# Deacon ,more than one wife



## jedediah (Oct 12, 2006)

What do you think about you can`t be a deacon if more than one wife.This was discussed at lunch today.


----------



## Jody Hawk (Oct 12, 2006)

I don't think divorced men should be deacons. It's in the Bible so that's good enough for me.


----------



## Sugar Hill Scouter (Oct 12, 2006)

I agree with Jody Hawk..


----------



## leroy (Oct 12, 2006)

agreed, thats the way we do it!


----------



## lake hartwell (Oct 12, 2006)

The passage was written when men had multiple wives. A divorced man was only has one wife, (at a time) unless you are in Utah. Being married more than once isn't recommended but doesn't preclude you from serving. Everybody has there own opinion. If you are going to preclude sinner's from serving that makes a grand total on nobody eligible.


----------



## CAL (Oct 12, 2006)

jedediah said:


> What do you think about you can`t be a deacon if more than one wife.This was discussed at lunch today.



I saw this make a God fearing man quit going to church because he was asked to be a deacon ,then refused after all knew he had been previously married before.
I know what is in the Bible and I also know a fair,honest,God fearing man is hard to come by!Not arguing either way.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Oct 12, 2006)

I interpret the scripture the same way lake hartwell does.

I believe it to mean 1 at a time.


----------



## Jody Hawk (Oct 13, 2006)

lake hartwell said:


> The passage was written when men had multiple wives.



One group interprets it this as divorced and the others as having two wives at once. I say since nobody knows for sure then the divorced shouldn't do it and we'll know that we are right. I've been married twice and I don't think that I'm qualified to be a deacon.


----------



## SBG (Oct 13, 2006)

Jody Hawk said:


> One group interprets it this as divorced and the others as having two wives at once. I say since nobody knows for sure then the divorced shouldn't do it and we'll know that we are right. I've been married twice and I don't think that I'm qualified to be a deacon.



Brother Jody...you weren't saved the first go around. There is no scriptural reason that would preclude you from service.


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 13, 2006)

SBG said:


> Brother Jody...you weren't saved the first go around. There is no scriptural reason that would preclude you from service.



I disagree fully.


----------



## reylamb (Oct 13, 2006)

lake hartwell said:


> The passage was written when men had multiple wives. A divorced man was only has one wife, (at a time) unless you are in Utah. Being married more than once isn't recommended but doesn't preclude you from serving. Everybody has there own opinion. If you are going to preclude sinner's from serving that makes a grand total on nobody eligible.



Actually, multiple wives was a pagan ritual, and never part of God's plan.  From the beginning of recorded time God intended marriage to be the relationship of one man and one woman, hence Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Sarah, Mary, Susie, and whoever else.  This is not a mandate against polygamy.  When that specific scripture is studied in concordance with all other scriptures relating to the subject, it is clear, divorced men are not to hold the position of deacon or pastor in the local church.


----------



## one_shot_no_mor (Oct 13, 2006)

*Don't Ask Us, Ask "THE WORD"*



jedediah said:


> What do you think about you can`t be a deacon if more than one wife.This was discussed at lunch today.


What I think is not important...my advice is to read the whole Book of 1 Timothy and answer that question in your own heart. 
1 Timothy contains MANY "instructions" including a warning against false teachers.  Read it, pray, and come to peace with however the Holy Spirit directs. 
Too often we try to "interpret" the scriptures for ourselves without asking for THE RIGHT quidance.  This ALWAYS (IMO) leads to the easy or most convenient answer for how WE (as weak humans) would LIKE to read it. 
I will join you in prayer, Jed.


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 13, 2006)

one_shot_no_mor said:


> What I think is not important...my advice is to read the whole Chapter of 1 Timothy and answer that question in your own heart.
> 1 Timothy contains MANY "instructions" including a warning against false teachers.  Read it, pray, and come to peace with however the Holy Spirit directs.
> Too often we try to "interpret" the scriptures for ourselves without asking for THE RIGHT quidance.  This ALWAYS (IMO) leads to the easy or most convenient answer for how WE (as weak humans) would LIKE to read it.
> I will join you in prayer, Jed.



Know what OSNM? You just nailed the whole debate and study "issues" that happen in this forum.

What I think or anyone else thinks is really irrelevant, it's up to the individual to seek out and find the answers on their own.

Way to often people rely on their preacher or Sunday School Teacher to tell them how to beleive, dont get me wrong, there is only one gospel, but there are many thoughts, and ONLY ONE ANSWER, ........................


----------



## lake hartwell (Oct 13, 2006)

It absolutely was God's plan for one wife but David was considered by God as "a favorite" and in "his ways". I think David had about 700 wives and cucubines(sp). So God also knows our heart. Like the above post. If you eliminate Deacon's because they have sinned in past, (or future), there won't be many. The last perfect person died 2,000 years ago and you nor ME are the next one.i


----------



## Randy (Oct 13, 2006)

Jeff Phillips said:


> I interpret the scripture the same way lake hartwell does.
> 
> I believe it to mean 1 at a time.



Me too!!!!


----------



## one_shot_no_mor (Oct 13, 2006)

*So???*



lake hartwell said:


> I think David had about 700 wives and cucubines(sp). So God also knows our heart. Like the above post. If you eliminate Deacon's because they have sinned in past, (or future), there won't be many. The last perfect person died 2,000 years ago and you nor ME are the next one.i


So????  Was David a Deacon?  
I'm missing your point...


