Slowly, after much careful deliberation, I have begun to lean toward a new understanding of the phrase "one-woman man" (often translated "husband of one wife") in the New Testament. I am under no illusions that this position will ever gain any widespread acceptance among my peers, but I will not be reviewing my life with my peers when it is over.
I am coming to conclude that the phrase means to indicate a man who is married to no more than one women throughout his entire lifetime, no matter what may happen in that lifetime. To state it less technically, but perhaps more understandably, I have come to believe that the New Testament precludes the remarried widower from serving as a pastor (as well, of course, as precluding the divorcé and the polygamist).
I have come nowhere near the level of certainty with regard to this conclusion that I would lead our church to change our official applications of the biblical qualifications for pastors and deacons—that destination is not even within sight. . . not even on the map. But my personal uncertainty about the matter is strong enough that I think I would either remain unmarried or leave the pastorate if (Lord, please forbid it) I found myself facing the disastrous situation of losing my precious wife.
Doctrinal struggles sure do have personal consequences, don't they? And knowing that many of my readers will feel the personal implications of this question in their own lives, I'm obligated to make my case carefully.
It all boils down to this: It seems increasingly clear to me that the relevant passages are appropriating into the pastoral qualifications by the use of the phrase "one-woman man" a Christian male adaptation of the Roman phenomenon known as the univirae ("one-man woman"). This Roman concept explicitly referred to a woman who was never married a second time for any reason whatsoever. The phenomenon is very well documented in classical studies. There are a great many aspects of the univira concept that connect well with the particular subject matter of these Christian letters.
Being a univira qualified a woman for certain ministry positions in pagan Roman temples. Thus, we see that the phrase "one-man woman" invoked an explicit concept in the Roman mind of the avoidance of second marriages as a qualification for religious service.
The precise time when the concept of the univira was gaining its most widespread popularity was the time when Paul and other apostles were being inspired by the Holy Spirit to author the New Testament.
Marjorie Lightman and William Zeisel's article "Univira: Continuity and Change in Roman Society" outlined the movement of the "univira" from its initial exclusive setting among the elite families of Rome proper to a widespread adaptation and adoption throughout the Roman Empire and among all classes of Roman society. The environment out of which the Holy Spirit brought forth the New Testament was precisely this environment in which the concept of the univira had attained widespread distribution.
Although univira is a Latin phrase, the corresponding Greek phrase ("monandros") is strikingly similar to the phrase of the opposite gender, "mias gunaikos," that serves as the "one-woman" in "one-woman man." Even more similar is the wording of "one-woman man" in 1 Timothy 3:2 to the wording of "one-man woman" (henos andros gune) in 1 Timothy 5:9. In turn, the phrase for "one-man woman" in 1 Timothy 5:9 is strikingly similar to language on tombstone inscriptions from the period that extolled the virtue of women identified as univirae.
To summarize these points in a conclusion, at precisely a time when the entire Roman world was extolling the virtues of "one-man women" who remained devoted to one spouse for a lifetime, and who consequently were qualified (at least in that respect) to serve in certain restricted religious capacities in Roman religion, the Holy Spirit led the Apostle Paul to identify being a "one-woman man" as a qualification for service in a certain restricted religious capacity in Christianity.
That's a pretty tight parallel, in my estimation.
In addition to these thoughts, I point out that there is no Old Testament snippet of language or marital concept that seems to serve as the source of Paul's wording of "one-woman man." Paul does not seem to be alluding to any teaching of Jesus expressed in the gospels. What other compelling candidate is there to compete with univira as a source for Paul's wording?
I also note that this interpretation of "one-woman man" goes back at least to within 160 years of the life of Jesus. Tertullian held this view, for example, as did a great many others who lived far closer to the New Testament age than do we. The evidence of the Church Fathers alone does not compel us. Indeed, for quite some time, aware of these opinions, I wrote them off as the biased interpretations of people unhealthily obsessed with celibacy. As the exegetical considerations above have gained force in my reasoning, I have had to reconsider whether it was Tertullian who was biased against remarriage, or me who was biased against Tertullian.
My great objection to this interpretation, of course, is that I don't like it at all. If I were widowed at this age and with my children at their present ages, I would likely want to remarry. Indeed, I'm not saying that I wouldn't remarry; I'm just saying that I think I would need to leave the pastoral ministry in order to do so. I find that restriction quite onerous. I don't LIKE embracing this understanding of the text.
But my job is not to interpret the Bible according to my liking; my job is to love the Bible correctly interpreted, as an aspect of loving the Author of the Bible. Perhaps the true measure of our obedience as disciples is found in our doing of the things that we don't (at first) like but are nonetheless commanded to do.
Nevertheless, this much is certain—more than ever before, I'll be delighted for you to demonstrate to me where I'm wrong.
In conclusion, I would like to identify some of the interesting implications of this interpretation:
- The explicit and jarring transformation of an always-female-applied phrase to a made-up-for-this-instance male-applied phrase strengthens the already overwhelming case that the New Testament qualifications for elders and deacons are explicitly written to be applicable to men and not to women. Surely the female phrase would do quite nicely unless females are not at all in view here. Because Paul had to have a male phrase to apply to a male category, he had to go to the extraordinary lengths of creating his own male adaptation of this female phrase.
- The general Roman concept was quite the double-standard, with the "one-man woman" being praised and extolled while men were entirely within the bounds of respectable behavior to avail themselves of prostitutes and to marry a second time upon the death of a wife. The New Testament's application of this concept to men, therefore, represents a subjection of men to a binding commitment to their wives—to their wives having authority over their bodies—in a "turnabout is fair play" manner that was foreign to Roman culture.
- One need not go so far as to suggest that remarriage of widows or widowers is at all immoral (unlike divorce, which is always immoral on the part of at least one party). Indeed, 1 Timothy 5:14 mandates remarriage of at least one category of widows. In view here is not what is moral or immoral, but rather what qualifies one for service as an elder or deacon.
107 comments:
If the phrase "one-woman man" permits a widowed man who has not remarried to remain in the pastorate, then does it also permit a divorced man who has not remarried to remain in the pastorate?
I do very much appreciate the honesty with which you approach the ramifications of what you see the Bible saying to you.
The position I've most often heard, with reference to (what, in my limited study is described as) a "one-, or first-woman" kind of man allows remarriage for the widower but not for the divorcee, which seems "selective interpretation"; "first" in the case of the divorcee, but let's switch to "one (at a time)" in the case of the widower.
I'm not near smart enough to have an opinion on the issue, and I'm glad that I've been married as long as I have. I could not imagine every re-marrying if something were to happen to Peg; after 51 years, it would not be fair to any other woman on earth to let her try to follow that.
I have never heard this before. That is interesting to say the least. Something to think about.
The perspective you present in this post is of a married man in vocational ministry and the possibility or impossibility of a second marriage if tragedy strikes and your wife dies.
What do you think the implications are for a single man called to vocational ministry? Our missionary service has taken us to Eastern Europe, and the Baptists here have always taken "one-woman man" to mean that a single man must marry before being considered for ordination. I see a lot of wisdom in that, but most Americans would disagree.
Any thoughts?
-Katie
The difficulty of sorting out 'Early Church Fathers' writings from the general 'tradition' of the early Church is important in your research, I think.
It would be important to realize that 'tradition' would have included 'practices', not just writings of the Early Fathers.
For an evangelical, it would be important not to confuse 'tradition' with 'revelation', so as to stay within the idea of revelation coming strictly from the Holy Writings (the Bible).
I don't envy your research. One other example of the difficulty is in the concept of the 'Trinity' in the early Church: how much do evangelicals accept about the mystery of the Holy Trinity really comes from 'tradition', without realizing it.
What I mean, in trying to help you here, is that in your evangelical faith, be conscious in your research: the 'writings of the Early Church Fathers' are INCLUDED in the 'tradition' of the early Church, but the 'tradition' also included more than those writings.
You would honestly, in respect for your concept of 'sola scriptura', not want to assume that all of 'tradition' was written about by the Fathers. Sometimes concepts from 'tradition' have been accepted by non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christian people without realizing it, as they have confused 'tradition' with 'revelation'.
It's complicated. Good luck in your work.
