This past year in my local congregation, we studied Timothy and Titus concerning the qualifications of an elder. As you can probably guess there was special attention paid to the husband of but one wife (NIV) part.

Im looking for someone with knowledge of the original language for this one. I have heard so many different takes on this from one man woman to only one wife ever and ever.

What if man was divorced before he became a Christian? What if the divorce was through no fault of his own? What if he was a Christiansinned (divorced) but has since asked forgiveness and been forgiven?

From what I have heard, divorce seems to be the unpardonable sin. Why is it that we dont treat any of the other things mentioned in these passages the same as this one? For example: Even after becoming a Christian, a man had a problem with drunkenness. It took him some time to overcome this sin. Now some years later he is being considered for eldership. Would someone object because he had in his past a problem with drink?

Another questionmust a man have a family to become an elder? I think of Paul who I know was a special case being an apostle, but did the work of an elder. Someone once told me that Paul could never have been an elder because he had no wife and children. Also must he (an elder) have both wife and child or could he just have a wife?

-- Anonymous, December 30, 1999

Answers

D. Lee.....

I would like to recommend a book to you.

It comes from College Press and it's Don DeWelts commentary in the Bible Study Textbook Series on 1-2 Timothy and Titus.

This book contains one of the most exhaustive and well laid out exposition of these passages than any I have ever seen.

I really suggest you get this book.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 1999

Sam is right....kind of.

Polygamy was not a problem in Paul's day....however, concubinage...or having mistresses was.

In fact, Cicero said of his times...."A man has a wife for bearing children....but concubines for sexual pleasure."

So the import of the passage is simply.....that a leader in the church is to be a "one woman man" and not to have anything to do with that societal attitude.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2000

My wife is right.....because she was taught by the best....me!!!

Mr. Kelley....I don't care what any version says....the text DOES NOT SAY NEVER DIVORCED!!! Period!!

The "qualities" were never intended for splitting hairs over. Let's face it....press any of them hard enough....and who would be qualified??? Hummmmmm???

And if they were.....why do we only split hairs over this one?? I've known elders who have been married to the same woman for years.....but they are unhospitable....greedy....etc....and yet they get elected year after year....while a guy who was very mature in the faith but had one indescretion in life and is truly repentant over....is kept down.

You want to know what my guess is?? Because preachers feel good about harping on this one.....but....they don't want to talk too much about being patient, or managers of their households (especially with some of the PK's I've seen).

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2000

Maybe this will help:

(1 Cor 7:32 KJV) "But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:"

(1 Cor 7:33 KJV) "But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife."

It is easier to care for the Spiritual things when one is not married because one must not neglect his wife even though he is busy with spiritual things.

We are told not to make vows and oaths but many christians do that.(Mat 5:32 KJV) "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

(Mat 5:33 KJV) "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:"

(Mat 5:34 KJV) "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:"

(1 Cor 7:15 KJV) "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

(1 Cor 7:16 KJV) "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?"

(1 Cor 7:17 KJV) "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches."

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2000

Paul wasn't directly speaking of divorce, but polygamy.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2000

Jesus says in Mark 10:11, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultry against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultry." Divorce is a sin that God hates (Mal. 2:16). Can a person be forgiven? Yes, but does that sin disqualify them for eldership? My question is this... is it wrong to bar a man who has been divorced from the eldership? I had one person explain it this way... "If a person has a DUI and wants to be a State Patrol Officer they cannont due to the DUI, no matter how nice they are or what circumstances caused them to get it, they are prohibited from getting that job. The same applies to the eldership." Now, I want to do what is right and what is biblical. Am I wrong from keeping a person who is divorced even if "BC" from becoming an elder? I guess, I need help in this area too. For I am still working it out. There are so many "what if's" or "but's" that keep this issue confusing for me. Many scholars will say that it is a "one woman man" and some will say it means divorced. For example, the NRSV interprets Paul as saying divorced. And if it is wrong for an elder to be divorsed, then it must be wrong for a minister to be divorced as well. See, too many situations. What does everyone else think.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2000

Mr Kelley,

I find one problem in the analogy between the state police officer and whether or not a person can become an elder after being divorced, esp. if it was before he was a christian. The difference is the concept of grace. Can someone who used to be a drunkard before becoming a christian become an elder? What about one who used to loose his temper or perhaps one who was not hospitable???? Seems to me it would disqualify everyone. As D. Lee Muse mentioned why do we elevate this one qualification??? My guess is it gets the attention off of the others, the ones everyone has trouble with. I know of elders who have never been divorced but their kids are woefully out of control or even elders who can't teach. All of which are qualifications of Elders mentioned in this same passage. As mentioned before it means a "one woman man". In other words he must be head over heels in love with his wife. What happens if he is divorced a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, time??? Perhaps that might disqualify him but not because of this qualification but the one on down in verse 4 of I Tim 3, about managing his household... esp. if he was divorced while in office. Each case must be looked at individually. We do need to quit splitting hairs over the issue of divorce. Each prospect for the eldership must possess a degree of maturity and growth in ALL the qualifications. Yes, you are right the same should be for the evangelist as well. As a matter of fact these are qualities all Christians should aspire to.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2000

Danny both you and your wife's point are well taken. Thank You. You both have given me some real hard issues to deal with. I was raised to believe that a divorced man could not be an elder as well a preaching minister. But, through college and ministry, I have been confronted with issues that make me re-exaimine what I was taught to believe and why.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2000

If divorce itself is a sin, then we have a God Who has sinned (Jeremiah 3:1-10 ) and I am not willing to concede that, for it is not true. More study needs to be done on divorce from the original languages. IMO all the major translations botch the "divorce" passages in a major way. Yes, even my beloved NASB.

