SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : A pastor, husband of one wife?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Dorcas,

Quote:
I don't see it that way, Robert...

Isn't the question: does a widower qualify because he has now no wife...



I was not saying I necessarily believed that, I was just saying that it was the logical deduction drawn from the two corresponding texts. There is a large gap between deduction and revelation. ;-)


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/3/16 15:58Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
The thing that has always puzzled me is; why would Paul then exhort the Church to refuse to take into the number younger widows (I Timothy 5:11) and rather instruct them to marry, have children and guide the house (v 14) if marrying the second time was ultimately going to disqualify them from being taken in if they were to fall in need (no husband or children, etc.) when they got older?


We might also ask why Paul would encourage this when elsewhere he has encouraged folks to 'abide in their calling'? I think the simple answer is 'circumstances change cases'. In the Corinthian era he advised one course of action and by the era of the pastoral letters another. His Corinthian counsel is determined by 'this present distress' (1 Cor 7:26) whereas the counsel in the pastorals is not addressed to those in a 'present distress'.

The provision for 'true widows' is for those without any others to support them. If a younger widow married there might well be a family to support her in her later years. The 'preventative' cure would be for younger widows to marry etc while the 'remedial' cure would be for the saints to make provision for the older widows.

As to what would happen with twice married widows with no supporting family... I am sure some provision would have been made but we really have so little data to create a scenario here with this single reference to an 'order' of 'widows given to prayer'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/3/16 18:26Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Have we asked the question "why should this particular criterion be applied only to those joining the 'oversight'?"


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/3/16 18:30Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

Quote:
Have we asked the question "why should this particular criterion be applied only to those joining the 'oversight'?"



To my recollection, if the issue has been raised, it passed by without serious consideration. It does beg the question, if divorced and remarried people are damaged goods as far as leadership is concerned...how are they not also lesser qualified (edit: diminished) for other areas of influence such as helping in the Church Body or as working in the "harvest field", witnessing to friends or co-workers?

Can a remarried person play a guitar in music ministry? Can a remarried person testify of Christ in the workplace? Those are also areas of "leadership"...that is they are areas of influence for Christ.

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2006/3/16 22:01Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

MC's

Quote:
Can a remarried person play a guitar in music ministry? Can a remarried person testify of Christ in the workplace? Those are also areas of "leadership"...that is they are areas of influence for Christ.


I'm going to be pedantic again. My apologies.

While 'leadership' is a clear aspect of 'eldership/oversight' I think the they are not coterminous. 'leadership' can be both an event and a role but 'eldership/oversight' is a whole-of-life mission.

I think it is important to understand that this list of qualities is not a 'qualification' criteria in the sense that anyone having these qualities would thereby be a candidate for 'eldership/oversight'. I think it is important to see this as a series of 'characteristics'; the kind of answer you might get to the question 'what kind of person should an elder be?'. There is no concentration here on gift or ability (even 'apt to teach' doesn't mean quite what many think) but rather on character and disposition. This is the 'kind' of person who might be considered for eldership/oversight.

There is an interesting feature in this list in that the prospective 'elder/overseer' has to have a good reputation outside the fellowship. “Moreover [u]he must have a good testimony among those who are outside[/u], lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1Tim 3:7 NKJV) I have gone for the NKJV here because it draws attention to the word 'testimony'. The prospective elder/overseer must have a good testimony 'outside'. Did you ever hear of a church who invited the neighbours to comment on the church 'leaders'?;-) (I do know of one church which had an interview with a man's workmates before recognising the man in eldership/overseersit.) In the light of...“Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.” (1John 3:13 KJVS)...what are we to make of this stipulation that the world outside the church must hold the churches 'leaders' in high esteem?

In our thread on pastors I have made the point that if we examine the data regarding the OT use of the word 'elder' we discover that the 'elders' often acted in a representative role towards the 'outside world'. This should interest you Americans ;-) the word elder in Latin is Senator. In your system, if I understand it correctly, the Senator is the elected 'representative' of the people. There is something of this sense in the OT use of the word 'elder' and consequently some of this sense in present in the NT term 'elder' too.

On occasion the 'eldership/overseers' of the local church might be called upon to 'represent' the local church in their dealing with outside authorities. Because the 'local' church has an outwards looking face it is essential that the character of its representatives is above suspicion or to use the biblical phrase are "blameless". There is an old saying that 'Caesar's wife must be above suspicion'. The public representative's of the local expression of the Lam'bs Bride ie the local church, must also be above suspicion.

It is important to observe that this list is not aspirational; it is not the goal towards which the elder/overseer is moving. The list is 'now'. The character and disposition of the 'elder/overseer' must be above reproach and in a world blighted by sexual irregularities a man's sexual behaviour must be taken into account.

Perhaps there is a symbolic issue here too. The Lamb will only ever have one Bride. So many of the God-given institutions which were designed to speak to us of God's character have been vandalised by the Accuser; marriage is one of them. As far as it lies within his power the prospective elder/overseer must be one in whose life the 'truth' is visible in its undamaged state.

This is why I always want to distinguish, not between the persons, but between the 'roles' of pastor-teacher and 'elder/overseer'. The first is dependent upon gift, the second upon character. There is no essential biblical connection between the 'elder/overseer' and the 'pastor-teacher'. One man may indeed be both but not necessarily so.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/3/17 4:53Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: fidelity

Quote:

I have been looking at David's genealogy... currently I have 8 legitimate wives, 21 legitimate sons and 1 legitimate daughter. Not counting concubines and their offspring!

That's interesting. We were discussing David because of his adultery....


Dorcas, If I understand correctly, David's sin was not so much that he took another woman into his life, but that he took one who BELONGED TO ANOTHER. That was the sin - as clearly illustrated in Nathan's parable, and the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not take thy neighbors.......