Hope this helps you a little bit, Bart. (Hope it makes sense, too, as haven't had that third cup of coffee) :) Christiane
P.S. Bob is a very humble man, but he is much wiser than many far more learned. Listen to him, Bart, when he shares with you, he has gifts from the Holy One to share with all of us. :)
Bart, I don't agree with your conclusion but I very much appreciate its consistency. (I think Alford takes the same view.) If the interpretation that it refers to the character of the man, i.e. "committed to one woman" is rejected in favor of a numerical view it is the only consistent position that can be taken. To take the view that it disqualifies a divorced man solely on the basis of the number of times he is married, and yet declare it permisable to allow widowers to remarry seems to me an impossible split.
Scotty
Hi BART,
me again, L's
BTW don't forget to explore the Byzantine tradition also. Here is something important to your research from the tradition of the Orthodox Christians:
"Widows are permitted to remarry without repercussion and their second marriage is considered just as valid as the first. One exception to this rule is the clergy and their wives. Should a married priest die, it is expected that his wife will retire to a monastery as soon as their children are out of the house. Widowed priests are not allowed to remarry and also frequently end up in monasteries."
This would be true of Catholic priests who are married, and widowed, in the eastern rites of my Church whose tradition descends from the early centers of Christianity in the East. If you are looking at early Christian practices, never forget to examine the traditions of Eastern Christianity. The Latin rite is only one of many, many traditions.
Interesting. Bart, whom would you say are the top 2 or 3 scholars you read that hold this position?
Louis
Interesting
Anonymous,
I believe that the divorced man is excluded, both by the phrase "one-woman man" and by the phrase "one who manages his own household well."
The woman who divorced was automatically, in Roman culture, not a "one-man woman." No Roman would have considered a divorcée to be a univira.
Bob,
I do not find the "not divorced" interpretation of "one-man woman" to be internally inconsistent. The phrase might just as easily have meant "not divorced" as anything else.
I have come to lean in this direction because of linguistic evidence, not because of any (perceived by me) heretofore unmet need for logical consistency.
Joe,
"Interesting" seems to be a common response to this post. ;-)
Katie,
No woman could be a univira without being married. The linguistic evidence would point one in this direction, but for one big hurdle to cross.
Even if the Apostle Paul, who penned these words, was married de jure (as some have attempted to argue), he certainly functioned as a de facto bachelor. I believe that he was indeed a bachelor, and yet he identified himself as an elder.
One is left to choose between a few options:
1. Paul's own standard for elders made him an illegitimate elder himself.
2. We can suppose that Paul was not technically a bachelor and somehow attempt to fit Paul's estrangement from or abandonment of his wife into some concept of "one who manages his own household well."
3. We can conclude that Paul's use of "one-woman man" referred to someone who never took a second wife.
I find the third option the most compelling.
L's,
Certainly there is a well-established tradition of early Christians who reached the same conclusions that I am contemplating favorably. As you have rightly noted, I am attempting to reach a conclusion on the testimony of the New Testament rather than on the basis of tradition.
But the two are not always so neatly separated. In some cases they interact. This is one of those cases, because the only way to determine the meaning of the Greek phrase in view here is to have some sense of what it meant to the man who penned it and the people who first read it. The testimony of the earliest Fathers is important at this point (although not entirely determinative) simply because they were, in many ways, products of the same culture that produced the New Testament (or at the very least, of a very similar culture).
What Tertullian, for example, thought when he read the phrase "one-woman man" is therefore evidence worthy of consideration in trying to determine what Paul thought when he wrote it.
Scotty,
It seems to me that my comments to Bob might equally serve as a good reply to your comment, for which I am thankful.
Bart,
Or, we can take the 4th position. That Paul taught that death freed a man to be married again, and that a "one woman man" truly does deal with divorce.
That's the position I hold to. Although, I've been looking more and more towards Dr. John MacArthur's view that this is not about divorce and remarriage at all. That it's a phrase dealing with the character of the fella...that he's known as a faithful husband...that he does not tomcat around.
I'm not there, with MacArthur, yet; and you throw an interesting turn into this phrase; but I'm thinking. Is me thinking a little bit dangerous? :)
David
Okay, I'm ruminating on this a little.
Paul certainly reached into Greek and Roman culture for words and even ideas, but he usually then baptized them and gave them new twists, or often whole new meanings.
He used the term mystery often, but imbued it with a new meaning.
His use of agape was like this.
So, I have no quarrel with the idea that he took the concept of the univirae as the basis for his teachings.
But it seems to me that you are then making the Roman concept the foundation of Paul's teachings. Wouldn't it be more likely that Paul would take the word, use the concept, but fit its meaning to his own (divinely inspired) purposes?
In other words, just because Paul may have used the concept from Roman culture does not make the Roman cultural usage the standard by which we define the word.
Louis,
I could give you a list of men long dead. To find contemporary interpreters who agree with me? I'm just about in the same sorry shape in which Michael Behe would find himself at an American Academy of Sciences meeting. ;-)
Your question deserves substantial interaction. I don't have my notes here at the house. Off the top of my head...
1. I would direct you to the substantial body of literature (a great deal of it non-Christian in its origin and relating more to Roman historical and cultural studies than to the production of Christian commentaries) offering at least some treatment of the univira phenomenon. Some literature does treat this phenomenon from a Christian perspective. Particularly worthy of your consideration are the Journal Article by Lightman and Zeisel that I mentioned in the text. Another relevant article is in French: J. B. Frey, "La Signification des termes Monandros et Univira." Neither of these is particularly recent.
2. I would also indicate that most of the contemporary commentaries, although they do not often endorse the "no remarriage" position, do mention it and interact with it. The better of these will give some attention to the "univira question." Read their reasons for rejecting this view and see how compelling you find them to be. If the preponderance of scholars have (a) given serious consideration to a viewpoint, but have (b) decisively disproven it, then one ought to be extremely careful in coming to advocate such a position. In my examination of the literature, I was entirely certain that condition (b) had not been met, and often had my doubts about condition (a) having been met.
3. I came to view the paucity of the advocacy of this viewpoint today as a factor no more weighty than its prevalence in earlier times. One can certainly conclude that this viewpoint is unfashionable today (can scarcely conclude otherwise!) but is hard-pressed to identify what new information we have actually uncovered since the third century that puts us in a better position to know than they were in.
Volfan (too many Davids to use your given name):
The three options that I gave were three options for understanding the life of the Apostle Paul with regard to whether never-married men are qualified to serve as elders. Your input is certainly relevant to our overall discussion, but I do not see how it pertains to the three-point discussion that I had ongoing with Katie.
I do indeed believe that the death of a spouse frees a man to remarry. I am not arguing that remarriage is immoral or unChristian. Rather, I am arguing that remarriage may very well disqualify a man from being an elder.
To draw a parallel that I believe will communicate well between the two of us, I regard this (remarriage after being widowed) in precisely the same manner that I regard being born a female. It is not immoral to be born a female. It is not an inferior state to be born a female. Being a female, however, disqualifies one from serving as an elder. The case that I am making in this post is that remarrying just might also disqualify one from serving as an elder, whether the second marriage is entirely moral and blessed by God (in the case of one who has been widowed) or is immoral (in the case of one who is in disobedience to Christ's statements about divorce and remarriage in his second marriage).
Dave,
I'm saying that Paul did precisely what you're saying that he often did. The "univirae" were always women. The Roman concept had much to do with the submission of women under male "auctoritas" in their lives. Paul took this Roman concept, baptized it, and applied it to Christianity somewhat differently than it applied to Roman culture.
However, to make this concept apply to someone who was married multiple times is not just to use the Roman concept with distinctive Christian nuance; it is to make the Christian phrase to mean something entirely different and opposed to the Roman phrase. It would be as if we took the term "veteran" from the culture and used it to refer exclusively to our newest Christians.
Do you know of any compelling reason why the phrase "one-woman man" ought NOT to mean what I am suggesting that it might mean?
Yes!
1) I don't like it. Isn't that enough in this post-modern world?
More seriously:
2) The character qualities in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are basically enforcing biblical character standards.
Are you not in the position of disqualifying (or asserting that the Bible disqualifies) a person from ministry even though he is in total obedience to the Word?
I am a faithfully married pastor.
My wife dies.