I agree with Jenny, divorce is a terrible thing, but we can't single out this one qualification (or disqualification) to the exclusion of all the others.

I also believe that whether it happened "BC" is very relevent. Paul said All things become new. And it just so happens that one of those qualifications are that he is not to be a new convert, so he is to have a history of being a godly family man, among other things.

Is that 2 cents yet?

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2000

This goes hand in hand with the "Which is first...family or ministry?" thread. I agree with Jenny -- if we really want to get down to it, ALL would be disqualified. Why? Because ALL have sinned!

I think people use that passage of Timothy wrongly too. I am inclined to think that the problem facing Paul's time period was polygamy, not divorce.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2000

We often refer to these listings in Timothy and Titus as qualifications, as if every elder must match up with each of these in order to be qualified or dis-qualified.

It would be better to use the term of characteristics. Each elder (like every Christian) has been given different gifts. If a man is a great pastor but not a teacher does this keep him from the eldership?

And there is the question of Grace. If the divorce was before he knew about Christ can we say the blood of Jesus covered over everthing but this one event in his life. And there is the question of how does me feel about the divorce. Does he include as part of his repentance grief over the lost of his marriage?

To take divorce as the unpardonable sin means we are willing to say if a man takes a gun and shoots his wife God will forgive him. But if a man divorces his wife God will not (or can not) forgive.

My I also ask this question. If a man's wife dies and he remarries a woman who is divorced, should he not be an elder? Is he not helping the woman to commit adultry?

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

The above response is a common thought among many and we must be careful about it... He said, "We often refer to these listings in Timothy and Titus as qualifications, as if every elder must match up with each of these in order to be qualified or dis-qualified. It would be better to use the term of characteristics." Would it really? Because in the Greek Paul uses what has been called the "divine imperative" (dei enai - must be). This is the same phrase employed by our Lord concerning being born again in John 3. Jesus certainly didn't think that to be born again was an ideal we were to strive after but not necessarily think we would have to perfectly match up with. Paul didn't think so either, because if he did he would have used a different vocabulary.

I don't know exactly where I fall yet on the issue of divorced men serving as elders or deacons. The Greek is clear - one woman man is hard to skirt around. The main thrust of the text is hard to skirt around - family relationships. So I still lean toward a more conservative position.

I honestly believe one can not go wrong by trying to uphold the integrity of the Word of God. I believe God honors that.

If a man is prohibited from the role does not mean he can't serve God, it means he can't be an elder. So what? He can do a great many other things for Jesus. We always narrowly focus on the prohibition though. What is to stop the one prohibited from serving in many ways as an elder would? He doesn't need a title to perform many of the same duties.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

At some point, Michael, some latitude must be granted with these "qualifications", or "characteristics". There are at least three problems that I see with taking too hard a line on them.

1) If we take them to their limit, the result is that no one can be an elder at all. None of us pass the first test -- the one in question "must be blameless." I know that I, for one, am disqualified right there. I sin. So I'm not blameless. Does Paul mean that the elder must be absolutely blameless, or relatively blamesless? Surely he means "relatively", or "over all", or "in a general sort of way, as far as it is possible for sinful humans to be blameless in God's eyes." But when we say that, we immediately open up all manner of snake pits in theology.

2) the fact that Paul gives a similar but different list to Titus than he does to Timothy leaves us asking the question, which list do we use? If a man seems to meet all the qualifications of the Titus list, and yet is something of a quarrelsome old cuss (addressed in Timothy but not in Titus), does he qualify? If they are to be used as a checklist of "this is what the elder has to be", then why didn't Paul give the same list to both Timothy and Titus?

3) If an elder MUST be "the husband of one wife", then when his wife dies, does he have to quit being an elder?

Without a better answer to these three questions, I find that I must lean more heavily toward the "characteristics" argument than the strictly enforced "qualifications".

you are, of course, welcome to show me a better way.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

I may be opening up myself to abuse here, but I think this is one of those topics where no one will probably agree, because everyone has their own prejudices. It is my contention that the "qualifications" for elders in Timothy and Titus are consistently interpreted in 20th century, not 1st century standards. That is why we get all wrapped up in the divorce issue. I don't think that divorce was the over-riding problem in the first century, but polygamy was, and that is why Paul made the "one wife" comment. Every time this discussion comes up, I consider it straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

It is true that leaders in the Kingdom are held to a higher standard than the "regular" pew sitter. Should this be so? Don't know, but it is a fact.

I guess I lean towards the general qualities from Titus and Timothy. It is true that if we held those lists up as strict checklists, we wouldn't have any elders.