----------



## lake hartwell (Oct 13, 2006)

I guess the point was if David was good enough to be a favorite son of God with 700 wives that probably means that being saved by grace probably covers a previous marraige that just didn't work. For all you "once" married men Congradulations, seriously, but don't think it can't happen to you. We ALL thought it couldn't happen to us to start with.


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 13, 2006)

lake hartwell said:


> I guess the point was if David was good enough to be a favorite son of God with 700 wives that probably means that being saved by grace probably covers a previous marraige that just didn't work. For all you "once" married men Congradulations, seriously, but don't think it can't happen to you. We ALL thought it couldn't happen to us to start with.



Rest assured freind it wont.


----------



## one_shot_no_mor (Oct 13, 2006)

*Point taken...*



lake hartwell said:


> I guess the point was if David was good enough to be a favorite son of God with 700 wives that probably means that being saved by grace probably covers a previous marraige that just didn't work. For all you "once" married men Congradulations, seriously, but don't think it can't happen to you. We ALL thought it couldn't happen to us to start with.


Point taken, but not relevent to this post...
'Nuff said...


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Oct 13, 2006)

I am a Baptist Deacon (married once and for life), I have served as the chairman of the New Deacon Nominating Committee twice. 

If a man is living his life in accordance with the scripture in Timothy, is proving his faith with his works, has his family affairs in order, etc. I would not disquailify him from service due to a previous marriage. Some have declined when asked due to their interpretation, others have served well.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 13, 2006)

I think the scripture is pretty clear (to me at least) that a divorced man should not be a Deacon unless that divorce was for the only reason that Jesus said was valid (infidelity). If the man divorced his wife because she was an adulterer, then that was sufficient enough reason for Jesus to say the bond could be broken. If the man then found another Christian woman, I don't see how that could preclude him from being a Deacon. If a man divorces his wife because he just wants to or there are irreconcilable differences or other reasons, then no, that divorce is not right with God and that man should not be a Deacon. Although, I will admit, I am not too far off from seeing it as no divorces allowed because Jesus didn't say that you HAD to divorce your wife for infidelity.


----------



## Mauiboy (Oct 13, 2006)

*Deacon's*

I would like to comment on this topic; Jed makes a good point "seek ye first the kindom of god". Many of us have different interpretations of what we read. If the holy spirit shows me what is true and I tell someone else and they do not agree, is what I am saying not correct? Not in their eye's because of how they interpret the topic. Now, Paul wrote on the position of bishop and deacons in a time when promiscurity and polgamy were abound. The context of the epsitle suggest that "the husband of one wife",which he wrote through the holy spirit, means you cannot have more than one wife to be a servant. I believe this. 

There was something mentioned about what other people think is irrelevant, but you should care about what people think because they might be spreading false teachings, you take what people say and go check it out in the Bible.

Well, I hope I did not offend anyone nor was this written to do such a thing. Forgive me. I am sure there will be more responses to help our brother Jedediah.

Good day and God bless


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Oct 13, 2006)

First, I believe one needs to look at what the Bible says about divorce which has been discussed numerous times in this forum.  I believe all would agree that God does not approve of divorce, He wants us to work out and resolve our problems.  In fact, Scripture points out that there are only very few circumstances where divorce should be allowed and in many of those cases, the “ex-spouses” should not remarry someone else.

Second, I believe all would agree that deacons are recognized leaders in their respective churches.  The guidelines set forth in Scripture provides many aspects of what a deacon should or should not be so that the person in question would be beyond reproach and could serve as a role model.

Third, for those that do believe a divorced man can serve as a deacon; how many times (divorced) is too many?  What is the magical number that disqualifies him from being a deacon?  What if he was divorced for some reason that is not in agreement with Scripture (example: he just got tired of his wife or the catch all “irreconcilable differences”)?

What it boils down to is that the “husband of one wife” can be interpreted in mainly 2 ways.  One way is the more conservative approach which I believe is the best approach to take when there is doubt.


----------



## reylamb (Oct 13, 2006)

David most certainly did not have 700 wives, that was Solomon.  He did have 8 documented wives, what that has to do with being a deacon is anyone's guess, but at least let's get everything straight.  David also committed murder, should murderers be deacons as well?

Being a sinner does not preclude one from holding the office of deacon, being divorced does, among other things.  There are none righteous, no not one.  However, God himself, through the Apostle Paul, laid forth the establishment of the leadership in the local church, and set forth the guidlines by which we are to select our leadership.


----------



## lake hartwell (Oct 13, 2006)

Actually the Apostle Paul said "men would be better off without wives" altogether.

1st Corit. Chap 7 verse 1
1st Corit. Chap 7 verse 8


----------



## SE.GAcoondawg (Oct 13, 2006)

Make sure in interpretation not to omit the rest of the verse.  "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."  It is hard to rule their own house if split also take into consideration that they cannot rule their children if they are not under their roof.  I think there is too many opinions given on scripture interpretation and too many people looking for loop holes in God's word.  I have seen the bumper stickers that say God said it, I believe it, that settles it.  The fact is it doesn't matter what you believe God said it, that settles it.  Bottom line *we* are all wicked and trying to justify *our* actions by seeing the scripture through our eyes (aka:  personal interpretation) rather than seeing it through God's eyes(literal interpretation).


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 13, 2006)

SE.GAcoondawg said:


> and too many people looking for loop holes in God's word.