I am biblically free to marry again and do so.
But, if you are right, I am disqualified from ministry by doing that which is BIBLICAL, not that which is unbiblical.
How can living in obedience to scripture disqualify me from ministry?
Bart,
I'm with Dave: "I don't like it!"
Nevertheless, you are correct when you say:
"But my job is not to interpret the Bible according to my liking; my job is to love the Bible correctly interpreted, as an aspect of loving the Author of the Bible."
If you are correct, then I think of the Adrianism which says:
"God only wants for us what we would want for ourselves if we were smart enough to want it."
Sorry about that. My wife was signed in under her account. That last comment should be signed: Matt Brady
Matt,
I think hiding behind your wife's account disqualifies you!
See why I need a wife so bad.
Bart,
What I was trying to say, and not too well I guess, was that death not only frees the man to remarry, but it would also not disqualify the man from being an Elder. Because, I believe the phrase "one woman man" deals with divorce, and only with divorce...not death of a spouse. In taking that phrase, in context with the teachings of 1 Cor. 7 and others, that death frees a man....as well as a man, who is an Elder/Pastor...to remarry. And, he would not be breaking the "one woman man" teaching by getting married again. Because, his wife was dead.
That's where I stand on this issue at the moment. Although, as I said, I'm thinking heavily on the phrase meaning character more than marital status.
Also, I agree with Dave M. that what you're saying would disqualify a man, when he did all that the Bible taught him concerning his marriage. He was faithful til death. He remarried a Believer. But, this would somehow disqualify him?
I'm not quite seeing where you're coming from.
David
Volfan,
I'm sure Bart will give a much better answer, but he has already pointed out that it is not a matter of sinfulness or obedience.
As a wise professor at our common alma mater once said about this passage, "It is not a matter of sin or forgiveness. It is a matter of qualification."
Matt, you are still left with the position of having biblically obedient man disqualified for NOT sinning.
Isn't the basis of disqualification on all other issues some sort of disobedience or sin?
It seems Bart is creating a different category of qualification here - disqualified without disobedience or sin.
His theory is fascinating and I hope there is more study and discussion on it.
Dave Miller wrote: 'Matt, you are still left with the position of having biblically obedient man disqualified for NOT sinning.'
Some 'rules' are non-negotiable: such as the Commandments of Christ. But the decisions concerning the qualifications of clergy regarding marriage or celibacy does actually vary from one Christian liturgical tradition to another in the hierarchical Catholic/Orthodox traditions.
But I don't think any of this applies to a group like the Southern Baptists who do not follow a liturgical tradition with ties to a hierarchy. Could not the individual conscience of a pastor be respected, if he is widowed and decides in time to remarry ?
L's,
For us, it's about being true to the teachings of Scripture. It's about obeying God by keeping His Word. It's not about traditions and what other denominations are doing.
David
Hi Vol,
My point exactly.
You are to stay firmly in the Word.
The variations in the married status of clergy are in the province of traditional orthodox/catholic hierarchies.
But you KNOW if a pastor is called by God to preach, then you also know he is a man whose conscience is in tune with the Holy Spirit, or the call would not have happened.
And, if your denomination is not like mine, the pastor is free to follow his conscience when scripture does not provide a clear leading on an issue.
I'm glad you see my point. :)
That is, of course, unless your denomination is transitioning into using extra-biblical doctrines to keep pastors and missionaries from serving. But then, if you did that, you wouldn't be Southern Baptists anymore, I guess.
Dave,
"Matt, you are still left with the position of having biblically obedient man disqualified for NOT sinning.
Isn't the basis of disqualification on all other issues some sort of disobedience or sin?"
I'll answer with a question. Is it sinful to be spiritually immature as a new convert? Is it sinful to not have the gift of teaching? According to 1 Timothy 3, spiritual maturity and the ability to teach are requirements for the office of a pastor.
If sin were the issue, then none of us could serve as undershepherds, for we have all fallen short of the glory of God.
Again I say, it is not an issue of sin or forgiveness. It is a matter of the qualifications that God has established.
Bart,
For several years now, I have been drawing more and more to the position you are presently "exploring "...." if to say exploring is a good description of where you are at the moment.
And I do think that Paul used the phrase "one-woman man" intentionally (under inspiration of course) to communicate a specific concept to his original audience. Timothy and the Ephesian church would certainly grasp the concept with little misunderstanding.
Recently, some people asked me "if" I would marry again "when"......"
For a moment I wanted to do harm to them for asking me that without due sensitivity to "our" situation, especially since my wife was present when the question was asked.
But, by God's good grace, due to having given this subject much thought and investigation over the last few years, I was able to confidently say; "No, I am always to be a one-woman man."
That ended the conversation. But it felt good to say it because I noticed my wife smile as she squeezed my hand under the table.
To everyone, my apologies for my lengthy delay. I was involved in a number of tasks, one of which was directly related to this topic.
"What was this task?" you ask. I needed to replace the ballast in the lighting fixture over Tracy's kitchen table.
"How was changing a ballast related at all to this topic?" you ask. If I hadn't seen to it, there would be no need for me to plan for the possibility of outliving Tracy.
;-)
Dave Miller,
In response to your question: "How can living in obedience to scripture disqualify me from ministry?"
I imagine that a great many Southern Baptist women would love to ask the same question. The fact is that, unless you are an egalitarian, you already disqualify people from serving as an elder for reasons that have nothing to do with sin.
Being a woman is not a sin. Being a woman is not inferior to being a man. For a woman to be a woman is for her to be obedient to scripture, and yet this disqualifies her from being an elder.
So, the line that you mention is that one way back there behind the both of us, and we have no choice but to cross it if we will be obedient to scripture.
To conclude that remarriage disqualifies someone from being a pastor is in no different a category than it is to conclude that being female disqualifies someone from being a pastor.
Bart,
Interesting information and analysis. I admire the attempt to be consistent and the desire to submit to and obey the teachings of Scripture, whether they are to your personal liking or not. Failure to take that attitude has led to far too much trouble in Christendom.
I believe that the presuppositions with which we start are extremely influential on the conclusions at which we arrive. So I can't help but wonder how much your thinking is influenced by this statement of yours:
The explicit and jarring transformation of an always-female-applied phrase to a made-up-for-this-instance male-applied phrase strengthens the already overwhelming case that the New Testament qualifications for elders and deacons are explicitly written to be applicable to men and not to women.
You already believe that this passage deals with the gender of overseers/elders/pastors. And that particular assumption is being challenged more and more in evangelical circles by egalitarian interpretations of Scripture. So I can't help but wonder if you may be pre-inclined toward an interpretation that reinforces and strengthens your existing view of the passage (particulalry as you see that view being challenged). Not that it’s always a bad thing to do that, but it's always good to examine the influence of our prior biases in coming to a conclusion. Of course, I have no way of knowing how much your presuppositions are influencing your conclusions, and I doubt if you could even be certain of that yourself. Not much is harder than recognizing the influence of our own biases on us.
All that said, since I do not believe the Bible teaches the concept of an "office" of overseer/elder/pastor, but rather view it as a function and gifting of service within the body, no more or less significant than any other function or gifting, I come to very different conclusions about the phrase "one woman man" and the "qualifications" as relate to gender. But I can't claim to be bias free, either. Just saying that my presuppositions lead me to a different view of "pastoral ministry" from what I see as underlying assumptions in your article. Still, it is an interesting and thought-provoking post, as evidenced by the discussion.
-----
Tom
Volfan,
Brother, if you disagree with me, then you are merely where I was for all of my life until not long ago. Certainly I must sympathize.
However, when you include as part of your reasoning: "Because, I believe the phrase 'one woman man' deals with divorce, and only with divorce...not death of a spouse," then you are reasoning in a circle. The very question before us is to determine what "one-woman man" means. That's what we're trying to figure out.
If you've already settled once-and-for-all what "one-woman man" means, then that's likely to have a pretty strong influence on your decision about what "one-woman man" means.
;-)
CB Scott said...
Timothy and the Ephesian church would certainly grasp the concept with little misunderstanding.
I'm not so sure. Even Peter said that some things Paul wrote could be hard to understand. :)
-----
Tom
CB,
Great minds, you know...
