 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 5/15/2003 10:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | I was trying to read through the thread on divorce and remarriage but since there are 120 posts and I'm at work, I can't do that. But I was wondering about the issue of divorced people not being allowed to become pastors and doing certain other ministries. Is that a Biblical view or was it something that the Church made up along the way?
We were discussing this in my Bible study group and one of them said that it was a serious issue for a divorced friend of hers because he whenever he tries to join a Christian ministry somewhere, the fact that he's divorced prevents him from being allowed to get involved in even certain service ministries like childcare and leadership positions. This is a great source of pain for him and probably many others.
If this mandate is truly Biblical and Pastor Boyd got a divorce, we'd all be deprived of a wonderful blessing and source of Holy Spirit inspiration and Bible-truth teaching. To me, it seems like a tremendous waste to withhold such a Kingdom-building person as this from serving with his gifts because of a technicality.
So, please tell me, what does Jesus say about this, if He ever said anything about this at all?
Tigress
The Angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and He delivers them.
-Psalm 34:7 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 5/15/2003 12:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Tigress,
I haven't read it through all either. To answer your question briefly though, it depends on if it is a Biblical (unsinful) divorce rather than a sinful one. If the divorce is not a sin for that person (meaning they were not the one to commited adultery or the other spouse divorced them on unBiblical grounds), then that should put no moral restriction upon him/her since no sin was committed.
However, I also believe divorce should be treated like any other sin. Meaning, that even if the divorce was sinful, it should not NECESSARILY mean that a person is forever forbidden from certain positions. If there is evidence of true repentence and a changed life, simply being divorced should not be an automatic exclusion. However, this is to be decided by the church body to prevent division.
Bottom line: Divorce is always a bad thing, always undesirable but sometimes permissable. Those involved in it, whether victim or perpetrator should not view it as an black mark that can never be wiped clean. Doesn't mean there will not be lifelong consequences from their actions, but that the heart is more important than the externals.
The following booklet from Radio Bible Class gives a good overview of the topic from a Biblical perspective. For the most part, I agree with all the positions it takes.
http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/q0806/
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/15/2003 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | The ironic thing is you've got groups like Prison Fellowship - where Chuck COlson is a leader - a convicted felon! Granted, he has repented. But why is someone who is divorced worse than a convicted felon?
I think there can be a distinction made between someone who ALREADY in a leadership position , and espousing Christianity - who then gets divorced, commits murder, or whatever, and the person who has done that in the past, way before they became a Christian. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/15/2003 7:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Tigress
I was trying to read through the thread on divorce and remarriage but since there are 120 posts and I'm at work, I can't do that. But I was wondering about the issue of divorced people not being allowed to become pastors and doing certain other ministries. Is that a Biblical view or was it something that the Church made up along the way?
Iconoclast
Here is the scriptural argument that some folks use:
1 Timothy 3:12 Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well;
Jesus said that divorce and remarriage is the sin of adultery BECAUSE God made them (first marriage) one flesh and what God hath joined together let no man put asunder.
So, a remarried person is technically still married to their first spouse, thus, they are still the husband of the first spouse, thus they are the husband of more than one wife, thus they can't be a deacon (be in ministry) and FORGET even thinking of being a bishop (Elder).
In my opinion this thinking comes from the filter of the "legal view". It is pharisaical judgmentalism (the stolen knowledge of good and evil).
What Jesus is getting at is that ANYTHING that deviates from God's original ideal for us is sin. He was going after the pharisees in order to break them out of their "legal view" thinking. Jesus was NOT intending to establish some new legalistic principle, He was doing exactly the opposite. Jesus actually presupposes in his statement that the woman will get remarried.
Thus the answer to your question regarding this particular logic of the church is that it is totally made up and it misses the entire point of what Jesus was getting at in the first place.
Now, let's look at the whole text of 1 Timothy 2 (or most of it anyway):
1Ti 3:1 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
1Ti 3:2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
1Ti 3:3 no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.
1Ti 3:4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way;
1Ti 3:5 for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church?
1Ti 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil;
1Ti 3:7 moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for gain;
1Ti 3:9 they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons.