This is the conclusion of matter.


----------



## Jody Hawk (Oct 14, 2006)

SE.GAcoondawg said:


> Make sure in interpretation not to omit the rest of the verse.  "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."  It is hard to rule their own house if split also take into consideration that they cannot rule their children if they are not under their roof.  I think there is too many opinions given on scripture interpretation and too many people looking for loop holes in God's word.  I have seen the bumper stickers that say God said it, I believe it, that settles it.  The fact is it doesn't matter what you believe God said it, that settles it.  Bottom line *we* are all wicked and trying to justify *our* actions by seeing the scripture through our eyes (aka:  personal interpretation) rather than seeing it through God's eyes(literal interpretation).



Great post, that nailed it brother !!!!!!!!


----------



## SBG (Oct 17, 2006)

Branchminnow said:


> Know what OSNM? You just nailed the whole debate and study "issues" that happen in this forum.
> 
> What I think or anyone else thinks is really irrelevant, it's up to the individual to seek out and find the answers on their own.
> 
> Way to often people rely on their preacher or Sunday School Teacher to tell them how to beleive, dont get me wrong, there is only one gospel, but there are many thoughts, and ONLY ONE ANSWER, ........................



YEP!

Folks should really read and pray on the word instead of just accepting the mistakes that have been handed down over and over.


Romans
8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.  
8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.  
8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:  
8:4
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.  
8:5
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.  
8:6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.  
8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.  
8:8
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.  
8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.  


Take specific note of verses 7 and 8. This is in reference to someone that has not been saved by grace. The scripture is quite clear...unsaved people CANNOT please God. Anything occuring outside of the salvation experience is irrelevant in terms to Christian living. The Bible is so clear that after salvation you are a new creation...all things become new.

Brother Jody, please don't take my word for it or any other person's for that matter. Read Romans 8.

Since you and your first wife were not saved does not preclude you now for service.


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 17, 2006)

SBG said:


> YEP!
> 
> Folks should really read and pray on the word instead of just accepting the mistakes that have been handed down over and over.
> 
> ...



Been waiting on your reply.....where you been???


----------



## SBG (Oct 17, 2006)

Branchminnow said:


> Been waiting on your reply.....where you been???



Just got back from black powderin'. Man, who left the freezer open Saturday a.m. Did y'all have any frost up there?


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 17, 2006)

SBG said:


> Just got back from black powderin'. Man, who left the freezer open Saturday a.m. Did y'all have any frost up there?



Yep all the kudzu is dead!!!!


----------



## jasonmiddlebrooks (Oct 17, 2006)

SBG said:


> YEP!
> 
> Folks should really read and pray on the word instead of just accepting the mistakes that have been handed down over and over.





People and the Church should not change to the world's ways and what is "excepted nowdays".  

You should stand for what you believe in and if you don't believe in the Bible you are believing in the wrong thing!


----------



## pfharris1965 (Nov 1, 2006)

*...*



lake hartwell said:


> For all you "once" married men Congradulations, seriously, but don't think it can't happen to you. We ALL thought it couldn't happen to us to start with.


 
  Kind of hard to do anything to avoid that one when it comes at ya...I am with ya on that one.  Gives you a deer in the headlights look when it happens too...

The one thing that kills me about all of this is how in the eyes of "Christians" I am now _less_ of a "Christian" because I got a divorce which was beyond my control...and yes that is exactly what is being said is that I am _less_ of a "Christian" because I am not allowed by a Church to participate in all the activities that go with being a member of a Church...never thought one person could be punished for the sins of another but that seems to be the case here.

  Just another item to add to an already long list chronicling that which smacks of hypocrisy...


----------



## Branchminnow (Nov 1, 2006)

PF I was not going to reply but i value our freindship, mine (thoughts) were not intended to make you think that Im better than you Im not by any standard, I beleive the way I do because of what Paul said to Timothy Go read 1st and 2nd Timothy it is there in black and white, no grey area, I think not of myself as better than you or anyone and never will, on that statement you have my word. I believe the word as written in those books of the KJV of the bible.

And even if you dont agree with me and still want to think Im being hypocritical then I guess you can but remember I still dont think Im better than you.
But the truth is hard from time to time.

Alos you are no less of a christian to me your place in the Kingdom of God will be the same as mine.


----------



## pfharris1965 (Nov 1, 2006)

Branchminnow said:


> PF I was not going to reply but i value our freindship, mine (thoughts) were not intended to make you think that Im better than you Im not by any standard, I beleive the way I do because of what Paul said to Timothy Go read 1st and 2nd Timothy it is there in black and white, no grey area, I think not of myself as better than you or anyone and never will, on that statement you have my word. I believe the word as written in those books of the KJV of the bible.
> 
> And even if you dont agree with me and still want to think Im being hypocritical then I guess you can but remember I still dont think Im better than you.
> But the truth is hard from time to time.


 
Branch...thanks for your post.  My post was not directed at any individual but rather intended as a generalization based on observations I had made over the last few years.  Probably an erroneous generalization stated more out of frustration...

And one thing I can tell you...I would never perceive you as one who thought he was better than others.  You have been incredibly consistent in your beliefes on here and have not faltered and I hold that with high regard and respect.  I did not mean to make you think I meant you or anyone specifically.