Tom Kelley,
Certainly presumptions on the way in are powerful things. Perhaps you have something there. Let's examine that.
How do you think a different political vantage point of my own today would make first-century Roman marital practices different than what they were?
That may be the first time "CB" and "great minds" appeared in a single comment, Bart.
Your logic about WIM/one woman man makes sense and I hate you a little for that.
Bart Barber said...
How do you think a different political vantage point of my own today would make first-century Roman marital practices different than what they were?
I'm not sure what you mean by "a different political vantage point". Can you explain?
To clarify my comments, I was saying that perhaps you are inclined toward an interpretation that would further strengthen your existing theological assumptions about overseers/elders/pastors (especially your view that they must be male). Just as I reach different conclusions based in part on my prior assumption that overseer/elder/pastor is not an "office" and that the bible doesn't elsewhere teach a male/femake hierarchy or distinction either in marriage or in the church.
As to Roman marital practices, I am not persuaded that the connection between "one woman man" and the univira concept is all that strong. I can see some parallels, but I think it borders on eisegesis to overlay that concept with any certainty onto the text, when there is no clear historical or grammitical connection between the two concepts laid out anywhere in Scripture, and there is very little historical precedent for that interpretation. In short, it is just an assumption -- not an unreasonable possibility, but not particularly compelling to me.
Tom Kelley,
"I'm not so sure. Even Peter said that some things Paul wrote could be hard to understand."
Peter did say that. Yet, we must remember Peter was reared as a working class Jew.
Paul was a well educated, Hellenistic Jew.
Timothy was half Greek and obviously understood the culture rather well.
The Ephesian church was predominantly Gentile.
Conclusion: Timothy and the folks of the Ephesian Church would have a better grasp of what Paul meant than Peter.
Timothy would better understand Paul than would Peter, based upon the closeness of their relationship alone.
CB,
It does me no good to insult you if you do not respond.
Huggy Bear Dave,
cb and great minds may be rare in the same sentence. But a common sentence heard all over Blogtown and in all football nations is:
"cb has a greater mind than Huggy Bear Dave because cb was born in the Southland and Huggy Bear Dave was born a Yankee and will always be a Yankee."
It is a matter of "genetics."
Good genetics is a by-product of eating good B-B-Q.
Southerners have good B-B-Q.
Yankees don't.
Conclusion: Yankees are not predisposed to being very bright 'cause they don't eat good B-B-Q enough to improve their genetics.
Tom Kelley,
You see, there is the difference I guess. When I see "one-man woman" and then "one-woman man," I actually see a "grammatical connection between the two concepts." The phrase "one-man woman," which is the equivalent of "univira" actually does appear not only somewhere within the New Testament, but actually within the same book, just two chapters later, and again as a qualification given for an office in the church (that of the "widow indeed" which was office enough that they kept a list). So, the book of 1 Timothy appropriates the concept of "one-man woman" to apply it to widows, and then in the same book it applies the phrase "one-woman man" to the qualifications for elders and deacons.
You may not agree with the conclusions, but can you really call that "eisegesis" to see a connection?
As to the idea of there being "very little historical precedent for that interpretation," I don't see how an interpretation going back to Tertullian and John Chrysostom, and then (as L's has so nicely repeated in this very thread) wound up being adopted in a widespread fashion in both the Eastern and the Western churches can be one with "very little historical precedent."
Historical precedent does not make an idea correct, but when you assert that this interpretation is without sufficient historical precedent, you reveal that you have not researched the matter historically.
Now, I'm satisfied.
Hi BART,
Actually that comment I made was over on SBCToday and here it is:
"My advice: if you want to track early Christianity’s practices regarding baptism/communion, examine each of the early centers of the Church: Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, etc.
If the practice shows up in every single early Church center’s tradition, chances are it is genuinely from the first century. That’s a bit of homework, I know. But in those days, the Apostles went out to these early centers with the faith and anything that was in common use at every single one of the Early Church Centers as a practice is probably generically from the Apostles and those they directly taught. This makes sense if you think about it."
I think I made the comment to Tim Rogers, but you know, I think you can apply the info here also, if it helps you.
My research advice, for what its worth, is free,
but for
'Psychiatric Help',
I charge 5 cents. :)
I think that there are a couple of assumptions here about Paul's thinking that are not supported. The argument here is that since the phrase one-man-woman was in vogue then Paul would have this in mind and that he would expect his readers to have this in mind. While this line of reasoning is just and logical societies have never been just and logical especially when it comes to men-women rights and relations. In every society- right down to our own today- a chaste and loyal woman is a virtue but a man? Well, men are men after all. This is offensive thinking to most of us now. We know that this double standard is wrong. Except, too often we still behave this way and in every other society of the world, and especially in the first century, no one would have supposed that this was equivalent. For example, in the culture I work in here in Middle Earth- very first century like in many respects- I have a friend whose wife just had a baby. The shame is that while having the baby in the hospital men came into the room and saw her. If he finds out that men saw his wife he will put her out- even though she protested against this abuse. It matters not that this man has had numerous affairs and been very unfaithful. If you tried to explain this concept of men and women being judged equally on this level you would get blank stares. I have. I really believe that even though the phrase may be similar that first century men and women reading this would never make the connection. Judging men and women equally on this level would never occur to them. It doesn't today.
Second, the reasoning here is that a person by special religious behavior merits position that others can not have. This is the same religious language used by those in control, those seeking to create their own righteousness down through the ages. Temple women in pagan rites can earn favor, Buddhist men in Thailand can abstain from touching women entirely and gain favor but Christ is unequivocal in looking to the heart. The qualifications for leadership should likewise be a lens on the heart.
Why is there a highlight link in my last comment? I did not put it there. This is just weird!
Hi Bart,
Thanks for your response about how this might or might not apply to single men.
Maybe this will reveal a degree of unsophistication in my understanding of the Bible, but I'm going to have to object to your use of Paul's marital status as support for your argument.
Paul identifies himself as an "apostle" at least nine times in the New Testament. I can't find a single time where he describes himself as an "overseer," "presbyter" or "elder."
I have always assumed (maybe wrongly) that the qualifications Paul outlines in 1 Timothy 3 are for men in leadership positions in the local church, and that they did not necessarily apply to those who were first and foremost "apostles." It would be hard for a man who spent literally years traveling to be a very good husband or manage his home well.
If this passage can be interpreted to mean that a widowed elder cannot remarry, I think we must also object to a single man serving as an elder.
-Katie
CB,
Seems pretty clear to me that Peter was not only claiming that Paul was sometimes hard for him (Peter) to understand, but he meant that some things Paul wrote were difficult to understand in general.
But maybe you were just joking.
-----
Tom
Bart,
Sorry, I didn't mean to say you were eisegeting, just that a firm assertion of a potential interpretation that isn't clearly backed up by other Scriptures can be close to eisegesis (thus my words "borders on").
It is not that it isn't possible to make a logical connection between one-man woman and one-woman mad and univira. You have clearly done that. But I am not convinced that the similarity of terms is compelling evidence that Paul had in mind what you propose, and there isn't a clear passage in Scripture (didactic or example) that makes that connection. Thus I think it best to avoid claims of certainty on such a disputable interpretation.
Similarly, I saw nothing in what you or L's wrote that would lead me to conclude that the church fathers' views of remarriage for widower ministers (or widows) were based on the connection you have proposed between these concepts. What I see in your statements and L's is information about the church's position, but not the basis for that position. I wasn't stating there was little historical precedent for those practices; I meant that there is little historical precedent for the connection you have made between these phrases as the basis for that practice.
But I admit I haven't studied it in depth, so it may be that the connection your propose has history behind it -- but if so, you and Ls' haven't yet provided that level of detail. So, enlighten me -- is the argument you have made (for a connection between the phrases one woman man, one man woman, and the univira concept) a well-documented historical position?
However, even if you can demonstrate that the connection you make has widespread historical precedent, keep in mind that I place very little weight on the views of the Catholic church regarding functions and spiritual gifts within the church (so called "offices", such as overseers/elders/pastors); rather, I tend to think that most of the misconceptions about these functions and spiritual gifts is a remnant within Protestantism of a corruption that arose very early within Catholicism.
As always, a good discussion, and I appreciate the forbearance evident in your responses.
