premise been established.
Is it proper to translate the phrase, “A husband of one wife” or “a man, of one woman,” is this what you are pointing out? If so can we begin by agreeing that the word for man can be translated husband, whether it is or should be translated here, leave separately? I think you are attempting divide and conquer, but it will not work.
-
1
- Show all
If it is a mandate, which I sincerely do, this would disqualify bachelors, widowers, and divorcees from office, meaning that a officer must always be in a marital relationship to hold office, which would open the door to those who practice polygamy. The very fact that the word here is translated husband means a married man.