I do still find it hard to stomach in the Christian belief structure that I am seemingly relegated to a lesser status (at least in Church) because of the sins of my first wife...it just does not mesh with a lot of the message that I have seen in Christianity...I hope I can ask God this one day...

  again sorry if you took any offense...


----------



## Gajbird (Nov 2, 2006)

*Deacon*

I wonder how many of the folks who have thoughts and opinions on who is " Qualified " to be a deacon have done the reseach of what God demands of a deacon or Elder in the church.

I am once married and a Deacon in a church that is non denominational but very close to Church of God / Congregational Methodist "types".

I have never been divorced but before the Blood Line I committed much sin that I would say would be much more damaging to my witness and walk with God than divorce. Especially if the circumstances of the divorce were beyond my control.

I once fought a fella and he nearly lost his life....but for the Grace of God I could very well have been a murderer.

Instead because of God's Grace I was elected a deacon years later by people who deemed me worthy.

I would never be so arrogant as to declare myself worthy or to exclude anyone else who bears the fruit of a righteous man.

I believe his Blood covers all as I feel you folks do.

God Bless,
Jay


----------



## Randy (Nov 2, 2006)

lake hartwell said:


> Actually the Apostle Paul said "men would be better off without wives" altogether.
> 
> 1st Corit. Chap 7 verse 1
> 1st Corit. Chap 7 verse 8



Boy I wish I had read that earlier in my life.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 2, 2006)

lake hartwell said:


> Actually the Apostle Paul said "men would be better off without wives" altogether.
> 
> 1st Corit. Chap 7 verse 1
> 1st Corit. Chap 7 verse 8



In context it reads a bit different:

1 Corinthians 7:1-9
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.


----------



## THREEJAYS (Nov 11, 2006)

GOD HAS AT MANY TIMES REQUIRED THINGS THAT WE WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND.IN TIMOTHY HE SAYS ONE WIFE ,AS FOR ME I'M NOT GOING TO TRY AND JUSTIFY WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY.HE GAVE  QUALIFICATIONS FOR DEACON AND ELDERS,IT'S NOT A MATTER OF SIN WE'ER ALL SINNERS.IT'S A MATTER OF WHO HE WANTED IN LEADERSHIP FOR HIS BRIDE.GOD NEVER INTENDED FOR MARRIAGE TO END IN DIVORCE.WE STARTED THAT.I'VE HAD FOLKS SAY THAT IF YOU DISSQUALIFY THE DIVORCED THEN SOME DAY THERES NO ONE LEFT.FOLKS MY GOD CAN DO ALL THINGS.


----------



## Branchminnow (Jul 17, 2008)

ttt just for kicks.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 17, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> I agree.



Dawg...we agree on something


----------



## reylamb (Jul 17, 2008)

Dick Winters said:


> So...
> 
> Charles Stanley has no business being in the pulpit or any other leadership role in the church? I'd have to respectfully disagree. He has done a great job of leading FBCA.
> 
> DW


Absolutely, positively, he has no business in front of the pulpit.  For many years Dr Stanley held the same belief.  When his own circumstances changed so did his belief.  Convenient how that works sometimes.

The Scriptures are very clear.  Any disagreements are with Scripture.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 17, 2008)

Dick Winters said:


> So...
> 
> Charles Stanley has no business being in the pulpit or any other leadership role in the church? I'd have to respectfully disagree. He has done a great job of leading FBCA.
> 
> DW



Has he done a great job?  Yes.

Do I enjoy his teaching? Yes.

Should he be in that position?  I don't believe so.  

One might point out that it was his wife that left him...divorced him or whatever.   Unfortunately I Tim doesn't point out if you were divorced before saved, or if your wife divorces you etc etc.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jul 17, 2008)

in our church you must vacate your deacon's position if you are going through a divorce, but there is no rule about being a deacon if you had been previously divorced long ago.


----------



## bat (Jul 17, 2008)

1 Timothy 3, Verse 2

 KJV version:  1Ti 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 

CEV version: 1Ti 3:2  That's why officials must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage. They must be self-controlled, sensible, well-behaved, friendly to strangers, and able to teach. 

GNB version:  1Ti 3:2  A church leader must be without fault; he must have only one wife, be sober, self-controlled, and orderly; he must welcome strangers in his home; he must be able to teach; 

HCSB version:  1Ti 3:2  An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, 

MKJV version:  1Ti 3:2  Then it behooves the overseer to be without reproach, husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, well-ordered, hospitable, apt at teaching, 

I've got a bunch more interpertations and I only see the same thing in all of them...  all are along the line of "the husband of one wife"... not seeing he must be "the person that only *had* one wife"...    I know the Bible reads in other areas like stated above in other posts the requirements of a divorce but I look at this scripture to understand what is needed for a person to qualify for Deaconship or a leader for that matter.  We are going thru this right now at our Church because the Deacons would like to add more Deacons to our Church.  Now lets look at some of the Commentaries that I have on this Scripture..  