-----
Tom
No joke intended Tom.
Timothy would have an edge on understanding Paul over and above Peter.
The folks at Ephesus would have a similar advantage.
As far as we know, Peter spent far less time with Paul than did Timothy and the folks in the Ephesian Church.
We can be pretty sure that Timothy and the Ephesians understood exactly what Paul meant by the phrase "one-woman man" even if there is much speculation today.
And let me say, I would not say with absolute certainty that I am right about my present concept as to what one-woman man means.
But I am saying I am satisfied with it for my personal conviction.
Tom (and CB),
The concept of univira persisted into Christian Rome. It was a ubiquitous concept. If you are interested, Tom, there are a number of good historical works that treat this topic. I know that it is an obscure phenomenon to the modern ear. Not so back then. We're really not in a position of wondering whether Paul or Timothy or Peter or Tertullian or Chrysostom or Augustine or Origen or [insert name here] knew about univira or whether the concept was a part of their thinking—it was. The debate concerns whether they meant by "one-woman man" to incorporate this ubiquitous concept into their thinking.
I've not indicated that this debate is settled. I've pretty clearly indicated that it is not settled within my own mind.
What I am indicating (and of this much I am absolutely certain) is that this interpretation has a lot more going for it than would be indicated by the number of people who presently endorse it (although, CB, quality can certainly make up for quantity!).
I would say that there so much evidence in favor of this interpretation that I could not violate it and be confident that I were being obedient. I would say that the matter is unsettled enough in my own mind that I am not prepared to pronounce denunciations upon those who do differently. I believe that there are three serious interpretations of this phrase: Katie's, mine, and that which understands the phrase to mean "not divorced."
Katie,
You correctly infer that I believe that Paul was an elder. I think that he is toying around with that reality in Philemon 1:9, but I know that the case there is not at all conclusive.
I would note that the offices of itinerant apostle and elder were not mutually exclusive, for Peter is identified as both. Peter's wife apparently travelled with him.
Finally, having been ably dislodged from my trenches by you (well done!), I take refuge in my stronghold of last defense. The Chief Shepherd is a never-married man; it would seem unlikely to me that undershepherds could not be as He is. I say this not because all must be single as Christ was, nor am I suggesting that singleness is superior to the married state (nor vice -versa!). Rather, I am merely pointing out that the office of pastor is actually linked in the Bible to Jesus—biblically Jesus serves in the same role as the "head of the order" if you will. For this reason, it poses some difficulty (albeit an abstract one) to set some criterion for the underlings that the Senior Pastor could not meet Himself.
Strider,
I don't see the "highlight link." I'm not even entirely sure what that is.
Strider,
The double-standard is something that I myself mentioned in the OP; it hardly erodes my argument or serves to counter some assumption that is "not supported" when it functions as a part of my case!
Also, it seems to me that the statement "The qualifications for leadership should likewise be a lens on the heart" is a great example of an assumption that is not supported. No foundation is laid to argue for it, except to assert its "oughtness." With regard to what the qualifications for leadership ought or ought not to be, perhaps we ought humbly to allow Christ to set the qualifications for leadership according to His own rationale rather than seeking to impose our own.
You are right to note that this is not a matter of legalistically earning some sort of spiritual benefit, and I think that you have touched upon one of the key errors that beset discussions upon this topic. Being a deacon or an elder simply is not a matter to be conducted with regard to personal benefit. It is not an award won or a degree conferred.
The qualifications, whatever Christ makes them to be, exist (I am convinced) for the furtherance of the Kingdom and the well-being of the churches and not for personal aggrandizement.
"Being a deacon or an elder simply is not a matter to be conducted with regard to personal benefit. It is not an award won or a degree conferred.
The qualifications, whatever Christ makes them to be, exist (I am convinced) for the furtherance of the Kingdom and the well-being of the churches and not for personal aggrandizement."
Bart and the world at-large.
When I was a younger man, I was taught the above, quoted concept in more than once class, under multiple professors. I responded with "Yeah, sure." I repeated it back to make good grades on tests.
Today, as an older (much older) man I believe the above, quoted concept with all my soul.
The "call" is all about Christ and the advancement of His Kingdom. It was never about me. Learning that was hard.....and it still is.
Amen, CB. Amen.
Strider, its one of those exclusionary conspiracies by the BI guys against those of us from sbcIMPACT.
One of CB's black ops.
Bart,
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on this. I realize that in your original post you admit to not being absolutely convinced about all of this. But, it is certainly interesting to ponder.
It’s difficult to say with certainty that Paul considered himself to be an elder or solely an apostle, or some unique combination of both. But his marital status is a bit less difficult to discern. I think most scholars believe he was married at one time (one had to be married to be a member of the Sanhedrin). Later, when he writes to the Corinthians, he refers to himself as “single” (1 Cor 7:7). So, even though we don’t know much about his wife, scripture portrays Paul as a “one-woman man.” His example might add strength to your idea about the impossibility for a widowed pastor to remarry. But it also implicitly supports our Eastern European brothers’ interpretation that singleness disqualifies unmarried men to serve as elders.
In a metaphorical way, Jesus is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. If the office of pastor is linked to Jesus, I think you could realistically or allegorically make an argument either way.
So, I still think that if you can interpret 1 Tim 3 to mean that remarriage can disqualify a widower from remaining in a leadership role that we must also consider a single man as disqualified. It’s just not possible for a single man to be a “one-woman man.”
Thanks for the discussion.
-Katie
A little background:
This from a 1990 document of an ecumenical conference on marriage issues involving Catholic and Orthodox U.S. bishops:
"Our churches have expressed their conviction concerning the enduring nature of Christian marriage in diverse ways. In the canonical discipline of the Orthodox Church, for example, perpetual monogamy is upheld as the norm of marriage, so that those entering upon a second or subsequent marriage are subject to penance even in the case of widows and widowers. In the Roman Catholic Church the enduring nature of marriage has been emphasized especially in the absolute prohibition of divorce.
Our churches have also responded in diverse ways to the tragedies which can beset marriage in our fallen world. The Orthodox Church, following Mt 19:9 ("whoever divorces his wife except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery"), permits divorce under certain circumstance, not only in the case of adultery but also of other serious assaults on the moral and spiritual foundation of marriage (secret abortion, endangering the life of the spouse, forcing the spouse to prostitution and similar abusive situations). Out of pastoral consideration and in order better to serve the spiritual needs of the faithful, the Orthodox Church tolerates remarriage of divorced persons under certain specific circumstances as it permits the remarriage of widows and widowers under certain specific circumstances. The Roman Catholic Church has responded in other ways to such difficult situations. In order to resolve the personal and pastoral issues of failed consummated marriages, it undertakes inquiries to establish whether there may have existed some initial defect in the marriage covenant which provides grounds for the Church to make a declaration of nullity, that is, a decision attesting that the marriage lacked validity. It also recognizes the possibility of dissolving sacramental non-consummated marriages through papal dispensation. While it true that the Roman Catholic Church does not grant dissolution of the bond of a consummated sacramental marriage, it remains a question among theologians whether this is founded on a prudential judgment or on the Church's perception that it lacks the power to dissolve such a bond."
From this, can be surmised that the two traditions went in different directions:
Orthodox: discouraged remarriage of widows and widowers
Latin (Western) Christianity: discouraged remarriage after divorce, but did not forbid remarriage after widowhood.
Did the two ancient traditions always emphasize the sanctity of marriage in these different ways?
That's a question worth exploring to discover the roots of info about early Christian practices.
Bart Barber said...
I believe that there are three serious interpretations of this phrase: Katie's, mine, and that which understands the phrase to mean "not divorced."
Which goes back again to my original suspicion that you may be inclined to interpret the passage in ways that support your presuppositions regarding the nature of the function (so called "office") and the appropriate candidates for it. In essence you are saying that any inerrantist egalitarian position, no matter how well argued, or grammatically- and contextually-based, can be taken seriously. It is one thing to examine a position other than your own and find it to be lacking, it is another to dismiss it as having no serious merit.
Katie's points are very significant. If you argue that one woman man ties to the univera concept (and I'm not saying the concept wasn't well known to Paul and Timothy, just that we have no certain basis for saying that Paul intended to make a connection between those phrases; it is, in the end, simply speculation), then the inescapable conclusion is to exclude single men from being overseers/elders/pastors. (Unless one takes Strider's position that the view is simply to personal character, but I think You have shown the problems with that position well.) But to take Katie's point even further, one must also conclude that the person would also have to have at least two children (since one is not plural) and, if you add in the requirements in Titus, those children must also be believers (and thus old enough to have made a personal profession of faith).
Another view (though perhaps not "serious", since it is egalitarian), is that the lists are not intended to be inclusive, but rather non-exclusive. That is, there is no "and" (kai) between each of the items, so one could argue that the intent is not to say that all of the items must be met in concert, but that "anyone" may perform the function as long as they are not not disqualified by not meeting those criteria which apply to their situation.
Interestingly, Baptists have historically taken just that approach for most of the qualifications (saying that a person must be the husband of one wife, if married, have believing children, if a parent, etc.) -- but then they refuse to follow the same logic and state that "husband of one wife" would apply only if male. To me, this is evidence of the very kind of bias that I have been talking about.
-----
Tom
Tom,
the Orthodox did not discrimate against either male or female in expecting those whose spouses had died not to remarry.
It would be strange for a 'modern' Baptist organization to adopt a part of the ancient Eastern Christian tradition to do with remarriage, but not all of it. Without the total integrity in buying into all of it, one must then ask 'why'? 'To what purpose?'
Just some thoughts.
Bart, thanks for this thought-provoking post. I have long thought that I Timothy 5:9 was a Spirit-inserted clue to the proper interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2. The comparison shows that the context has to do with marriage and not just character (although one's actions in marriage can say a lot about one's character).
Correction:
In my previous comment I meant to say "In essence you are saying that no inerrantist egalitarian position, no matter how well argued, or grammatically- and contextually-based, can be taken seriously."
Bart,
By your statement that only the three positions you mentioned can be taken seriously, I assume you also believe that the common interpretation of "husband of one wife" means "not a polygamist" is also not a viable interpretation. Correct?
-----
Tom
If you all want to have a good laugh,
check out the Letter #69 written by Jerome in the year 397 A.D. to Oceanus.
There was as much controversy on this blog topic THEN as there is now.
Caution: Jerome writes post-Nicene Council. That is something you want to keep in mind, if you read it.
To access info to the letter, type in google
'New Advent: 'the husband of one woman'
Here is the site for Jerome's letter:
http://www.222.newadvent.org/fathers/3001069.htm
I wrote a great comment yesterday and just as I was proof reading it the power went out. Oh well. So, here is an abbreviated response to Bart's assertion that my hermeneutic of focusing on heart was unsupported.
1 Samuel- Man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart.
Jesus in Matthew 15 says that what proceeds from the mouth comes from the heart and this defiles a man.
There are many many other scriptures to support this. I think the most important is Paul's own caution in Colossians 2 especially verses 16 to the end. In verse 18 he says, 'Do not let anyone disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement...'
We must hold fast to the head and He looks to the heart. In all of this- hardly anecdotal- I read 1 Timothy and see Paul telling Tim to look for these heart qualities in a leader. We suffer enormously when we fail to discern our leader's hearts and choose poorly. He is not making up a new rule book.
Interesting interpretation, Bart. You wrote, "I am coming to conclude that the phrase means to indicate a man who is married to no more than one woman throughout his entire lifetime..." It seems that we would not make any of the other qualifications for an elder apply to his pre-conversion self(many a drunken brawler has become a pastor after conversion). Are you placing marital status in another category?
One can cease to be a drunken brawler. One can not cease to be a divorcee.
A former drunk can genuinely say, "I am no longer a drunken brawler."
A man who has been divorced can not say, "I am no longer a divorcee."
So, Wilt Chamerlain would be qualified post-conversion so long as he never married and divorced any of the thousands of women he fornicated with?
KWS,
The tendency seems to be to keep bringing the qualifications back to a matter of sin and forgiveness, when the truth is that all of us sinned prior to conversion and all of us have sinned post conversion.
Your illustration of Wilt Chamberlain is moot. It is not our place to determine whether immorality before marriage is better or worse than divorce as it regards ordination. We don't get to choose the qualifications.
Furthermore, the qualifications are not tied exclusively to matters of sin and/or forgiveness.
For instance, a man who is not apt to teach is not necessarily a worse sinner than a man who is, and yet "apt to teach" is a qualification set by God.
God has every right to establish whatever qualifications He wants for ordained men. God does not have to make the qualifications politically correct nor does He have to make them palatable to us. Our job is simply to follow the qualifications not to rationalize them away to fit our likings.
I appreciate Bart's honest look at the one-woman man and his recognition that the idea of one woman for life regardless even of the death of a spouse does not necessarily fit his likings, but he is willing to consider it rather than writing it off or explaining it away.
We are not to mold the Bible to fit our liking, but rather let the Bible mold us to fit God's liking.
The correct interpretation is not always the comfortable interpretation.
I would be interested to know if you truely believe the common formula for marriage of today is really the way it was intended in the Bible , and even in times up until the Early 20th Century?
The way I see it, lvoe and marriage today has become a mere game. You have heard phrased such as "scoring points," "getting inside of their heart," and "if I could just win their love." I believe all of this has made a mockery of marriage. It used to be that a man and or woman knew a good setting of companionship when they saw it and took it for what it was. I have read first hand accounts from writings of people such as Gen. Robert E. Lee. Many times he would write to relatives back home and mention that he thought he had found them a companion. More often than not, the two in question would end up getting married. Now it has become nothing short of a three-ringed circus where individuals are inflicted with hurt, and lives are ultimately ruined. God Bless.
Agreed, but it still seems that we are very divided about how to discern what the Word is telling us. If Paul meant for this 'one-woman man' concept to be directive the way Bart is suggesting then how am I to read 1 Samuel and the anointing of David or Colossians 2.
My concern here is in fact personal. The Muslims that I am trying to reach think very legalistically. In their version of the Nativity story Jesus is born to a virgin just as in our version. The really big difference is Mary. Mary is a temple priestess of high character, miracles, and good works. This is why she is chosen, because she is worthy. The good news of the Gospel is that God takes unworthy man and makes him to stand. Not by any works that we have done but according to His mercy. If we make the Bible a rulebook in the manner that Bart is suggesting here and then make rules out of it that insist on a man's good works then what Gospel shall I share with the Muslims? My rules are better than your rules? If it is about rules and performance then I am lost- and I don't think much of your chances.
You might say to me well, you are talking about salvation we are talking about leadership. Does not Galatians ask 'having begun by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh?'
If salvation is by grace and sanctification is by grace how is leadership now a matter of works?
For me, I can not accept that a man must perform in order to merit leadership. To do so puts my very salvation in question. I will not judge you so harshly, but for me this is my understanding.
Strider,
I am not suggesting that God does not look on the heart. It seems to me that you are suggesting that God looks upon the heart ONLY. In the Old Testament, you have God selecting David as you have cited, but you also have God setting the criteria for the selection of priests. The hermeneutic that you propose may work great with 1 Samuel 16, but how does it fare when it comes to Leviticus 21?
God is not "above" taking into consideration the practical needs of His people. Qualifications for being a pastor have ZERO to do with personal reward or personal pride. God establishes qualifications with the welfare of the flock in mind.
Keith,
I do not believe that it is within my power to make, revoke, or categorize any of the qualifications. As you and I both devoutly believe, the qualifications are God's to set and ours to obey.
I am simply trying to understand them, and trying to do so to the best of my ability. My research on this particular point has led me to strong evidence in the direction that I have stated in this original post. Although the concept causes me personal consternation, I cannot ignore this evidence. I simply have seen no explanation of "one-woman man" that can produce so much actual evidence in its favor.
I do not believe that God's intention in this passage is to make certain that He abides by any uniform categorization of these qualifications. Rather, I believe that He is lovingly and patiently setting before us qualifications that will make for good undershepherds for the flock.
Why would this particular concept do so? I don't know for certain. We could all speculate, I'm sure. Whether I know or not, I'm convinced that God has a good reason for these qualifications, whatever they mean.
Matt,
It's nice to be understood 100%.
