A husband of one wife...

[Josepus86]

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (1 timothy 3:2, ESV)
This is my point: An Overseer Must be "above reproach" must be "a husband of one wife" Must be "sober-minded" must be "self-controlled" Must be "respectable" Must be "hospitable" Must be "able to teach"

 

[JohnDB]

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.

On WHAT basis do you make this claim?

Romans did not practice polygamy or even divorced very often. (Letter was for a Roman/Greek audience of which Timothy and Titus were both "Hellenistic Jews" raised in Roman culture)

And somehow you have failed to account for the familiar and even familial relationship between Timothy and Titus with Paul.

And on top of this Paul's tendency towards Sarcasm. (Almost got him killed on numerous occasions).

Then there was Phoebe....a deaconess mentioned by Paul as the letter bearer to the Romans who was there to explain the issues in the letter to the Romans more fully. She was unmarried.
So....
Lot of "splainin" to do to overcome some huge obstacles.

Paul himself was unmarried and suggested that others remain unmarried because "time was short".


So many obstacles most people would describe it as an impenetrable wall....maybe a mountain.

Whatcha got buckwheat?

 

[Pilgrimshope]

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.

It also may be a reference to divorce remember what Jesus taught about it

 

[Mem]

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.

I see, you cannot view that there is the possibility of a married man being exampled as among those that might aspire to that estate. What category of literary device would a 'a married man' have to be in order to be considered just a simple example withing the entire spectrum of the category of 'an officer' of the 'law of Christ.'

 

[Josepus86]

On WHAT basis do you make this claim?

Romans did not practice polygamy or even divorced very often. (Letter was for a Roman/Greek audience of which Timothy and Titus were both "Hellenistic Jews" raised in Roman culture)

And somehow you have failed to account for the familiar and even familial relationship between Timothy and Titus with Paul.

And on top of this Paul's tendency towards Sarcasm. (Almost got him killed on numerous occasions).

Then there was Phoebe....a deaconess mentioned by Paul as the letter bearer to the Romans who was there to explain the issues in the letter to the Romans more fully. She was unmarried.
So....
Lot of "splainin" to do to overcome some huge obstacles.

Paul himself was unmarried and suggested that others remain unmarried because "time was short".


So many obstacles most people would describe it as an impenetrable wall....maybe a mountain.

Whatcha got buckwheat?

If polygamy was not in common practice at this time or culture, Paul is not speaking of it in this context. Though yet again, I am not here to discuss polygamy, but the mandate as found in Titus and 1 Timothy for officers to be married. And I am arguing that we need to interpret this section from a liberal ballpark exegesis because of this.
Paul was unmarried, but this is like saying, Moses commands us not to murder, but since Moses was a murderer he must not really mean that.

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:21

 

[JohnDB]

Just for "giggles" let's review the first and second most important Commandments.

Everyone got it?

Ok....so basically the Law and God's desire is for you to establish a positive relationship with God as well as your fellow man. (BOTH ARE IMPORTANT)

Now we know that people have a difficult time getting along. (One look at this board tells you that much)
Scriptures reveal how to have positive relationships with each other. What to do or not do with each other. It doesn't mean that you will be liked or respected or feared....just that in God's view it will be a positive relationship.

Of course ordering people about what they gotta do is NOT a commandment in the old or new Testament.

Just saying

.

 

[JohnDB]

If polygamy was not in common practice at this time or culture, Paul is not speaking of it in this context. Though yet again, I am not here to discuss polygamy, but the mandate as found in Titus and 1 Timothy for officers to be married. And I am arguing that we need to interpret this section from a liberal ballpark exegesis because of this.
Paul was unmarried, but this is like saying, Moses commands us not to murder, but since Moses was a murderer he must not really mean that.

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:21

Sure....
Sidestep Phoebe and Paul's recommendation to remain unmarried.

 

[HeIsHere]

It also may be a reference to divorce remember what Jesus taught about it

This makes the good sense to me.

 

[Dino246]

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

There’s no game. You claimed to be thorough, so demonstrate it by answering my questions… thoroughly. You haven’t yet.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

This makes the good sense to me.

Yeah sort of to me too but just an opinion . also polygymy was most likely prevelant in the Roman society they were in and the Bible teaches about one man and one woman in marriage . Even today it would of course be valid but it could possibly extend to divorce as God is not pleased with it

 

[lrs68]

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.

It also says a Deacon won't drink strong drink [[which seems to mean alcohol]] plus a few other rules.

In other words, a leader of a congregation won't be doing things that people can say and leave them with questions or doubts about God.

 

[HeIsHere]

Now we know that people have a difficult time getting along. (One look at this board tells you that much)

Probably because they cannot appreciate aesthetics.

 

[homwardbound]

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.

Under Law absolutely, As God had Hosea marry a wife, to represent to the first Chosen their whoredom,. Under Law , no one can be perfect are in need of God the only one perfect to lead them in all things, at least to me, this I now see after a long walk off a short pier daily under Law Hebrews 7:11-12
Hosea 1
The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. ...

Read it all, see it all, we the people all peoples but God is perfect and offers this to each person to believe and see if one, anyone will not stop to believe God all in all
It can and did take a while for me to see through the veil and remain humble, to let go of under Law, to uphold Law and see what David said in Psalms 1:1-4
Thanks as we each learn new daily in trust to God's trust fund, not selves or anyone else, to me at least

 

[Snackersmom]

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.

You are getting closer to my point, but still missing it.

My point is that the "qualifications" are more about heart attitude than marital status. A married man with a wandering eye or propensity for non-biblical divorce is no more qualified for the position than an unmarried man would be, arguably less so.

Operating in the gifts and fruit of the Spirit takes discipline and diligence, obtaining a marriage license does not.

Also, if you are going to take a rigid view of the interpretation of "gynē" and "anēr", then you should apply the same treatment to "heis". The overwhelmingly most common usage of "heis" is singular.... only one woman. The Lord wants servants who can be satisfied by and loyal to ONE romantic partner.

 

[Josepus86]

I honestly appreciate everyone's responses.
I am an extrovert that processes information through discussion,
But I am also a choleric temperament and direct personality.
And I like to consider myself cerebral, which often comes off as aloof,
but everyone would consider themselves to be an intellectual.

I personally do not like to presume others philosophical and theological presuppositions,
so let me explain a little of where I am coming from.

The assertion I have made is that 1 Timothy and Titus require an officer to be married to hold office.
I do believe there is a loophole for the polygynous marriage in the modern church,
I do not hold that all men should practice Polygyny, but rather that most should not.
(I would like to discuss Polygyny in a separate discussion).

I presume to believe that most people hold to the belief that this section is a prohibition on polygamy and perhaps divorce.
I consider that to be incorrect.
I would like to address each objection raised, so could you please raise each raise one at a time, just so I do not get too lost?
I presume you are coming from a presupposition that there is a perfect harmony within the scripture.
I do not hold to this idea, I believe there is a very good harmony between most assertions within scripture,
But in this case, there is not.

I will try to answer each of your objections,
so please meet me half way.

 

[Josepus86]

It also may be a reference to divorce remember what Jesus taught about it

Yes, Jesus taught something true, but it was an amendable criteria about divorce, ask me how?

 

[Josepus86]

There’s no game. You claimed to be thorough, so demonstrate it by answering my questions… thoroughly. You haven’t yet.

Dino I am very sorry, but can you restate your questions, at this point I am trying to answer everyone's but I am getting lost in the conversation, I may have answered them already, and you may not have liked my answerrs.

 

[JohnDB]

The polygamy gets EVERYONE'S attention....so does what the OP is after....

Kinda disappointing that nobody knows the truth.
Human nature, affluent societies, and basic anthropology are the answer.

Timothy is quoted the most often because it's the most verbose and complete in explanation.
Timothy was in Ephasus. A wealthy banking town. Rich bankers were the predominant citizens of Ephasus.
And people then married more often in the world then versus today. It was a given that when you reached a certain age you married. Different ages for different cultures but EVERY culture had an age where men or women were to be married. Your parents would insist upon it. Not much of a choice in that in all reality.

However, despite Jewish polygamy, Romans thought polygamy was disgusting. The Emperors never had multiple wives....they could have gotten away with it too if they wished. It just was not their "cup of tea".
However....
Romans believed in having "girlfriends"/consorts that they loved and cared for. Wives were women of status families married for business reasons. Consorts were for emotional support and love. You chose your consort. Wives were not so freely decided upon. Wealthy men married very carefully, consorts could come and go at a whim.

However,
Paul being his normal sarcastic self referred to these consorts as Wives. Which would disgust your average wealthy Roman businessman....and they would indeed be offended seriously. But Paul was addressing Timothy and Titus directly and less formally than he would an entire congregation in a city.

Meaning your most common status symbol of success wasn't a McMansion, chariot, or a luxury boat....it was a consort.

 

[JohnDB]

I honestly appreciate everyone's responses.
I am an extrovert that processes information through discussion,
But I am also a choleric temperament and direct personality.
And I like to consider myself cerebral, which often comes off as aloof,
but everyone would consider themselves to be an intellectual.

I personally do not like to presume others philosophical and theological presuppositions,
so let me explain a little of where I am coming from.

The assertion I have made is that 1 Timothy and Titus require an officer to be married to hold office.
I do believe there is a loophole for the polygynous marriage in the modern church,
I do not hold that all men should practice Polygyny, but rather that most should not.
(I would like to discuss Polygyny in a separate discussion).

I presume to believe that most people hold to the belief that this section is a prohibition on polygamy and perhaps divorce.
I consider that to be incorrect.
I would like to address each objection raised, so could you please raise each raise one at a time, just so I do not get too lost?
I presume you are coming from a presupposition that there is a perfect harmony within the scripture.
I do not hold to this idea, I believe there is a very good harmony between most assertions within scripture,
But in this case, there is not.

I will try to answer each of your objections,
so please meet me half way.

What about Phoebe?
No explanation yet about her.

Just saying.

 

[Josepus86]

You are getting closer to my point, but still missing it.

My point is that the "qualifications" are more about heart attitude than marital status. A married man with a wandering eye or propensity for non-biblical divorce is no more qualified for the position than an unmarried man would be, arguably less so.

Operating in the gifts and fruit of the Spirit takes discipline and diligence, obtaining a marriage license does not.

Also, if you are going to take a rigid view of the interpretation of "gynē" and "anēr", then you should apply the same treatment to "heis". The overwhelmingly most common usage of "heis" is singular.... only one woman. The Lord wants servants who can be satisfied by and loyal to ONE romantic partner.

This is also my point, surprisingly, I am arguing that we should follow spirit of the Law not Letter of the Law.
But I am saying that the letter of the Law says that an officer must be married.

It is like this, the law of this land says not to speed, I am pulled over for speeding,
The officer asks be why the rush, I say my mom is in the hospital,
He is obligated by the letter of the law to give me a ticket,
but he follows the spirit of the law and lets me off with a warning.

I am saying that titus and 1 timothy mandate marriage, I also believe this is not practical, so if there is exception for this there should be exception for everything depending on the circumstance, I am not saying that it is okay for officers to get drunk and such,
but let's say an officer is at a wedding and has a little too much and says or does something to a lesser or greater degree that is inappropriate, should he be banned for life from office?