I will include all of each version so as not to leave anything out that might be revelant..  
*Barnes version: * The husband of one wife - This need not be understood as requiring that a bishop “should be” a married man, as Vigilantius, a presbyter in the church at Barcelona in the fourth century, supposed, however desirable in general it may be that a minister of the gospel should be married. But, while this interpretation is manifestly to be excluded as false, there has been much difference of opinion on the question whether the passage means that a minister should not have more than one wife at the same time, or whether it prohibits the marriage of a second wife after the death of the first. On this question, the notes of Bloomfield, Doddridge, and Macknight, may be consulted. That the former is the correct opinion, seems to me to be evident from the following considerations:
(1) It is the most obvious meaning of the language, and it would doubtless be thus understood by those to whom it was addressed. At a time when polygamy was not uncommon, to say that a man should “have but one wife” would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy.
(2) the marriage of a second wife, after the death of the first, is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as wrong. The marriage of a widow to a second husband is expressely declared to be proper 1Co_7:39; and it is not unfair to infer from that permission that it is equally lawful and proper for man to marry the second time. But if it is lawful for any man it is right for a minister of the gospel. No reason can he assigned against such marriages in his case, which would not be equally valid in any other. Marriage is as honorable for a minister of the gospel as for any other man (compare notes on Heb_13:4); and, as Doddridge has well remarked, “Circumstances may be so adjusted that there may be as much reason for a second marriage as for the first, and as little inconvenience of any kind may attend it.”
(3) there was a special propriety in the prohibition, if understood as prohibiting polygamy. It is known that it was extensively practiced, and was not regarded as unlawful. Yet one design of the gospel was to restore the marriage relation to its primitive condition; and though it might not have seemed absolutely necessary to require of every man who came into the church to divorce his wives, if he had more than one, yet, in order to fix a brand on this irregular practice, it might have been deemed desirable to require of the ministers of the gospel that they should have but one wife. Thus the practice of polygamy would gradually come to be regarded as dishonorable and improper, and the example and influence of the ministry would tend to introduce correct views in regard to the nature of this relation. One thing is clear from this passage, that the views of the Papists in regard to the celibacy of the clergy are directly at variance with the Bible. The declaration of Paul in Heb_13:4, is, that “marriage is honorable in all;” and here it is implied that it was proper that a minister should be married. If it were not, why did not Paul prohibit it altogether? Instead of saying that it was improper that a bishop should have more than one wife, why did he not say that it was improper that he should be married at all? Would not a Romanist say so now?

*Clarke version: *  Second - must be the husband of one wife. He should be a married man, but he should be no polygamist; and have only one wife, i.e. one at a time. It does not mean that, if he has been married, and his wife die, he should never marry another. Some have most foolishly spiritualized this, and say, that by one wife the Church is intended! This silly quibbling needs no refutation. The apostle’s meaning appears to be this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his wife and married another; nor one that has two wives at a time. It does not appear to have been any part of the apostle’s design to prohibit second marriages, of which some have made such a serious business. But it is natural for some men to tithe mint and cummin in religion, while they neglect the weightier matters of the law.

*Gill version: * The husband of one wife; which is not to be understood in a mystical and allegorical sense of his being the pastor of one church, since the apostle afterwards speaks of his house and children, that are to be ruled and kept in good order by him, in distinction from the church of God; but in a literal sense of his conjugal estate; though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife; or that he should not marry, or not have married a second wife, after the death of the first; only if he marries or is married, that he should have but one wife at a time; so that this rule excludes all such persons from being elders, or pastors, or overseers of churches, that were "polygamists"; who had more wives than one at a time, or had divorced their wives, and not for adultery, and had married others. Now polygamy and divorces had very much obtained among the Jews; nor could the believing Jews be easily and at once brought off of them. And though they were not lawful nor to be allowed of in any; yet they were especially unbecoming and scandalous in officers of churches. So the high priest among the Jews, even when polygamy was in use, might not marry, or have two wives, at once; if he did, he could not minister in his office until he divorced one of them (u). For it is written, Lev_21:13, "he shall take a wife", ×�×—×ª ×•×œ×� ×©×ª×™×�, "one, and not two" (w). And the same that is said of the high priest, is said of all other priests; see Eze_44:22, likewise the Egyptian priests might not marry more wives than one, though others might have as many as they pleased (x): and so the Flamines among the Romans .  

*JFB version: * 1Ti 3:2  
The existence of Church organization and presbyters at Ephesus is presupposed (1Ti_5:17, 1Ti_5:19). The institution of Church widows (1Ti_5:3-25) accords with this. The directions here to Timothy, the president or apostolic delegate, are as to filling up vacancies among the bishops and deacons, or adding to their number. New churches in the neighborhood also would require presbyters and deacons. Episcopacy was adopted in apostolic times as the most expedient form of government, being most nearly in accordance with Jewish institutions, and so offering the less obstruction through Jewish prejudices to the progress of Christianity. The synagogue was governed by presbyters, “elders” (Act_4:8; Act_24:1), called also bishops or overseers. Three among them presided as “rulers of the synagogue,” answering to “bishops” in the modern sense [Lightfoot, Hebrew and Talmudic Exercitations], and one among them took the lead. Ambrose (in The Duties of the Clergy [2.13], as also Bingham [Ecclesiastical Antiquities, 2.11]) says, “They who are now called bishops were originally called apostles. But those who ruled the Church after the death of the apostles had not the testimony of miracles, and were in many respects inferior. Therefore they thought it not decent to assume to themselves the name of apostles; but dividing the names, they left to presbyters the name of the presbytery, and they themselves were called bishops.” “Presbyter” refers to the rank; “bishop,” to the office or function. Timothy (though not having the name) exercised the power at Ephesus then, which bishops in the modern sense more recently exercised.
blameless — “unexceptionable”; giving no just handle for blame.
husband of one wife — confuting the celibacy of Rome’s priesthood. Though the Jews practiced polygamy, yet as he is writing as to a Gentile Church, and as polygamy was never allowed among even laymen in the Church, the ancient interpretation that the prohibition here is against polygamy in a candidate bishop is not correct. It must, therefore, mean that, though laymen might lawfully marry again, candidates for the episcopate or presbytery were better to have been married only once. As in 1Ti_5:9, “wife of one man,” implies a woman married but once; so “husband of one wife” here must mean the same. The feeling which prevailed among the Gentiles, as well as the Jews (compare as to Anna, Luk_2:36, Luk_2:37), against a second marriage would, on the ground of expediency and conciliation in matters indifferent and not involving compromise of principle, account for Paul’s prohibition here in the case of one in so prominent a sphere as a bishop or a deacon. Hence the stress that is laid in the context on the repute in which the candidate for orders is held among those over whom he is to preside (Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----_1:16). The Council of Laodicea and the apostolic canons discountenanced second marriages, especially in the case of candidates for ordination. Of course second marriage being lawful, the undesirableness of it holds good only under special circumstances. It is implied here also, that he who has a wife and virtuous family, is to be preferred to a bachelor; for he who is himself bound to discharge the domestic duties mentioned here, is likely to be more attractive to those who have similar ties, for he teaches them not only by precept, but also by example (1Ti_3:4, 1Ti_3:5). The Jews teach, a priest should be neither unmarried nor childless, lest he be unmerciful [Bengel]. So in the synagogue, “no one shall offer up prayer in public, unless he be married” [in Colbo, ch. 65; Vitringa, Synagogue and Temple].

*Henry version:  *  2. He must be the husband of one wife; not having given a bill of divorce to one, and then taken another, or not having many wives at once, as at that time was too common both among Jews and Gentiles, especially among the Gentiles. 

We once had a Pastor that had admittedly been in prison and had once taken a life of another person..  he got saved while in prison and went on to become a Pastor.  One of the best we have ever had.  He has since been Pastors of some very big Churches and I believe now is in Missionary work for the Lord.  God leads people to do his work...  we should allow God to lead us to the right persons to do our leadership.  I myself feel we will select a person/persons for our Church that God leads us to select.  If it does not happen, God was not ready for us to have other Deacons.  Trust your heart and soul to make the decisions after you do a lot of praying over it..


----------



## PWalls (Jul 17, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> What is the difference?   If one can not manage their home (children or wife, for whatever reason) how can they manage a much more complex, multi-faceted, high stress, very demanding church?




That's the kicker for me. I understand the argument that "one wife" is really against polygamy and such and not necessarily against divorce.

But a Deacon/Pastor is also called to manage their household. Regardless of whether or not the divorce is their fault, something happened in the household. The man as head of the household is ultimately responsible for that household.

I guess the rub comes in does that mean the man has to quit being a Pastor/Deacon if not his fault.


----------



## PWalls (Jul 17, 2008)

Dick Winters said:


> Paul was one of the best apostles who ever lived. He was a murderer. Given that, I'd say a divorced deacon would be ok.



Paul also had a personal encounter with the risen Lord Jesus. Maybe not quite apples to apples. See what you are trying to say though.


----------



## reylamb (Jul 18, 2008)

Paul was also not holding the office of deacon.  

Paul's actions happened prior to his conversion.  To say he was good, or best or anything else is also to ignore Scriptures, all our works are as filthy rags, there are none righteous, no not one..........etc etc etc.

Paul himself said he was the vilest of offendors.

At the end of the day, the Scriptures are quite clear, choosing to ignore them because the individual is a good man is immaterial.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jul 18, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Paul also had a personal encounter with the risen Lord Jesus. Maybe not quite apples to apples. See what you are trying to say though.



well if someone is going to be a deacon in the church they better have had a personal encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ, wouldn't you say?

If any ex-sinner who is now saved can be a deacon I don't see why someone who had a divorce in the past can't be.


----------



## PWalls (Jul 18, 2008)

Doc_Holliday23 said:


> well if someone is going to be a deacon in the church they better have had a personal encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ, wouldn't you say?
> 
> If any ex-sinner who is now saved can be a deacon I don't see why someone who had a divorce in the past can't be.




What is everyone's viewpoint on before/after Salvation? Can a man that was divorced prior to Salvation be a deacon? Doesn't the act of Salvation wipe clean anything prior? I really don't have an issue with a Christian who gets a divorce not being a deacon because of reasons above. But, what about prior?


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Jul 18, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Doesn't the act of Salvation wipe clean anything prior?



It wipes the slate clean with the Lord. But apparantly not with some of the folks in this discussion.

The scriptures in reference do not mention divorce at all. Bringing it into the discussion is simply man trying to add to the scripture. Happens all the time, but that does not make it part of the Word!

The Word clearly says one wife, that means married to one.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 18, 2008)

PWalls said:


> What is everyone's viewpoint on before/after Salvation? Can a man that was divorced prior to Salvation be a deacon? Doesn't the act of Salvation wipe clean anything prior? I really don't have an issue with a Christian who gets a divorce not being a deacon because of reasons above. But, what about prior?



That is a tough call...However, I think that scripture still applies.  One wife.

Sin has consequences...whether your saved or not saved, you must live with those consequences.  Obviously if you are saved, you are forgiven and Christ's death covers the penalty payment for that sin, but the consequence still remains.

You've got to ask yourself...where does it stop.  What if someone had multiple wives before being saved.  Should this not apply?  What if the person was a homosexual and then was saved.  Should this not apply?  What if the person couldn't manage his household and his kids are out of control.  He is saved, should this passage not apply?

You can't interpret scripture based on circumstances.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Jul 18, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> That is a tough call...However, I think that scripture still applies.  One wife.
> 
> Sin has consequences...whether your saved or not saved, you must live with those consequences.  Obviously if you are saved, you are forgiven and Christ's death covers the penalty payment for that sin, but the consequence still remains.
> 
> ...



So the Blood is only powerful enough to cover small sins?


----------



## PWalls (Jul 18, 2008)

Jeff Phillips said:


> It wipes the slate clean with the Lord. But apparantly not with some of the folks in this discussion.
> 
> The scriptures in reference do not mention divorce at all. Bringing it into the discussion is simply man trying to add to the scripture. Happens all the time, but that does not make it part of the Word!
> 
> The Word clearly says one wife, that means married to one.



I agree that Scripture says "husband of one wife" and is talking about Polygamy. However, Scripture also says that a Deacon/Pastor is be head of his household and that if that man can not do that, how can he govern the Church. Divorce (whether his fault or not) is a failure of the household. That is where I have an issue with a Divorced Deacon/Pastor.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 18, 2008)

Jeff Phillips said:


> So the Blood is only powerful enough to cover small sins?



Nope...the Blood covers all sins.  It pays the penalty that God requires of sin.  However, you must still live with the consequences.

For example, you sleep around prior to salvation....you get an STD.  You get saved.  Christ's death on the cross and resurection covers your sins...wipes them clean of the slate and you are justified in the eyes of God.  However, you still have an STD.  That consequence is with you for the rest of your life.


----------



## AM1 (Jul 18, 2008)

I believe any church office should be as kept as clean as possible. I am a deacon & at the church I belong to, we choose & elect our pastors & deacons based on the qualifications listed in 1st timothy, which we interpret to mean divorced men cannot be ordained deacons or ministers. If they get divorced after they have been ordained, they are obligated to step down. To do this shows respect for the congregation & to Christ. We are all supposed to set an example to the lost. Deacons & pastors are no better than anybody else, (I certainly don't consider myself to be), but they are given a charge at their ordination & the responsibilities & what is expected of you are clearly laid out at this service. My heart goes out to ordained men who have had a spouse cheat on them (the only justification for divorce, according to Christ)I know several personally. All had enough love for their respective churches to step down from their offices. Even if the divorce was justified, your influence with the church has been diminished & to step aside only helps you to keep the respect of your community & christain family. If it ever were to befall me, I would do what was right for the church, not for myself (after all, that's in the job description).


----------



## Milkman (Jul 18, 2008)

Why do some denominations  hold deacons and pastors to different expectations than regular members?

Are they going to be rewarded in a different manner in Heaven?

I tend to put everyone to this qualifier

Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.


----------



## Branchminnow (Jul 18, 2008)

Milkman said:


> Why do some denominations  hold deacons and pastors to different expectations than regular members?
> 
> .




Because of the writings by paul in Timothy. very simple.


----------



## Branchminnow (Jul 18, 2008)

AM1 said:


> I believe any church office should be as kept as clean as possible. I am a deacon & at the church I belong to, we choose & elect our pastors & deacons based on the qualifications listed in 1st timothy, which we interpret to mean divorced men cannot be ordained deacons or ministers. If they get divorced after they have been ordained, they are obligated to step down. To do this shows respect for the congregation & to Christ. We are all supposed to set an example to the lost. Deacons & pastors are no better than anybody else, (I certainly don't consider myself to be), but they are given a charge at their ordination & the responsibilities & what is expected of you are clearly laid out at this service. My heart goes out to ordained men who have had a spouse cheat on them (the only justification for divorce, according to Christ)I know several personally. All had enough love for their respective churches to step down from their offices. Even if the divorce was justified, your influence with the church has been diminished & to step aside only helps you to keep the respect of your community & christain family. If it ever were to befall me, I would do what was right for the church, not for myself (after all, that's in the job description).



AS good and true a post as I have ever read.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Jul 18, 2008)

How about Deacon/Pastor that can not control their Kids?

I am referring to the ones that still live under the same roof not the ones that have moved out.

DB BB


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 18, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> How about Deacon/Pastor that can not control their Kids?
> 
> I am referring to the ones that still live under the same roof not the ones that have moved out.
> 
> DB BB




Can't manage their household...they can't manage the house of God.  Need to step down.

This does not mean that their children must be saved.  However, if they are unsaved, they must respect their elders and abide by the rules the family has in place.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jul 18, 2008)

PWalls said:


> What is everyone's viewpoint on before/after Salvation? Can a man that was divorced prior to Salvation be a deacon? Doesn't the act of Salvation wipe clean anything prior? I really don't have an issue with a Christian who gets a divorce not being a deacon because of reasons above. But, what about prior?



this is the situation I was describing.  Bible says old things pass away, behold all things become new.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jul 18, 2008)

Milkman said:


> Why do some denominations  hold deacons and pastors to different expectations than regular members?
> 
> Are they going to be rewarded in a different manner in Heaven?
> 
> ...



actually, since they are the leaders of the church, I think thy should be held to a higher standard and I think they will be rewarded accordingly in heaven for the souls that they reach.

and like I said, I dont think a sitting pastor or deacon should be allowed to maintain their ministerial seat if they are going through a current divorce for reasons stated by others.  I dont think they should be allowed to stay if they are living a lifestyle of other sins, either.

however, a divorce from the past when they were not saved is covered by the blood just like every other sin they ever committed.