The "one woman man" question is a tough one, and one I personally wish the Spirit had been a bit more direct with through Paul. I remember a professor in Bible College (he taught for one semester and was "let go" as I recall) who in his book for College Press stated that one woman man meant married, only once, no divorce or death. In other words, in order for a man to serve the Kingdom as an elder, he had to be married, never divorced, his wife never divorced, and not widowed. He went on to state that the greek talks about childREN, plural, so he HAD to have at least two children.

Here's a abreak off of this thread ... can or should a man serve as elder if he has NEVER been married? Would a Godly, always single man be "disqualified" for not being a one woman man? Or is the one woman man thing an attitude, rather than a requirement?

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

Darell, I think you hit on an important issue. Can an man be an Elder if he has no children. The chairman of Elders in the church in which I serve has no children, he cannot due to cancer. Yet, he loves children and often wrestles with the boys. He is known in our church as playful (even though he is 40 yrs old). Is he disqualified. Some have said yes. I believe no. In fact he is more qualified in others- for in his lack of children- God has blessed him with a gift of discernment and wisdom. There are times I envy this in him. In fact I would not want any other person in my church to replace him... he is a valuable assest to the pastoral staff.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

Sam...You wrote:

1) If we take them to their limit, the result is that no one can be an elder at all. None of us pass the first test -- the one in question "must be blameless." I know that I, for one, am disqualified right there. I sin. So I'm not blameless. Does Paul mean that the elder must be absolutely blameless, or relatively blamesless?

Let me repeat a common theme in my Bible study -- what's the Greek say? The term "anepilempton" demanded that the man be of blameless character. The same word is used of widows in 5:7 and of Timothy in 6:14. It serves as a general, covering term for the following list of virtues that should distinguish a church leader. The etymology of the word has the idea of "not to be taken hold of" or "unable to grasp." It describes a person of such character that no one can bring against him a charge of unfitness.

You also wrote...

The fact that Paul gives a similar but different list to Titus than he does to Timothy leaves us asking the question, which list do we use? If a man seems to meet all the qualifications of the Titus list, and yet is something of a quarrelsome old cuss (addressed in Timothy but not in Titus), does he qualify? If they are to be used as a checklist of "this is what the elder has to be", then why didn't Paul give the same list to both Timothy and Titus?

Come on, you know better than this foolish logic. The gospels are different too - which one should we follow? All the prophets don't carry the same message, who do we listen to? The two don't contradict, they compliment each other. You know this. Paul's occasion for Timothy's letters were not a mirror for the occasion of the letter to Titus. Circumstance dictates vocabulary. But differing verbal designations do not override each other in Scripture. This is the type of argument that an atheist would use to disprove Scriptures reliability or even the argument a liberal scholar would use to argue against Paul's authorship. I expected better.

You also wrote...

If an elder MUST be "the husband of one wife", then when his wife dies, does he have to quit being an elder?

No...no more than Paul wouldn't be able to serve as an elder because he was never married. Paul appointed elders in every city he started a church - what would qualify an unmarried man for such a task? This kind of reasoning is not logical and goes to an extreme in the text that I never implied should be taken.

When studying this, let's not divorce (no pun intended) reason and common sense. To say that the statement is a direct affirmation against polygamy ignores logic. Such a practice (polygamy) would be so palpably unacceptable among Christians that it would hardly seem necessary to prohibit it. Neither do we need to see this as Paul demanding that the overseer be a married man - his own singleness and positive commendation of the single state would not "fit" if this be the case. Also, for those suggesting the widower thought - Paul clearly allows this in other passages and we don't need to see the passages as contradictory but complimentary.

I think the focus is on divorce. Now, does this mean I have it completely ironed out? No. This is no easy matter. My uncle (Rev. Scott Sheridan) has done some study on the semantical distinguishments between the term "divorce" and "to send away." I have not delved into it enough to make a conclusion one way or the other as of yet.

To summarily dismiss the import of this passage by lowering it to a mere "ideal" or "characteristic" that we should strive to pursue but not have real hopes of acquisition is to me a grievious error. I once had an elder respond to me that these could not be meant to be a list of qualifications because it describes Jesus - I say, then that attitude is merely indicative of how little we really do know Jesus then.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

To quote an "expert" concerning this passage:

"Probably intended as an ideal, not a legal enactment. "One wife" (2), probably meant to exlcude, not single men, but polygamists." [Halley's Bible Handbook, 24th Edition]

Unger's Bible Handbook seems to be the only book I find that agrees with you, though it also agrees with me: "..a one-wife man, not an adulterer, divorced, or polygamous, although he may be an unmarried man"

Sorry, but from the little I know about Roman times, divorce was not the problem, but polygamy and rampant sensuality/immorality. To see only divorce in this passage is to overlay 20th century morality onto a 1st century concept. Once again, Scripture is not a checklist, and to use it as such is an abuse of what it is here for.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

Jon,

You wrote:

Sorry, but from the little I know about Roman times, divorce was not the problem, but polygamy and rampant sensuality/immorality. To see only divorce in this passage is to overlay 20th century morality onto a 1st century concept. Once again, Scripture is not a checklist, and to use it as such is an abuse of what it is here for.