In God's reprimand to him afterwards, David was told by God: "I gave your master's house to you and your master's wives into your arms. ...And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more..." What, more wives????

David was straying away from his close walk with God and his reliance on God as his provider: David did not ask God first. David had coveted, and had allowed his desires to carry him away, he WAS NOT CONTENT. His sin occurred BEFORE the actual adultery. We need to grasp the seriousness of the sin of the heart because it applies today.

***
I find that our Christian practise has some serious inconsistancies: For example, a common-law couple would be considered living in sin, fornicating, because they are not LEGALLY married - even if they are faithful to one another.

Now, if a LEGALLY divorced man takes a new wife, no matter how tender and faithful he is, he is tossed into the same sin bracket as a married man who cheats on his wife.

Are we tossing around civic law here? One moment it is the only thing that counts, and in another situation it counts for nothing. What is the outsider supposed to think of our religion when they see this inconsistancy. Even they have an understanding of fidelity. Just ask a teenage girl who is "going out" with a guy. That fellow is not fair game for any rival female. And they aren't even married!!
"Thou shalt not take thy neighbors..... " nor thy friend's dating partner....

It amazes me that a far bigger crime is placed on those who are married a second time than those in the church who committed adultery (which is all too quickly covered up)
Has our sense of morality become twisted??

The new morality, merely by common practise, is this: "If you can hide it, it is not a sin, but it is something visible (like divorce) then you can never be "right with God" again.
Diane


_________________
Diane

 2006/3/17 6:47Profile









 Re: A pastor, husband of one wife?


Hi Diane,

Thank you for that exposition. (I really mean that. I had not thought through the specifics of David's situation in that way.)

I think today, though, that if a husband of one wife takes another man's wife to bed, he is committing adultery both against his own wife and the husband of the adulteress.

He would be committing adultery against his own wife if he took an unmarried woman to bed, with whom he committed fornication.

I agree with the other excellent questions you raised and will be interested in others' responses.

Quote:


We need to grasp the seriousness of the sin of the heart because it applies today.

Whether a man was married or single before he knew the Lord, if he was not faithful to one 'spouse', then it appears he is forever disqualified from eldership/oversight, according to philologos's dissertation above.

I wonder if this applies equally to those who were delivered from homosexual behaviour also, who are now 'washed','sanctified', and 'justified' in 1 Cor 6:11. If anything, they would have an [i]advantage[/i], having never been married.

This still doesn't make sense to me.... Mainly because all through the Old Testament, there is an understanding that a man needs a wife. It is not until Jesus suggests that a man might choose [i]not[/i] to have a wife, for the kingdom's sake, that this is challenged... and later taken up by Paul as a valid option for a (born again) Christian.

 2006/3/17 7:51
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: get to the root cause

Quote:
there is an understanding that a man needs a wife. It is not until Jesus suggests that a man might choose not to have a wife, for the kingdom's sake, that this is challenged... and later taken up by Paul as a valid option for a (born again)



I think that procreation was a priority, for the preservation of the nation of Israel, as Adam was given the calling to perpetuate the human race.... "Be fruitful... " To not have children, or perpetuate that geneological line was sinful.(illustrated in one OT example)

(Maybe to a degree that applies today. We certainly are going to feel the effects of reduced birth rate.)

Having multiple wives was a social security net, built into the culture - even permitted by God. In our day, it is hard to imagine what it might have been like to be a single woman in that culture, without the protective covering of a man, and his provision. And with so many men dying in war, there would be less...

Anyway, I think we can easily miss some major points of Biblical obedience. I ask, is it legitmate for anyone to map out their own lives, be masters of their destiny - whether or not they take a wife "legitimately"?

In our culture the entire means of choosing spouses has strayed far away from Biblical standards. It is humanism - woven right into the fabric of the Christian community. And this, in itself, I believe contributes significantly to the increasing divorce rate. It's all based on faulty expections, romantic idealism, etc etc
If we want to help correct the social disease, we better go to the root of it, not stay stuck on the symptom.
Diane


_________________
Diane

 2006/3/17 8:14Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi

 Re:

I have read most of the posts folllowing and I do not think anyone has suggested this, so please excuse me if I am repeating what has been said.

I Timothy 5:
1 Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers,
2 the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.

3 Honor widows who are widows indeed;

4 but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.

5 Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day.

6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.

7Prescribe these things as well, so that they may be above reproach.

8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

9A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man,

10 having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.

11But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married,

12thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge.

13At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention.

14Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach;

15for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.

16If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed.

I would like to look at the context. It tells us how one should regard others in the church and since Paul was writing to a young man so one must consider that because of the angle he presenting this. He is to relate to the older people as a parent: men - fathers; women - mothers; young girls as sisters. And widows are to be respected and honored. Then follows admonition on how a family should care for a widow. If there is a young one, she should remarry.

Now the issue arises on what is meant in v. 9: "widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man". I would like to make this suggestion: the list would not be a membership list to a body of believers but is likely talking about a separate order that existed in the church that functioned as a benevolent organization to assist people in their distresses. To me this interpretation would make more sense because of the context.

What do you think?

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2006/3/17 9:14Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi

 Re:

Quote:

If the interpretation that a elder must not be divorced is correct, then surely it needs to be extended to include "neither have been a fornicator" ? Surely the fact that a man was legally married and divorced, shouldn't disqualify him when compared to a man that lived with a girlfriend out of wedlock and later split up?

The difference between a divorced person and one who was shacking is a vow. If you study the scriptures about vow making/keeping, you will find God takes this very seriously. Failure to keep a vow is referred to as a 'truce breaker'which is a sin. Today we would call it lying.

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2006/3/17 9:33Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy