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.
Don't be a sore loser, I am asking you where the authority and meaning of scripture comes from?
If something is said in scripture, and it is, meaning is change from outside of scripture,
Why use scripture at all?
I feel like we’re starting in a circle . But here’s one okace he taught about marriage probably what your referring to
“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? ( Moses law says yes)
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
( Jesus is referring way back to genesis 2 before mans fall but they are referring to Moses law many years later after sin came upon us )
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Matthew 19:3-9 KJV
moses permitted divorce for most any reason the man found and also permitted the divorced couple to re marry others after they were divorced as well. But also Moses taught stoning a for those who had premarital sex , hanging a and burning’s for those found to tamper with other gods in any way ect
Jesus is giving us the unvarnished truth from God to man but not to sinful man to those who’ve had thier sins remitted as it was before the fall ……
Jesus teaches what genesis teaches about marriage before sin and the law came upon man .
Matthew 19:9
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
So, if sexual immorality is the only grounds for divorce, what about abuse?
As I haven’t lost anything here, your comment is irrelevant… and insulting.
You have completely missed the point. Scripture was written in a particular context. That context is relevant. Ignore it and you are likely to get your conclusions wrong.
I want you to step up and demonstrate that your opinion on this matter is based on something more substantial than a cursory scan of the text, which so far it appears to be.
Well, I am not the one taking my ball and going home.
I made an assertion, "An overseer must be...the husband of one wife..."
You have asked me what is the cultural context?
I honestly am not sure what you mean.
But if it is what I think you mean.
I am not sure if it is even relevant.
Because of 1 peter 1:21
So, I ask you what do you mean by cultural context?
I made an assertion, "An overseer must be...the husband of one wife..."
You have asked me what is the cultural context?
I honestly am not sure what you mean.
But if it is what I think you mean.
I am not sure if it is even relevant.
Because of 1 peter 1:21
So, I ask you what do you mean by cultural context?
Actually it does....
WE are the ones who change the names and functions. Accountability partners and small groups are doing the work of deacons....but we elect and appoint others to be deacons who then don't do the job originally intended which is what Accountability partners and small groups do.
We got all hung up on the title but forgot the duties.
So....
You tell me. How am I so wrong?
Why would you ask me about abuse ? I’m not a judge or anything just an old guy in a bible discussion forum.
My opinion for what that’s worth would be probably seperete and don’t remain in the same home and seek counseling to see if it can be reconciled or worked out , then probably a permanent seperation rather than divorce
But to be clear I’m not saying that’s what the Bible says about it it’s just an unqualified opinion . I’ve never been abused or aboard any partners so it’s a foreign situation and not something I’m really able to speak about with much conviction
i would say we should probably really get to know someone before we marry it seems like abusive people would show signs so people could stay out of that situation . Maybe biblically we should be seeking godly people for marriage and making sure who we’re trying our boat to.
of anyone’s being. Abused tbey definately should leave the situation and get help maybe report thier abuser to the police then go from there
again tbough it’s just an opinion of someone who hasn’t been there and isn’t qualified to judge anyone
but if you look he says anyone who divorces and remarries another bit for adultery ….so maby the answer is to remain single after divorce .
I’m sure there are nuisances another would be what if someone’s been divorced twice and remarried but they had never heard about divorce from Jesus or hadn’t even accepted Jesus or had thier sins remitted yet ?
what would they do ? Divorce tbier current spouse because it’s adultery ? I think it’s important to know the personal nature of the gospel new hear and believe.
God holds us accountable for the things we know are sin so I’d say they should probably honor the cirrent marriage and count that thier sins are remitted in Christ because they did those things in ignorance . It’s different if you know something and if you don’t regarding accountablitiy.
I’m sure there are particular situations not addressed by Jesus , such as a non believer who converts but maybe they had been married a few times i one good example that Jesus still accepts people who’ve been divorced many times is the woman at the well she’d had five husbands and was with another man also
jesus still went with her and stayed in her village still dealt with her offered living water ect so we have to take into account remission of sins beforehand
clean slate at conversion . Just an example that there are going to be nuisances and details and particular situations of that’s what you meant earlier. Gods very personal to each but his word is always the same to all
More irrelevance.
What was happening in the place and time where the text was written in terms of government or political sphere, economy, religion, and community? What was going on in the “world” outside the church in those places?
If you read the Bible as though it were written in 17th century England (as some KJV-only folks do), you will misinterpret certain passages. If you read it as though it were written in 21st century America, you will misinterpret other passages. If you read it with its own content in mind, you will (more likely) understand it as the original audience would have… which is what the author intended.
These things are relevant, and your use of 1 Peter is misguided because you have clearly misinterpreted that verse as well.
Alright, I see your point now and it sounds like we agree more than we disagree (though I disagree that the text blatantly says a deacon must be married; I interpret it to say that if he is married he must be fairhful... a true "one-woman man").
But just to be clear, your point really hasn't been. I do not say that to criticize, only to inform.
Alright, I see your point now and it sounds like we agree more than we disagree (though I disagree that the text blatantly says a deacon must be married; I interpret it to say that if he is married he must be fairhful... a true "one-woman man").
But just to be clear, your point really hasn't been. I do not say that to criticize, only to inform.
Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 1 timothy 3:12
[Make] deacons each be the husband of one wife, [make them] manage their children and their own households well.
“Let your waist be girded and your lamps burning; Luke 12:35
"[make] your waist be girded and [make] your lamps burning."
So, what is your evidence from the "cultural context" that refutes my assertion?
Because all you have said is there is a "cultural context"
Please give me some citations.
You could say that it says "a husband of [only] one wife."
And I will say what is the cultural context by which you make that assertion?
And you would say?
I would say that your research is far from complete. I’ll give you a hint to get you started: Ephesian mystery cults.
At this point then, I consider the requirement of burden of proof to be on you, not me.
I have said and I say again, “an overseer must be… the husband of one wife…”
Can you refute this?
What about the Ephesians mystery cults refutes my assertion?
Adultery was punished by stoning. Both the man and the woman. No need for a divorce.
And look carefully at what the KJV says here. Don't read something that is not there.
IOW do not equate "put away" with divorce. Those are two completely separate things....often related but NOT the same thing.
Also....
In Jewish culture, there were several levels of "married". More than in ours where people become engaged.
Bride price....dowry....bride to be testing...bride teaching and learning new household duties.....the grooms building of the house....several parties along the way....and the eventual final union celebration party that lasted days.
Unless it's a second wedding.
Again, do your own homework. I've given you more than enough information for you to get on with it. Don't pretend for a second that you have studied this issue well enough to have formed a conclusion at all, let alone the one you hold.
To be serious for a minute.
I am not on here to start a debate,
And flesh my cerebral muscles,
Just to stroke my own ego.
I sincerely would like to hear everyone’s points of view.
It is 3am here can currently,
But I would like to hear yours and everyone’s take on the subject
Given the cultural context of the letter and the fact that this passage only mentions gender in one statement (most of the pronouns are neutral), it is likely that the restriction “the husband of one wife” means to preclude polygamous persons, not women or unmarried men.