I think it is highly assumptive to say that polygamy was more of a problem than divorce was in the 1st century. So says who? Divorce impacted not only the pagan, but the Jew and Christian alike. Polygamy was limited to the pagan realm.

The reason why this is not to be taken as a statement opposing polygamy is because it does not make logical sense to do so. Polygamy is an inconceivable concept for the 1st century Christian. We have no historical documentation anywhere that would even remotely suggest that 1st century Christians struggled with polygamy - we do, however know that divorce did impact the 1st century church.

You also wrote:

Unger's Bible Handbook seems to be the only book I find that agrees with you, though it also agrees with me: "..a one-wife man, not an adulterer, divorced, or polygamous, although he may be an unmarried man"

Well, there's the problem. Try reading J.N.D. Kelly's commentary or Guthrie's or Lea's or Griffin's. They all echo the same sentiment as me. By the way, not to knock you or anything...but Haley's or Unger's is as close to real scholarship as the cult in LA was when they thought they'd catch a ride on the Hale Bopp comet after they committed suicide.

All joking aside, it is not to impose 20th cent. morality standards when one applies this statement (mias gunaikos andros) to divorce. It is however, such is the case when we contrive an argument and make it something that it is not (i.e., Paul was opposing polygamy - which I'm sure he did, just not in the above context).

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

Sorry, I was in a hurry, and its all I could pull out in a pinch. And, btw, Hailey's and Unger's happened to be "the standard" for conservative scholarship for decades. I guess I'll have to write my seminary and tell them that they are teaching heresy by passing out those books. I have never heard of those authors who you quote, but that does not surprise me. We do come from very differing schools of thought.

Brother, all these arguments have convinced me of is that you, and the others who hold them, want to win your point. Ok, you win. In a different thread I mentioned why there would never be true unity in the church. This is an example of it. I highly doubt that Paul had any intention of people centuries after his writing nit-picking on a point which is not central to salvation. I think it needs to take a rest. Nothing personal (really), but I am getting annoyed over reading these vacuous threads. They are not edifying.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

THIS IS A TEST. THIS IS ONLY A TEST.

If this had been an actual emergency, you would have been directed to your nearest html rescue service.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

One more test. Please bear with me. thanks.

Sam...You wrote: 1) If we take them to their limit, the result is that no one can be an elder at all. None of us pass the first test -- the one in question "must be blameless." I know that I, for one, am disqualified right there. I sin. So I'm not blameless. Does Paul mean that the elder must be absolutely blameless, or relatively blamesless?

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

Ok, I think I have it figured out. We now return you to your regularly scheduled fussin'.

Mike, I'll print out what I said, and then your replies:

1) If we take them to their limit, the result is that no one can be an elder at all. None of us pass the first test -- the one in question "must be blameless." I know that I, for one, am disqualified right there. I sin. So I'm not blameless. Does Paul mean that the elder must be absolutely blameless, or relatively blamesless?

Let me repeat a common theme in my Bible study -- what's the Greek say? The term "anepilempton" demanded that the man be of blameless character. The same word is used of widows in 5:7 and of Timothy in 6:14. It serves as a general, covering term for the following list of virtues that should distinguish a church leader. The etymology of the word has the idea of "not to be taken hold of" or "unable to grasp." It describes a person of such character that no one can bring against him a charge of unfitness.

I know that, If I remember correctly, the most literal translation of the word is "without handles". My question was, to what extent shall we demand it? At what degree of sin, public or private, can one no longer be called "blameless"? If you are using rigid checklists, you've got to determine that.

The fact that Paul gives a similar but different list to Titus than he does to Timothy leaves us asking the question, which list do we use? If a man seems to meet all the qualifications of the Titus list, and yet is something of a quarrelsome old cuss (addressed in Timothy but not in Titus), does he qualify? If they are to be used as a checklist of "this is what the elder has to be", then why didn't Paul give the same list to both Timothy and Titus?

Come on, you know better than this foolish logic. The gospels are different too - which one should we follow? All the prophets don't carry the same message, who do we listen to? The two don't contradict, they compliment each other. You know this. Paul's occasion for Timothy's letters were not a mirror for the occasion of the letter to Titus. Circumstance dictates vocabulary. But differing verbal designations do not override each other in Scripture. This is the type of argument that an atheist would use to disprove Scriptures reliability or even the argument a liberal scholar would use to argue against Paul's authorship. I expected better.

Michael, you miss the whole point of what I'm saying. If you are going to hold the lists written to Timothy and Titus as "a list of qualifications which a prospective elder must meet before consideration", you've got to determine what list to use. The example of the Gospels is not useful in this argument -- none of us expect elders to meet the perfect example of Jesus. And your saying that the Timothy and Titus lists COMPLIMENT, not CONTRADICT, enforces MY position more than yours. And that position is, again, that Pauls instructions about elders are GUIDELINES FOR THE KIND OF PERSON AN ELDER SHOULD BE, and NOT a "Let's see if he checks off against every mark" type of rigid yardstick which must be met in all particulars, because if it were, then the follwoing two things would be true -- 1) Paul would have given them the same list, and 2) we would have no hope of meeting them all anyway, and we wouldn't have any elders.

If an elder MUST be "the husband of one wife", then when his wife dies, does he have to quit being an elder?

No...no more than Paul wouldn't be able to serve as an elder because he was never married. Paul appointed elders in every city he started a church - what would qualify an unmarried man for such a task? This kind of reasoning is not logical and goes to an extreme in the text that I never implied should be taken.

I didn't imply it either, Mike. I used it as an example why I believe the lists are guidelines rather than checklists. However, as one brother who privatekly e-mailed me about it attested, many, many congregations and leaders and ministers DO hold unmarried and widowed men to that standard. It's happening in the church, and it's happening specifically because the lists are seen as rigid checklists rather than guiding principles.

To summarily dismiss the import of this passage by lowering it to a mere "ideal" or "characteristic" that we should strive to pursue but not have real hopes of acquisition is to me a grievious error.

This may be the crux of our disagreement. In my eyes, to describe these lists as "character" rather than "qualifier" does absolutely NOTHING to lessen the import of the passage. It is not easy to find men who model this character. And even when we think we've found them, we usually find that they are stronger in some areas than in others. One who teaches well and has great depth of understanding may not be as hospitable as one who's not much in the way of teaching skills. One who has great children may have a shorter fuse on their temper than one who has two great daughters and a slow-burning fuse but a somewhat troublesome son.

Would Peter have qualified to be an elder? He exhibited some degree of cowardice in the face of peer group pressures, and had to be taken to task by Paul. Would Paul have been qualified? Was he ever married? Did he have kids? By his own "checklist", if it is such, he couldn't have been an elder. The fact that two of the most prominant apostles might not have qualified under an interpretaion that takes the lists as a rigid checklist causes me to rethink the appraoch.

I'll stick with my "guidelines to character" application. It honors the scripture by not trying to make it what it was not intended to be, and holds the standard terrifically high when seeking men to lead the church.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

Sam,

You and I may not come to a full agreement on this one and I think there is room in the kingdom for both of our views. Remember this, I have not got this all figured out. I do not arrogantly assume that this is a clear cut, black and white issue. It is one with a lot of emotion and difficult ambiguous language (mias gunaikos andros). Having said that...I still can't squeeze lightly around "dei enai" - must be...this was not sufficiently responded to in any of your responses. Using the same application you impose of this passage on the "qualifications" or "guidelines" towards John 3 where Jesus says that a man..."must be" (dei enai) born again.. would not make much since then would it.

THis issue is not a soteriological issue but I personally am uncomfortable with allowing a divorced man to serve as an elder. But there is still studying and learning to be done on the subject! Thanks for good discussion and provocative remarks.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2000

Ya know, Michael, in all the discussion I had quite forgotten that the original issue raised was the divorce question. I was focusing on the approach to the lists as a whole. The "marital status" part of both lists is, surely, the most difficult to resolve. I personally had to come to terms with it about 6 years ago, when I was being considered for joining the eldership at Cary. I've never been divorced, but I am my wife's second husband. Her first ran around on her from the first days of their marriage, and eventually decided that he just didn't want to be married to her anymore. She tried to take it to counselling, but he wouldn't do it.

I have been rejected for at least one ministry position because of her history. So when the issue of being made an elder arose, I had to work hard at understanding as best I could just what I thought the scriptures say about the issue of divorce and remarriage. My final decisions may be as colored by my experiences as they are my scholarship. I pray that I have allowed the Spirit to guide me in understanding and wisdom.

I do not wish to carrry this discussion past its natural end, but I hope you will indulge me in one more round before we let it go.

The "must be" question, I think, is, again, more effective for me than for you. It must be admitted that the Timothy and Titus lists, while mostly similar, are definately different in at least two or three points. One speaks of the ability to teach; the other does not. One speaks of not being a novice; the other does not. One speaks of not being covetous; the other does not.

I do not mean to say that the absence of a certain detail from a certain list implies that the quality in question is of no importance. What I DO mean to say is this (and please note that every following direct statement has an assumed "I think that" in front of it...it gets tedious writing the phrase again and again): Paul knew that Timothy would have certain issues to deal with in Ephesus, and that Titus would have some of the same but some different issues to deal with in Crete. He addressed the two evangelists accordingly, stressing both the character of the men they should appoint, as well as some of the details he knew these men must have for their particular situation. The fact that he gives different ideas to the two, or says things in a different way or with a different emphasis, shows the "character quality" nature of the lists.

What about the "must be"s? I must say again, if Paul intended a rigid checklist that wuold apply to every elder in every congregation for all time, he would have given them duplicate lists. You must deal with the fact that in Ephesus, the elder "must be" able to teach, while in Crete the ability to teach is NOT a "must be". And in Crete, the elder "must be" not self-willed, but Paul doesn't give that one as a "must be" to Timothy. It is perhaps implied in another quality in a round-about way, but maybe in the congregation in Crete that was a more pressing issue than in Ephesus.

I am completely out of time, Michael. Good talking with you. I am enjoying your sermon series selection on your site.

SammyBoy

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2000

Just have to add this one quick note, since I got away from the divorce issue again.

Using the lists as a "checklist", one could theoretically be an elder if one were married and "ruled his house well" and have children who are well behaved, but having come to that situation by ruling his house with a fist of iron, like a third world dictator rather than a loving Christian father. And many men who have been elders have been exACTly that. But by the letter of the list, they qualify.

Part of what Jesus came to do , I believe, was to relieve us from the burden of being afraid to break the rules. Not that we use our freedom to enable licentiousness, as Paul says, but that our freedom leads us to Godly living. If one presses the issue of "rules" and "lists" too oppressively in the church, one works to remove some of the freedom bought by Jesus' blood. this does NOT mean that terms of salvation are weakened, but that the emphasis is changed from "rules" to "relationship", within the parameters of revealed truth.

Does that make any sense?

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2000

Works for me :) I think we all are too prone to follow the letter of the law and forget the Spirit of the law. Or as Jesus put it, "Learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice." Two thousand years after Jesus, and we are still prone to Pharisaism. We want to strain out those gnats from the greek construction, and we end up swallowing the camels of life. The church as a whole needs a lot of introspection, reflection and repentance on this subject, in my humble opinion.

To the question at hand: I think that as loving children of a most gracious God, we need to take each situation as it comes. For the man desiring to be an elder, who albeit a deeply devout and religious man, is also a divorced man, who has come to the situation in life he is in by no fault of his own (i.e. a rebellious wife) ... well I really don't think that is what Paul is talking about here. Seems to me, since God is more concerned with the thoughts and attitudes of the heart, that he would be more interested in excluding the man who divorced his wife (or wives) without cause, being, as I term it, a "serial polygamist." Certainly there is a great difference in moral character and heart attitude between the first man and this second type. I think we need to prayerfully consider each man and his situation in life and not be too quick to pass judgement. For we may be on the receiving end one day (Matthew 7:1-5).

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2000

I find it interesting that when people say things like this: We want to strain out those gnats from the greek construction, and we end up swallowing the camels of life.

What they really mean is: My feelings about a text supercede what the text actually says. Or in essence, doctrine doesn't really matter. Why is it that because I am the one making an attempt at upholding what the text says here - it seems that I am the one who is the Pharisee and legalist (as many of you have subtly implied). As a matter of fact, for those who know me - some of you would consider me liberal in thought being that I graduated from LCC/S and have a more open view of the Holy Spirit.

I have no personal agenda here. I merely am attempting, through careful study - mind you, to uphold the integrity of the Word of God. I am not imposing a 20th century view in a 1st century text. I am honoring it for its context - both historically and grammatically.

The real reason I believe that many of you don't like the view I hold is not so much to do with theological argumentation (because we have mostly talked about psychological reasons - i.e., how you feel about the text)as it has to do with putting good men in a position that needs to be filled. I am a preacher myself and understand fully the dynamic of wanting good men in leadership positions.

I am not a legalist by honoring the author's intention in the text. I have upheld what it says and feel quite confidently that God will honor such a position.

By the way, have you not noticed...just as a point of correlation how many of the same arguments presented for allowing divorced men to serve as elders are some of the same arguments trumpeted for allowing a woman to preach?

I'm not making a necessary argument of a "slippery slope" from that statement - I am just finding it rather ironic.

Taking Sam Loveall's interpretation of dei enai, let us translate John 3:7 "...You must be born again." (NAS)

John 3:7 Loveall translation..."You should show most of the characteristics of being born again."

I don't know about you but it just doesn't wash. Greek is not like English, it is much better because it is quite specific in nature. If Paul had indeed meant for it to be considered a list of characteristics he would have employed a different vocabulary than he did in 1 Timothy. But he did not.

To say that the two lists (Titus and Timothy) have differing vocabulary therefore by necessity means that they are not intended to be the bare minimum requirements (which by the way, they are...the bare minimum requirements) is ludicrous. That hermeneutic is VERY dangerous. Loveall has not sufficiently shown how or why I should not consistently apply this same hermeneutic on the gospel narratives, or upon passages with soteriological significance. If this hermeneutic is sound (saying that the two lists aren't exactly the same therefore they are not "qualifications") then it should be applicable in other areas as well.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2000

Anyone who knows me knows that I am probably more of a stickler for correct doctrine than anyone else they know. After 25 years dealing with people in cults, I kinda have to be. (My hero in the faith is Timothy, who Paul encouraged to also be a stickler for correct doctrine.) But I really don't think we are talking about doctrine here, so that is sort of a straw man in my opinion.

I think the real issue here is mercy. The Pharisees were so concerned about following the Word of God to the letter that they went to elaborate lengths to see that it was kept, regardless of any personal impact. They in fact made it to no effect, for the law was made for man, and not man for the law. Then Jesus comes along and says, "Go and learn what this means." Or as Yoda would put it, "You must unlearn what you have learned." (Please, lets not go off on my Star Wars reference!)

Jesus used the example of David. When David and his rag-tag fugitive band were fleeing the wrath of Saul, they entered the Temple, tired and hungry. Now, the Law says that the showbread they ate must never, under any circumstances, be eaten by anyone other than the priests. ("You must never, under any circumstances, make a divorced man an elder!)" But the spirit of the law said "Here too are men of God, here are extenuating circumstances, here is an opportunity to show mercy and God's grace."