Bart,
I think you know me well enough to know that I am having a little fun "stirring the pot." I'm trying to make that vein on you head stand out. My arguments are the ones you are sure to hear from those within and without the church. Matt, I must admit as a flaming Calvinist, I did get a big kick out of being lectured about the sovereignty of God in his purposes in setting the qualifications for elders. Your arguments are the same ones I use in regards to his purposes of election in regards to salvation. Blessings
Keith,
You are instigating good conversation. That's the purpose of this blog. Thanks for doing that, and for your friendship.
KWS,
I'm sorry that I came across as lecturing, but I am glad that you agree.
By the way, you made me laugh when I read that you were trying to ruffle Bart. You have your work cut out for you there. We would all do well to have a double portion of his spirit in discussing issues. As for myself, I'd be thrilled just to have a half portion of it.
Well, Matt, KWS has been honing that particular skill since 5th grade!
If you really do believe that our hermanutic must incorporate the Old Covenant and that Christ has not sufficiently dealt with it on the cross then I am afraid that all you will prove is what the law was created to prove: namely that none of us will ever measure up.
There ought to be a law against a sentence that long!
Strider,
That's an absolute non-sequitur, I hope. I say, "I hope," because although we can probably both agree that the Old Testament does not teach us the gospel, I hope that you aren't saying that the Old Testament teaches us nothing about the nature of God. If so, why do you bother to carry the thing around? Your Bible would be so much lighter if you would just go ahead and excise the portions that you consider to be meaningless.
But surely that's not what you mean. I presume, rather than being a heretic, that you're just being illogical.
For we were not discussing the gospel, now were we. We were discussing whether God is the kind of God who would ever set qualifications for an office other than just performing some sort of neo-gnostic examination of somebody's heart.
And so, because YOU cited the Old Testament, I gave you an Old Testament passage that showed God doing precisely what you asserted to be somehow against God's nature. That was the same God back there, wasn't it? And if He had a good reason for setting qualifications ("rules") back then (e.g., pointing forward to the flawless nature of Christ), then who is Strider to declare that He cannot have a good reason for doing it today (e.g., tending to the needs of His flock)?
Ultimately, as comfortable as you may be trying to find some Antinomian high ground from which to lob missiles my way, you'll not succeed at trying to hang our differences around some variance in our understandings of the Old Testament. You will fail in doing so because I authored an entire original post that referenced the Old Testament not at all. Indeed, one of the assertions of the post was that the Old Testament really gives us no helpful information for interpreting the phrase "one-woman man" in the New Testament. I then proceeded at length to deal with the historical, cultural, and conceptual data of the NEW Testament, whence came my findings.
None of this did you bother to touch in your comments.
Rather, you responded with a hermeneutic along the lines of "My God wouldn't do that." And if your hermeneutic is a successful one, then for all I know, your job of reaching Muslims might be a good bit easier. But now what am I to tell all of those folks around here who are convinced that their God would never send anybody to Hell.
Bart, you might find this site interesting:
http://home.sprynet.com/~jbwwhite/HEIS_MIA.html
I am not 'recommending' it for veracity, or necessarily 'in agreement' with it;
but it does contain a lot of interesting content. Enjoy.
L's,
Interesting, like the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion is interesting. It's really hard to take one's eyes off of it. ;-)
That page is full of bad Greek. The most egregious example is the transformation of the word for "one" into an indefinite article. Just because other language did the same thing centuries later, maybe Paul was doing with Greek something for which even this person cites not a single example of anybody else even thinking of doing it in first-century Greek.
They'd love for us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
They also fail to mention that polygamy was illegal for all of the church members of the churches receiving (through Timothy and Titus) Paul's pastoral epistles. Here's a decent Internet resource to give more details about marriage in the Roman Empire.
Hi BART,
I just spent a fascinating half-hour reading the site you gave me on the Romans. I remember reading long ago about Augustus Caesar (Octavian) being lauded by the poet Virgil in glowing Latin hexameters for his 'moral and ethical' uprightness and leadership . . . ad nauseum.
Thank you for sharing that site.
Wonderfully entertaining for me.
Christiane
Well, at least you have not resorted to calling me 'Antinomian' yet. You did? Drat. OK, let's back up. Sometimes we can get going in our rhetoric and parse things in each others phrases that we know full well we don't mean. I think I have probably done that to you and I give you credit for your last comment pointing out that you hope I am not saying what I appear to be saying.
So, starting again I point to the context of 1 Timothy.
We have a short list that I will not delineate here of 'qualifications'. From 'above reproach' to 'well thought of' these qualifications are indicative of the persons character except (in the common view) two: husband of one wife and not a recent convert. For not a recent convert he gives an explanation that he may become prideful- which is a character issue. Furthermore, Paul himself varied in his use of this qualification as he appointed elders in churches full of new believers on his first journey through Turkey. This leaves 'one-woman man' alone. It is the only qualification that you are claiming does not deal with sin but a rule based on God's right to make the rules.
As I continue to think this through I think you are going in the right direction by trying to understand what Paul- and ultimately God- is getting at here but until we have some evidence of how this impacts the character of the leader (as Paul explained with the young convert issue) I am not going to give it much weight.
For me looking at this list and a new leader the much more important thing that Paul is identifying is a man who is faithful to his wife. I need this kind of man as a leader and in this day and age they are hard to come by.
Strider,
Brother, I would encourage you to perform a bit more research on the whole univira thing. Because my answer to you would be that the culture whence sprung the New Testament actually DID consider the whole "one-man woman" thing to have a great deal to do with character. Something can have to do with character without necessarily involving sin.
Here's an example: It is not sinful for someone to be a Christian lay person who leads a quotidian life and honors the Lord with that life, if that's where the Lord has called him. But then you have the guy who goes out and serves as a missionary to Muslims at great personal risk in a dangerous area. It is not a SIN not to be the missionary, but that doesn't mean that one's service as a missionary in that context bespeaks nothing of that person's character.
Being a univira was the kind of character-delineating thing that people asked to have put on their tombstones. People put things on their tombstones that they believe tell something about their character. "Loving father; faithful husband" and things like that. Rare is the person who puts on her tombstone, "She made a mean tuna fish casserole." It has to be something significant. Being a univira was just that significant to large numbers of women in the Greco-Roman world.
1 Corinthians 7 seems to strike PRECISELY this balance—marriage is not sinful, but to remain unmarried is "good" and is extolled as a higher indication of somebody's character. 1 Corinthians 7, what we know of Greco-Roman culture, and the possible interpretation of "one-woman man" that I've offered here all fit together rather well, IMHO.
A great many leaders in the early church regarded a second marriage as an indulgence in excessive living. They may not have regarded it as sinful, but they did regard it as worldly preoccupation with things other than devotion to God.
And so, we face the strong possibility that, although WE do not regularly link abstinence from (second) marriage with character, the New Testament actually does. And if so, how will we respond?
Bart,
You wrote: "And so, we face the strong possibility that, although WE do not regularly link abstinence from (second) marriage with character, the New Testament actually does. And if so, how will we respond?"
Well, 'abstinence' and celibacy was held up as the perfect model, but owing to human nature, the New Testament honored marriage as a way to keep from sinning.
So, in time, two traditions formed:
the Eastern traditions allowed the priest to marry;
the Western (Latin rite) asked of its priest celibacy.
To allow marriage or re-marriage after widower-hood as 'a way to keep from sinning' among the Baptist clergy has its merits in Scripture.
To forbid re-marriage after widow-hood only makes sense if Baptist marriage is considered along the lines of a 'sacrament', which I understand that it is not.
In the early history of the Church, decisions on marriage of clergy varied, yet both were based on Scripture. The Eastern 'emphasized' better to marry than to burn';
the Western 'emphasized' total exclusive devotion to God in the vow of chastity. Both scripturally derived.
How much cultural influence the pagan Roman concept of marriage had
on the early Church is also a consideration, even as the New Testament was written.
It is an interesting study, from the perspective that there is a difference between what is 'non-negotiable' and what is 'emphasized'. Some 'differences' are merely the result of what part of Scripture one is emphasizing.