1Ti 3:11 The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well;
1Ti 3:13 for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Some might argue that "manage their children and their households well" suggests that a divorced person should be excluded from being a deacon. In my view what this text is getting at is that a leader must be a capable leader - someone that is a role model for their particular area of leadership. One may be a good "manager" but because of circumstances beyond their control the situation being "managed" may not work out so well. People have free will. Thus, we need to use common sense and good discernment about putting people into leadership positions where they can be effective.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/16/2003 12:32:29 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
S.B.G.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143
| Posted 5/16/2003 5:16 AM (GMT -6) | | If this mandate is truly Biblical and Pastor Boyd got a divorce, we'd all be deprived of a wonderful blessing and source of Holy Spirit inspiration and Bible-truth teaching. To me, it seems like a tremendous waste to withhold such a Kingdom-building person as this from serving with his gifts because of a technicality.
AMEN!!!
Good for you Tigress! 
I couldn't agree with you more! People shouldn't have to "pay" for their past when they've received forgiveness. Paul says the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, so if we've been called and forgiven our mistakes should not take away the calling.
Your Sis in Christ,
S.B.G.
To understand and to be understood is bliss. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/16/2003 7:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Excellent point RD. Here's another one. Its amazing how many churches will say, "You can't be in a position of leadership because of your divorce. But hey! We'll still take your money! God bless you!" 
Right. I'm NOT good enough for leadership positions but I'm good enough for my money.
Bottomline? No matter how much many churches will give excuses (or as they see them, legitmate biblical reasons) for not allowing you to participate in ministry, IN EFFECT they are treating you as a second class citizen. You will NEVER measure up. IMHO, one should at some point consider whether to continue to fellowship in such churches.
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/16/2003 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | | Is that right indeed, my dear brother Brandon? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/16/2003 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | It seems to me that there are some who are resistant to any boundries being set up by God for the leadership of His church. Proverbs 22:28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. Your fathers and your Father have set certain situations as qualifying or disqualifying when it comes to leadership positions in the church and yet in this enlightened age we have determined it isn't fair.
For hundreds of years it has been the normal understanding that divorced men are disqualified from leadership positions. If a man's first wife is still living and he remarries, he is in an adulterous situation. Rom. 7.2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 5/16/2003 11:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It seems to me that there are some who are resistant to any boundries being set up by God for the leadership of His church. Proverbs 22:28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. Your fathers and your Father have set certain situations as qualifying or disqualifying when it comes to leadership positions in the church and yet in this enlightened age we have determined it isn't fair.
For hundreds of years it has been the normal understanding that divorced men are disqualified from leadership positions. If a man's first wife is still living and he remarries, he is in an adulterous situation. Rom. 7.2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Paul,
You must remember that a lot of the laws in the Old Testament were civil and religious laws and not necessary moral laws. The 10 Commandments were God's moral law that stands for all time. But, the religious and civil laws were for the Israelites alone in their time, in order to guide their nation into being unlike the pagan cultures around them. These laws were not meant for all time.
This is true also of some New Testament statements by Paul, Peter, etc. They were to guide the churches in that specific time and not for all time. Paul also said that slaves must treat their masters with utmost respect and obey and serve them gladly. This was a guideline for that time, but certainly not meant for ALL time as slavery in itself is abhorrent to God and not even necessary for a culture to survive anyway.
Tigress
The Angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and He delivers them.
-Psalm 34:7 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/16/2003 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Broth'r Meph, I KNOW you hear me. Dat's what I'm talk'n 'bout! 
Keep'n ya in prayer.
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/16/2003 2:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Tigress,
I believe the last quote I used wasn't Peter or Paul, but it was NT.
Who is to determine what is applicible for today? What person today has the knowledge and/or authority to make that determination? Why should there be any preservation for those NT scriptures that don't apply to us today? I could lighten the load in my Bible considerably by discarding all of those scriptures that don't apply. Of course, I don't think you have fully considered I Cor. 10.6 "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted." "These things" that are our examples are from the OT. Rom. 15.4 "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Neither have you fully considered II Tim 3.15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.: where grammata means "Holy writ, the sacred books of the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures, 2 Ti. 3.15" (The Anaytical Greek Lexicon, Zondervan, 11th printing 1975, p. 82)
I think scripture itself shows the timelessness of its application.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 5/19/2003 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
Well then, if your brother dies you'd better be sure to obey God's command to marry his wife and have children with her which will be counted as his own, as that's also what you say is a universal commandment that the Bible states so clearly in the Old Testament. You'd also better be sure to make a pilgrimmage to Jerusalem every year and sacrifice a perfect lamb or equivalent to atone for your sins b/c that was a law that you think is universal.
(These are examples of civil and religious laws in the OT, neither of which is necessary for us to fulfill anymore.)