I believe that when we need to make Biblical decisions, and they are not doctrinal decisions, such as "Does this man accept Christ's Deity," we then need to ask ourselves, "Are there extenuating circumstances here? Is this the intent of the Word? Am I following the letter of the Word to the extent that I am sacrificing mercy?" I am not talking about placing feelings over doctrine, I am talking about putting heart over stone.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2000

I don't know about you but it just doesn't wash. Greek is not like English, it is much better because it is quite specific in nature. If Paul had indeed meant for it to be considered a list of characteristics he would have employed a different vocabulary than he did in 1 Timothy. But he did not.

To say that the two lists (Titus and Timothy) have differing vocabulary therefore by necessity means that they are not intended to be the bare minimum requirements (which by the way, they are...the bare minimum requirements) is ludicrous.

Fine, Michael. Then answer this question, which you have not addressed at all. Why is Timothy's "bare minimum" not the same as Titus' "bare minimum"? Did Paul expect everybody who read the letters to combine the lists and use the combined list as the "bare minimum", while NOT expecting the same from Timothy and Titus? Why were Timothy and Titus not held to the same standard?

That hermeneutic is VERY dangerous. Loveall has not sufficiently shown how or why I should not consistently apply this same hermeneutic on the gospel narratives, or upon passages with soteriological significance. If this hermeneutic is sound (saying that the two lists aren't exactly the same therefore they are not "qualifications") then it should be applicable in other areas as well.

Here's a shocker, Michael. It IS applicable in other areas. It's applicable in other area where such application is appropriate. In areas where such application is NOT appropriate, it is not applicable.

Now, what in the world do I mean by that?

Hermaneutics is not a cut and dried thing. what works in one place in the Scriptures doesn't work in another. For instance, what must one do to inherit, or obtain, eternal life? Have faith, repent, confess, be baptized, etc.? Ok, I can buy that. But what about, "sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow me." I would guess that you haven't done that. But that was Jesus' direct answer to the rich young ruler when the man asked the question, "What must I do to inherit eternal life."

If we approach the use of language in the way you are trying to -- that the same words have the exact same impact every time they are used, no matter what the context or comparitive passages say -- then we'd better get our stuff down to the auction block right away, or none of us will see each other in heaven. You are familiar with the hermaneutic principle, "the Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture". Or, "Every teaching in the Scripture must be seen in the light of the REST of Scripture."

But another principle of hermaneutics, and one equally as valid, is "treat each passage linguistically the way it was meant to be treated." One doesn't approach gospel narratives in the same way as prophecy passages. One doesn't approach matters of personal instruction in the same way as poetic works. The rules don't apply to each passage in the same way as each other passage. To say that I denigrate the authority of other Scripture by comparing the differences between Timothy and Titus is the ludicrous appraoch, Michael.

I've gotta ask you a special favor, Michael. PLEASE don't reply to this until I get back from work and can add more. I've run out of time again, and have not completed all the thoughts I want to complete. My argument is not yet finished. If you answer now, you may well be answering against things I'm not saying anyway. Can you wait for me?

A proper hermaneutical appraoch will compare apples with apples, Michael.

Michael, you are getting too hung up on what you appear to see as the difference between "characteristic" and "qualification". You are making too big a gap between them.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2000

Michael:

the last two lines ("apples" and what followed) were bits of incomplete thought I was working on. They weren't supposed to be at the end of the last posting. I was trying to work out just what I wanted to say, and hadn't gotten there yet. I forgot that I had left them at the bottom for later work. Please ignore them.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2000

Wow...! Lots to study,lots to think about. I thank you Gentlemen and Jenny for your insight. This is an issue that I will continue to study and discuss.

Jon...you say: "Brother, all these arguments have convinced me of is that you, and the others who hold them, want to win your point. Ok, you win. In a different thread I mentioned why there would never be true unity in the church. This is an example of it. I highly doubt that Paul had any intention of people centuries after his writing nit- picking on a point which is not central to salvation. I think it needs to take a rest. Nothing personal (really), but I am getting annoyed over reading these vacuous threads. They are not edifying."

I think you have been unfair when you say the others just want to win their point. I have not seen that to be a prevalent reason in this forum for our discussions. I personally and I believe others study and discuss: 1) to uphold God's Word as Michael says

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2000

Oops, let me start again...I accidentally submitted before I was finished or spell checked.

Wow...! Lots to study lots to think about. I thank you Gentlemen and Jenny for your insight. This is an issue that I will continue to study and discuss.

Jon...you say: "Brother, all these arguments have convinced me of is that you, and the others who hold them, want to win your point. Ok, you win. In a different thread I mentioned why there would never be true unity in the church. This is an example of it. I highly doubt that Paul had any intention of people centuries after his writing nit- picking on a point which is not central to salvation. I think it needs to take a rest. Nothing personal (really), but I am getting annoyed over reading these vacuous threads. They are not edifying."

I think you have been unfair when you say the others just want to win their point. I have not seen that to be a prevalent reason in this forum for our discussions. I personally and I believe others study and discuss:

1) To uphold God's Word as Michael says. 2) To be challenged in what we believe, to always re-check what we believe against what God has said. 3) To sharpen our study skills

Please understand...true unity in the church does not mean we will agree 100% on every subject 100% of the time. Michael and I, or Sam and I may not agree on every issue...but that does not mean that we can not work together, discuss together, study together, or spread the gospel together. And just because an argument gets heated does not mean that we are not brothers and sisters in the Lord.

