A husband of one wife...

[Josepus86]

Maybe you haven't heard about? The church burned and destroyed all artwork, and it was forbidden to make it. It was such a strict practice, people had been crucified because of artwork. The mayans and aztecs too, when spain came over to the new world. They burned all of their medical tablets about plants, because it had drawings of the plants on them.

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?

 

[Josepus86]

That doesn't make any sense.

I didn't ask you "Which culture", but rather, "What is the cultural context".

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.”

 

[Josepus86]

I am surprised no one has you the most common counter yet.

 

[posthuman]

That is clever but it is not what it says.

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

 

[Josepus86]

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.

 

[Josepus86]

It sounds very counter intuitive, but that is what it says.

 

[Snackersmom]

It sounds very counter intuitive, but that is what it says.

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.

 

[Melach]

I have come to the conclusion that the phrase "a husband of one wife" is a mandate and a requirement for an officer of the church to be married.

yeah thats how it is. a man who is married to one woman. very simple. but made complicated by deceivers

 

[posthuman]

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.

ah OK i see what you mean.

isn't saying 'the husband of two wives' or '.. of at least one wife' different than what's written?

 

[Dino246]

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.”

Your assertion is incorrect and you are employing circular reasoning. Try again. What is the cultural context into which the letters were written? You claim to be “thorough” but you are dodging here.

 

[Mem]

It sounds very counter intuitive, but that is what it says.

Why should we consider that "one" might include two, three or any other possible numbers but we shouldn't consider wife as well as "husband" to be included among other possible marital statuses?

 

[p_rehbein]

I have come to the conclusion that the phrase "a husband of one wife" is a mandate and a requirement for an officer of the church to be married.

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.

 

[Josepus86]

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.

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.

 

[Josepus86]

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.

Are you arguing that an officer has the option of marrying and having the maximum of one wife? (My argument is that as the verse reads it says a minimum of one wife.)

 

[Josepus86]

Why should we consider that "one" might include two, three or any other possible numbers but we shouldn't consider wife as well as "husband" to be included among other possible marital statuses?

I am not sure if I have made it clear that I am not arguing for or against polygamy, though I can make a good argument for a biblical basis. I am arguing that the criteria in titus and 1 Timothy requires an officer to be married to be an officer.

 

[Josepus86]

Your assertion is incorrect and you are employing circular reasoning. Try again. What is the cultural context into which the letters were written? You claim to be “thorough” but you are dodging here.

I will play your game, Roman occupation of the known world (broad), Titus(Crete/grecoroman), Timothy(Ephesus/greco-roman-asian) i believe

 

[Mem]

I am not sure if I have made it clear that I am not arguing for or against polygamy, though I can make a good argument for a biblical basis. I am arguing that the criteria in titus and 1 Timothy requires an officer to be married to be an officer.

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.

 

[Josepus86]

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.

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.

 

[Josepus86]

Why should we consider that "one" might include two, three or any other possible numbers but we shouldn't consider wife as well as "husband" to be included among other possible marital statuses?

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.

 

[Josepus86]

yeah thats how it is. a man who is married to one woman. very simple. but made complicated by deceivers

I believe that most men who have the desire to practice polygamy, should not practice it, and find contentment in the state they are in. But I am against taking a part of scripture and arguing for something that it doesn’t say.