Tigress
The Angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and He delivers them.
-Psalm 34:7 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/19/2003 4:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Tigress,
I don't have a brother and besides, I have 8 grandchildren which puts me a little over the age when one normally has children. Of course, I'm also not exempt from the civil laws of the USA that frown on multiple marriages.
That was a pretty good attempt to discredit the Old Testament, but since I'm not Jewish there are just somethings that don't apply to my situation. You know, like a monthly period of uncleaness for females (since I'm not a female it couldn't apply) or the command to observe the passover (I do understand the necessity for a blood sacrifice that provides for my salvation and exodus from the world to the kingdom of God). Even so, there are principles that can be learned from the old Testament that are just as applicible for the present as any New Testament passage. Isn't it amazing that the Old Testament is quoted over 350 times in the New Testament and you are trying to say it is obsolete? Isn't it amazing that there are still unfulfilled prophesies from the Old Testament waiting their completion?
Doesn't it strike you as being a little strange that Paul, the Christian, continued to claim that he was a Jew, an Israelite, from the tribe of Benjamin and that he continued with Jewish vows performed at the Temple in Jerusalem after his conversion? You do understand the passover was a perpetual observation for the Jewish people, even after their conversion to Christianity? It has never been a command for Gentiles, so why do you try to make it so now?
Contrary to popular belief, divorce is not the unpardonable sin. However, there are certain consequences that are a result of divorce and they are specified in the qualifications for church leaders.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/20/2003 3:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
I will try and get on a response to your ideas concerning church leadership within the next couple of days.
For now, I think you take a "wooden" approach to the text. As well as, believe it or not, the text doesn't say as much about divorce as you may think it does. Rather it concerns Christians "being above reproach" in the eyes of non-christians and how this can be applied today.
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 5/20/2003 4:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tigress,
I don't have a brother and besides, I have 8 grandchildren which puts me a little over the age when one normally has children. Of course, I'm also not exempt from the civil laws of the USA that frown on multiple marriages.
That was a pretty good attempt to discredit the Old Testament, but since I'm not Jewish there are just somethings that don't apply to my situation. You know, like a monthly period of uncleaness for females (since I'm not a female it couldn't apply) or the command to observe the passover (I do understand the necessity for a blood sacrifice that provides for my salvation and exodus from the world to the kingdom of God). Even so, there are principles that can be learned from the old Testament that are just as applicible for the present as any New Testament passage. Isn't it amazing that the Old Testament is quoted over 350 times in the New Testament and you are trying to say it is obsolete? Isn't it amazing that there are still unfulfilled prophesies from the Old Testament waiting their completion?
Doesn't it strike you as being a little strange that Paul, the Christian, continued to claim that he was a Jew, an Israelite, from the tribe of Benjamin and that he continued with Jewish vows performed at the Temple in Jerusalem after his conversion? You do understand the passover was a perpetual observation for the Jewish people, even after their conversion to Christianity? It has never been a command for Gentiles, so why do you try to make it so now?
Contrary to popular belief, divorce is not the unpardonable sin. However, there are certain consequences that are a result of divorce and they are specified in the qualifications for church leaders.
Paul,
I most certainly am not claiming that none of the Old Testament laws apply to us today. I am saying that quite a number of them only applied to a certain group of people during a certain time in history. You confirmed this when you said that some of those laws only applied to the ancient Israelites.
I'm just suggesting that the NT verses you've given to support the view that divorcees cannot lead in ministry or be pastors, might very well have been only for the particular church Paul was speaking to at that time in history. It, like many other "laws" he gave were only cultural to help them to reach the world in their time period.
Tigress
The Angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and He delivers them.
-Psalm 34:7 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/20/2003 7:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Tigress,
My question is, how do you know this "It, like many other "laws" he gave were only cultural to help them to reach the world in their time period."? What is the basis for your determination? I submit that you don't have a basis other than a desire to do away with what is written. Of course, I could be wrong, but you will have to show me where I am wrong.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/20/2003 11:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Of course, I could be wrong, but you will have to show me where I am wrong.
Hee, hee, hee...
Later...
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 5/20/2003 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | I believe the point of contention between Paul and Tigress is the transformation of interpretation to application in Scripture. Let's see if we can't be more irenic.
I agree that when it comes to contemporary issues, there is often controversy. How strictly should we apply what the Bible says, and in what context?