I have taken much from this discussion...from both sides, and have been challenged to study more instead of thinking I have arrived.

The reason I started this thread in the first place was because in our congregation right now...IN REAL LIFE...this issue has risen and we must attempt to deal with it in a Godly and scriptural manner.

Thanks to all of you who have tried to help me in this attempt.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2000

I tend to agree with Sam.

He posts in html!

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Sounds like what you need is a place to go to authoritatively interpret what the Scripture actually means. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not the bible alone. 1 Tim. 3:15.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Anyone else find it in the least amusing how our little Catholic poster uses the authority of Scripture to prove the supposed authority of the church?

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Ok, Michael, sorry to be so long in finishing. Family in town. My brother and his wife are making their last round of visits before they leave later this month for a 5-year mission term in Guatemala.

I won't change anything I said earlier (except those last two bits of incomplete thought that weren't supposed to be there anyway.)

I will, however, add this:

The hermeneutic argument we are having is caused, I think, by your centering on the term "must be". You say that I am changing and weakening that term, and causing it to say something like, "must be actually means you have an option to or not to". That is simply not the case. I think that you are wrongly characterizing my argument.

You are correct, however, in saying that I see a difference in the Timothy and Titus lists that you do not see. And it is in the DIFFERENCES of the lists that I base my argument, not in the "must be" bits.

I back down from no man in declaring the authority of Scripture. But I also try to apply Scripture in the way it was meant to be applied (I am NOT saying that you don't). The letter to Timothy was directed primarily to a certain man in a certain place and situation. The letter to Titus was directed to ANOTHER man in another place and situation. They were not written directly to us. When we try to work out, with the Spirit's guidance, how to apply principles and commands that were not ours initially, but that we can be expected to apply to ourselves in some way, we must take the original intent and audience into account.

It is my contention that Paul is NOT giving either man a list of items to check off against the candidates. Seeing the passages as such a checklist does NOT strengthen the qualifications, as you seem to say. It in fact WEAKENS the idea, by allowing far more abuse of the system than the way I approach it. How? By invoking one of our culture's favorite sport -- searching for loopholes. If you make the lists a rigid checklist, then you can't keep out anyone who falls seriously or morally short in an area NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED in the list. You invariably end up with my son's favorite argument for justifying bad behavior -- "But you didn't SAY I couldn't do that."

Jesus did not come to give us checklists. He gave us a new way of thinking about God, one which covers all areas of life with principles of faith and obedience and character and spirit. One of his examples of the difference is that in the OT law, it says "Don't murder". The law didn't say anything about THINKING awful and denigrating thoughts about another. But Jesus spoke to the spirit of the law, and showed that it extended even to the thoughts and outlooks and mindsets, and not just the actions.

That principle, I believe, runs throughout the NT writings. if the CHARACTER is right, the ACTIONS will be right. That's how I approach the lists. Find men with this kind of character, and yu won't have to worry about them trying to slip through loopholes, or trying to "lord their authority over others", or anything else like that. I hope that you can see some validity in that approach. If not, I guess we'll have to call a truce on this matter, and find other ideas over which to enjoy each other's company.

SammyBoy

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2000

Sam,

You wrote:

The hermeneutic argument we are having is caused, I think, by your centering on the term "must be". You say that I am changing and weakening that term, and causing it to say something like, "must be actually means you have an option to or not to". That is simply not the case. I think that you are wrongly characterizing my argument.

Yes, you are correct. I am centering on that. I see it as indellibly (sp?) important to both Timothy and Titus' texts. The syntax is the same, the grammar is the same and the hermeneutic should be the same. Paul was no dope. If he had meant anything other than must be, he would have used different vocabulary. It really is that simple.

I have no problem with taking an approach that is not legalistic, that upholds the spirit of the "list" (beit characteristics or qualifications) but let us not impart in the wrong direction. When Jesus elaborated on the law and what was written - he did not lessen its import. He made it even more difficult (i.e., don't commit adultery = not lusting). We should not take this list and ignore the divine imperative "must be."

Now you and I are not going to change each other's views, that is obvious. But I think there is room in this big movement of ours for both of us.

I will not waver from the text's statements. Does this make me a legalist? No. I have a very high view of the authority of God's Word (I am not saying you don't) and what it says precedes my psychological responses to it.

Now having described my motivation...let me say what I think is abhorrent. I think it is utterly wrong and evil for men and women in Christ to take this text and use it as a syllogism for failure. Men and women who have been divorced are God's children who are just as loved by him as the next man. We all too often unnecessarily make divorced people in our midst feel stupid and like a failure. This is a shame on us.

We must not treat divorced people as "failure statistics." They arent! They are people in the image of God whose anguish is deeply felt by their Creator. We must not treat their lives as premises to be plugged into syllogisms. These are precious souls who bleed when cut, who cry when hurt, and who reach for help when drowning.

Thanks for good discussion!

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2000