Bart,
if you want to do a little one-stop shopping to look into the Eastern Catholic (under Rome) Rites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#Orientalium_Ecclesiarum
What you get is a very brief over-view of 'eastern rite' autonomous rites of the Catholic Church. They have different 'canonical disciplines' which may contain insight into your research as to how 're-marriage' of clergy who are widowed in the Eastern Catholic rites is handled.
The site is not 'in-depth' but can point you in the direction of the names of these different traditional eastern rites that remain connected to Rome, but are autonomous in their traditional liturgies, forms of piety, and canonical laws.
This may help you to investigate the variety (if any) of clergy marriage laws. These eastern Catholic rites do have married priests, unlike the Latin rite.
Hey! I make a mean tuna casserole!
Word verfification: gomen. Push 'em back, push 'em back, way back. Go Men!
L's,
Thanks for the links. My profound (obvious) disagreements with both the Eastern and the Western traditions notwithstanding, I have learned much from the histories of these two groups.
Good words Bart, now it seems if we accept the conclusions about your premise we need to address application. Do we go with a literal translation of first century culture or dynamic equivalent? If the latter then what would that look like? If the former can we bear these consequences, or better how would the Lord be glorified by our actions?
Two things, Strider:
1. We're getting pretty close to one of us being the 100th comment on this thread. Who will it be? Isn't it exciting!? :-)
2. Your last question is a perfectly valid one—I might go so far as to say that it is THE perfectly valid question at this point.
I believe that we ought to go with direct application of New Testament didactic passages unless we are prepared to articulate a good reason for falling back to idea that there is an underlying principle that must be applied somewhat differently today.
Here are factors that I believe would mitigate against a setting aside of this requirement as culturally conditioned:
A. If I were working toward a rationale for setting this concept aside today and applying an underlying principle differently, what I'd have to come up with is "The underlying principle is that the elder should be someone who has demonstrated the highest ideal of marital fidelity. Refraining from remarriage does not demonstrate the highest ideal of marital fidelity in [insert your target culture here]; therefore, this underlying principle must be applied in the specific applications that fill this role today."
I see a couple of potential problems with that. First, although the univira concept for WOMEN represented the highest ideal of marital fidelity in the New Testament era, as I mentioned in the OP, no such standard existed for MEN at that time. Paul's statements in 1 Timothy and Titus, therefore, were not embodying the prevalent culture of his day, but were instead articulations of a higher, distinctively Christian marital ethic.
If this qualification would be unpopular today in Texas or in [wherever you are], I think it possible that it was no more popular in first-century Crete.
B. I do not know of a culture that would consider it an IMMORAL thing to refrain from remarrying after widowhood (although I freely confess that I am not fully informed about such things worldwide). Even in our American culture, the remarriage of widows and widowers is often a source of tension within nuclear families, and the kind of marital devotion that leads someone to remain devoted to one's spouse even after that spouse's death, although it is by no means mandatory to moral behavior, is at least mildly admired, I think.
All that simply to say that I know of no feature of a target culture today in which the direct application of this qualification would result in elders who were somehow odious to their congregations rather than able to lead.
Thus, at this particular qualification, I do not think that there is a great enough cultural disjunct to require alternate means of deriving application from this passage.
C. I do not know of any other item in any other passage like this one (viz. a qualification list) that we would seek to apply other than by direct application. It seems to me that the genre of the passage pushes us toward a direct application of these qualifications.
I'm 100! I win the prize! What is the prize today, Bart?
David
Drat, Volfan stole the 100th comment. I had guests last night and did not respond in time.
Bart, I am not getting past the idea that if we instituted this idea of requiring men to not remarry in order to remain qualified for leadership then that would really smack of legalism. It surely made sense to the Pharisees of Jesus day that if work on the Sabbath was wrong then that beggar should not have been carrying his mat and spitting constituted plowing. I want to be faithful to the Biblical instruction without getting silly- no, I am not saying you are silly- yet!
Two things occur to me with your interpretation. One, we are not talking about divorced people. It seems to me that with your interpretation that the man who divorces- sincerely repents- and then does not remarry still qualifies for eldership.
Second, if we began making this requirement would anyone in our society perceive that these men are more faithful? Set apart? I don't see it and looking at 1 Corinthians 7 and Colossians 2 I still see Paul saying that we should not forbid marriage. The univira principle seems to me to be something of a guideline more than a rule. In your reading of the early church does this seem to be a hard and fast rule or a general principle? My bottom line concern is that I am loath to disqualify someone whom the Lord is calling to leadership for something that they can not repent of and change. Do you see what I am saying here?
Sadly, I see the question I posed a couple of days ago has remained unanswered about the formula for marriage of today versus days gone by. I realize it may be a tough question, but a fair one. But can you not see it in this vein. All of this everyone has been talking about is null, if you cannot address the foundational principal, which I have brought up. Maybe it is because deep down you know that it is true that marriage of today is not what the Bible intended. If it was, you would not even have to bring up the dialogue you have set forth here. Man has made marriage a mockery of one of the foundations that God set forth, and should be ashamed. I cannot think of another thing which God blessed in the Bible that man has desecrated so, and caused so many lives to be ruined. Ruined because maybe some do not play the foolish game as well as others. Ruined because the almighty dollar takes precedence instead of love. Ruined because the worldy pleasures overrule Godly pursuits and intentions. We are guilty of not seeing the forest for the trees. Matters not what the culprit proclaims or where they are. The flesh will do as it pleases. Have you ever heard the phrase, "If it feels good, do it." The words are ringing louder by the minute. I guess if the masses could finally see the light regarding a Godly principle, then a lot of authors and counselors would be out of work, since they could not profit from the woes of the follies that man heaps upon himself through marriage and a distorted view of love. No sir, no ma'am, the most in depth analysis and study will not cure the problems of many if they do not understand the roots are in need of immediate attention.
Anon, I hear what you are saying. I suppose that both Bart and myself could agree that regardless of what one-woman-man means with respect to remarriage it most certainly means a level of dedication to our wives that too many today fall far short of.
We must also take into consideration the aspect of two individuals in the flesh when an injustice has been committed. When a man and or woman will spurn the sincerity of the fellowship of another in regards to giving and or affection, a grave injustice has been committed. Friends and neighbors, think of a time when a grave injustice has taken place with you. There is no such thing as a "brush off" or like nature found in the Scriptures. We must put aside what is considered a mere part of life when one is demoralized by another for the sake of doing what we feel is expedient. If someone will stoop so low as to put out of sight another who is offering a genuine interest of friendship and maybe more, a grave injustice has been committed. God Bless
I would like to diverge briefly into something which may be of interest to all middle aged readers of the postings.
In a nutshell, it would be this. There is something terribly wrong with a scenario to where a man who has worked hard his whole life, never caused trouble, and believes in all of the things which made America great, will be spurned time and time again by ladies of any sort, versus your average deadbeat who has no problem getting whomever they seek. What is even more telling is the fact when I bring this topic up to elderly ladies whom I respect a great deal, will agree with me entirely.
It sounds like we have a generational crisis on our hands. This just goes to show you how warped our society has become. No, I believe a better phrase would be, dead on arrival!!!!!!!!!!!
I appreciate your desire to follow God’s word no matter how challenging it might be to do so, yet it seems odd to me that God would have to borrow an idea from a pagan practice all of a sudden.
It was striking for me to read this entry and to follow it by reading your deserving tribute to BO Baker. Not everyone might know that BO’s first wife died and he remarried and (horrors!) continued to save souls and minister to the poor in the spirit. I’m sure his ministry was supported and greatly blessed by both of his wives. Yet, if your conclusion here is correct, then the last 25 years or so of BO’s ministry was not pleasing to God, although you said yourself that you believed the “Holy Spirit . . . chose to bless what BO was doing.” Did you mean just until the point he remarried?
I don't think this theory is quite ready for application.
As Christians, I believe it is our duty to join together and stand for the true meaning of marriage, and with heartfelt prayer, become enlightened by understanding dilemmas some may face because of the tendancy to err.
Just as we harmonize Scripture through study and meditation, we must also strive to harmonize issues of life through practical reasoning and logic. It was Jesus who taught in parables so that we could understand things in a straightforward way. Life's daily struggles do not have to be seen through a cloud or veiled mystery. I can think of no other example than the dilemmas of marriage in the modern world as a reflection of man's troubles within himself. God Bless.
Post a Comment