One trap that people tend to fall into to is the A -> B -> C reasoning in scripture. Meaning taking separate truth statements, linking them together, and coming out with a natural conclusion. This often works for us, but not absolutely. Take these statements:
- "I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (Matt 17:20)
- Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours" (Mark 11:24)
- "Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up." (James 5:15)
The conclusion being if someone is sick and ends up dying despite faithful prayer, then the person didn't have enough faith (some churches take this literal stance).
We all know the basic flaw here, that essentially it ignores God's sovereignty. This doesn't make the beforehand statements false per se, but the application of these statements is off.
Here's another one:
- "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:27-28)
- "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matt 19:9)
Again, the reasoning is since adultery is a Biblical grounds for divorce, and lusting after women equates to adultery, then anyone who has EVER lusted while married could be divorced by Biblical standards. Gee, that would include probably every married man on earth.
The flaw here is the CONTEXT of the 2 statements. One talks about sin not just being external action, but a matter of the heart, and the other addressed if the divorce-on-demand concept was what God had in mind. To clarify though, someone who obsessively and obstinately views pornography without an attitude of repentance probably would fall into one of these cases where it might be permissible.
From these examples we can arrive at the conclusion that context is just as important as the words themselves. WHO they are addressed to. WHAT the subject at hand is. WHEN and WHERE it was given. And of course WHY.
So now let's take the statement:
"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,..." (1 Tim 3:2)
Now, if we were to take this literally, emphasizing the MUST, this would automatically exclude singles (Paul was unmarried, possibly Timothy), widowed people, etc. We suspect though that the emphasis is on the "above reproach" as Canada pointed out, with the list being attributes of one who WOULD BE above reproach (meaning that one "above reproach" would have these characteristics, not that having these characteristics are required for being "above reproach"). The "must" does not appear to carry through to every statement given the context.
I also believe that it is important to understand that although often working in tandem, the letter of the law is always subordinate to the spirit (heart) of the law. It is why that on occassion God excused certain laws (Sabbath, consecrated bread, etc.) and the Law alone led to death. Jesus summed it up that ALL laws hang on the 2 greatest commandments, to love God first and love people.
Armed with these 2 principles: Context and the love of God/people, we can often (not always) make sense of confusing and sometimes seemingly contradictory statements.
Thus I reiterate that I BELIEVE the Bible teaches that regardless of a person's past sins, if they have truly repented then a divorce would not automatically preclude them from leadership. However, on the flip side I believe this needs to be tinged with the principle of keeping unity in Christ, and if the current body decides it's unwise or might be a stumbling block, the person should honor the decision.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/20/2003 3:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Laplace,
When you says all of this,quote:
Now, if we were to take this literally, emphasizing the MUST, this would automatically exclude singles (Paul was unmarried, possibly Timothy), widowed people, etc. We suspect though that the emphasis is on the "above reproach" as Canada pointed out, with the list being attributes of one who WOULD BE above reproach (meaning that one "above reproach" would have these characteristics, not that having these characteristics are required for being "above reproach"). The "must" does not appear to carry through to every statement given the context.
you seem to have ignored the rules of grammar that apply to the scripture you also quoted. If "must" is not the emphasis and "above reproach" was the emphasis, there wouldn't be a comma after "above reproach". There would be a colon or no puncuation at all that would introduce the listing that would fall under that category. "Above reproach" is just another in the list of what "must be". Even verses 4&5 tell us the reason for being the husband of one wife, One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Can one really rule without "subjects"? Where would the children come from to rule without a wife? How does one rule his children if he lives in Houston and his children live with their mother in Dallas?
In Malachi it is clearly stated that God hates "putting away"/divorce. Has He changed His mind about that or is He reinforcing that in I Tim.? Doesn't it say in Matthew 19:8 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.? So, that which was allowed "because of the hardness of your hearts" is no longer consider a product of hard hearts and allows one to lead a church?
Brandon,
I hope I have addressed some of your concerns with this post. So far, you haven't shown where I am wrong nor have you shown where the Decalogue has been done away with. Since we have already determined the scriptures say a remarried person is committing adultery, maybe it would be good to see a restatement of the Decalogue in Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
I know you would rather that I take a dynamic approach to the scriptures, like the NIV, but I'm a little too literal for that to happen.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 5/20/2003 7:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul,
Not being an English expert, I do not know for sure grammatical conventions, but I believe you are incorrect in this instance.
Let's look at the sentence again:
"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,..."
Subject: The overseer
Verb: be (transitive)
The "must" is a modal, meaning it cannot stand alone. There always has to be a verb (either explicit or implied). One cannot just "must". They "must" do/be something.
In the first part, we have "must be...", in the next part we don't have a verb. The entire clause "the husband of but one wife" is a noun. Since there is NO OTHER VERB listed, it is assumed it is the verb from the prior clause, "must be".
If we wanted to contrast saying the first is a requirement, but the second isn't we would say, "The overseer must be above reproach, BE the husband of but one wife,...". However, it isn't the case so again so the "must" must (haha) remain.
And back to the original argument, if that is the case, if you take it literally, it would exclude single people and widowers from leadership positions which would contradict Paul himself the writer.
The point of this though is not to try and be right on nitpicky grammar, but to try to make you understand that to ALWAYS take the Bible literally can lead us into trouble.
We KNOW that the Bible is not always literal. When Jesus is referred to as the "Lamb of God" He is not a sheep with horns. When He tells us we cannot be His disciples unless we "hate our mother and father" it does not mean we despise them (It was meant as a relative comparative with our love for God). And my favorite, gouging out our right eye and cutting off our right hand.
If we took every instruction literally without context, then no women should open their mouths in church AT ALL (1 Tim 2:11-12). This letter of the law mentality is what Jesus got so upset at the Pharisees.
Yes, God hates divorce. But it doesn't mean He doesn't allow it (Matt 19:9). He also takes no pleasure in the death of anyone (Ezk 18:32) but allows it and sometimes carries it out as punishment Himself.
You claim that sinful divorce is not unpardonable, yet your restrictions do not suggest such. Obviously one should not divorce their new wife to try and get back with their first one. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
If you believe that a divorced person on less than Biblical grounds is not eligible for leadership, then that is fine. Some churches adopt that interpretation. What I'm trying to convince you of though is that we should treat this issue as one of those "eating meat" cases listed in Romans where we ought to keep unity and the love of Christ first. I believe that is what Paul (apostle) had in mind when he wrote the guidelines. Not as absolute checkboxes for all time, but principles and a concrete picture of what someone "above reproach" WOULD look like.
Just my thoughts.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 5/21/2003 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Laplace,
I like the way you write even if I don’t agree with what you write to the same degree.quote:
If we took every instruction literally without context, then no women should open their mouths in church AT ALL (1 Tim 2:11-12). This letter of the law mentality is what Jesus got so upset at the Pharisees.
It would be permissible for women to pray and sing as seen in I Cor. 11, but otherwise, you are correct about “AT ALL”. The “letter of the law” Jesus was against was a law that was far from what God had intended. It had been subjected to man’s modification and emerged as the Talmudic Law. When it is said about Jesus, “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” do you think the Talmud was used as the standard by which His compliance was measured? Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.quote:
You claim that sinful divorce is not unpardonable, yet your restrictions do not suggest such.
If I were to be pardoned for the crime of stealing, would I cease to be a thief or would I merely be a pardoned thief? Would you trust me to guard your possessions while you are unable to guard them for yourself? Based on past performance, I wouldn’t trust me to guard the possessions.
I don’t exactly know what “sinful divorce” is, but it says in Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. The only exception I see is fornication (porneias) which happens to be different than adultery (moichatai).quote:
The point of this though is not to try and be right on nitpicky grammar, but to try to make you understand that to ALWAYS take the Bible literally can lead us into trouble.
While it is true that there are literary devices used by the penmen of the Bible, it is also true that those devices are usually easily recognized, else one would have to be some sort of gnostic to determine the “hidden” meaning of a passage. In case you forget, the Bible is intended to be understood by the average person (why else would the NT have been written in Koine Greek?). I submit that the recognition of literary devices falsely can lead us into greater trouble than the opposite situation.quote:
In the first part, we have "must be...", in the next part we don't have a verb. The entire clause "the husband of but one wife" is a noun. Since there is NO OTHER VERB listed, it is assumed it is the verb from the prior clause, "must be".
I think you have just made my point. “Must be” is understood to be the action that describes the whole list including “above reproach”, “the husband of but one wife," and so on.quote:
And back to the original argument, if that is the case, if you take it literally, it would exclude single people and widowers from leadership positions which would contradict Paul himself the writer.
Where did Paul ever claim to be a Bishop/elder/deacon? Peter made the claim of being an elder/under shepherd, but Peter had a wife. Paul claimed to be an apostle, but show me the requirements for being an apostle that would disqualify an unmarried Paul.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:35 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|