----------



## Doc_Holliday23 (Jul 18, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Because it is scripture based.



so what scripture did the Catholics get the doctrine that a Priest could never be married?


----------



## THREEJAYS (Jul 19, 2008)

Again it is simple to me"don't try to justify what it does not say"thats where we mess things up.


----------



## saved by grace (Jul 20, 2008)

Sorry Doc no such thing as an EX SINNER I was a sinner before I accepted JESUS as my personal savior and I am now a sinner saved by grace. As for the qualifications of a pastor or a deacon they are just that qualifications. 1st Timothy 3;11 says "EVEN SO MUST THEIR WIVES BE GRAVE, NOT SLANDERERS, SOBER, FATHFUL IN ALL THINGS." (kjv) so even the conduct of the wife, of a one woman man could disqualify him. As for me I believe that a divorced man is not qualified to serve as a deacon. So with that said, I have worked as a carpenter/ home builder for near bouts 20 years I'm not qualified to stamp the bottom of the blueprints as an architect but I have fixed my share of their mistakes. Just because someone is not qualified does'nt mean they are not capable. GOD BLESS.


----------



## trapperP (Jul 21, 2008)

*Sticky situation here!*

As a follow-up to this very interesting article, allow me to chime in with my two cents worth.  I am an ordained deacon, have been for many years and I believe this is a question that cannot be answered 'Yea' or 'Nay.'  Each individual case must be addressed as an individual case with consideration given to the factors involved.  For instance, and I'll cite one plus my own personal, we had a man recommended for the office of Deacon and a couple of the active deacons knew of his divorce and remarriage and counseled with him at length.  In his case, he went home from work and found his wife of some five years gone along with virtually everything they owned.  After consideration, discussion and much prayer, the active deacon body recommended that he be presented to the Church for ordination to the office of deacon.  He would not allow his name to be placed for consideration to the Church because of his own personal convictions and I respect him for that although I think he would have made a fine deacon.
In my own personal case, I am currently married to my second wife, both of us having been widowed.  I was an active deacon when my wife and I were married and I immediately offered to step down if anyone of the deacon body found fault with my serving as a deacon.  Thankfully, they unanimously rejected my offer to resign and I have served two further terms since then – we serve a four year term and then rotate off.
So,  I am not able in my heart to condemn a divorced man from servitude as a deacon without knowledge of and consideration for all the factors involved.  It is just not possible to fairly and objectively do so.


----------



## AM1 (Jul 21, 2008)

trapperP said:


> As a follow-up to this very interesting article, allow me to chime in with my two cents worth.  I am an ordained deacon, have been for many years and I believe this is a question that cannot be answered 'Yea' or 'Nay.'  Each individual case must be addressed as an individual case with consideration given to the factors involved.  For instance, and I'll cite one plus my own personal, we had a man recommended for the office of Deacon and a couple of the active deacons knew of his divorce and remarriage and counseled with him at length.  In his case, he went home from work and found his wife of some five years gone along with virtually everything they owned.  After consideration, discussion and much prayer, the active deacon body recommended that he be presented to the Church for ordination to the office of deacon.  He would not allow his name to be placed for consideration to the Church because of his own personal convictions and I respect him for that although I think he would have made a fine deacon.
> In my own personal case, I am currently married to my second wife, both of us having been widowed.  I was an active deacon when my wife and I were married and I immediately offered to step down if anyone of the deacon body found fault with my serving as a deacon.  Thankfully, they unanimously rejected my offer to resign and I have served two further terms since then – we serve a four year term and then rotate off.
> So,  I am not able in my heart to condemn a divorced man from servitude as a deacon without knowledge of and consideration for all the factors involved.  It is just not possible to fairly and objectively do so.



I do not see how you can compare the two instances. Your first wife passed away (my condolences & respects), however that was an act of God calling her away. God never does anything that would disqualify you from being an ordained servant. There would be no reason for you to step down (although I do salute your integrity in offering). I for one am not condemning anyone whose spouse left them for someone else. We have had a rash of that in my neck of the woods. the wives suddenly decide they don't want to be married to ordained men anymore. I can't explain it. I do believe that as long as an ordained man does not  re-marry after a divorce, then technically he is still qualified to serve. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Jul 21, 2008)

AM1 said:


> I do believe that as long as an ordained man does not  re-marry after a divorce, then technically he is still qualified to serve. Correct me if I'm wrong.



That's how I was always taught.


----------



## Branchminnow (Jul 21, 2008)

Twenty five ought six said:


> That's how I was always taught.



yep me too.


----------



## Big7 (Jul 22, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> You can't interpret scripture based on circumstances.



Happens here all the time!


----------



## Big7 (Jul 22, 2008)

1 Corinthians
Chapter 7
1 
1 2 3 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman," 
2 
but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. 
3 
The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. 
4 
A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. 
5 
Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. 
6 
This I say by way of concession, 4 however, not as a command. 
7 
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, 5 one of one kind and one of another. 
8 
6 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, 
9 
but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire. 
10 
To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): 7 a wife should not separate from her husband 
11 
--and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife. 
12 
To the rest 8 I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her; 
13 
and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband. 
14 
For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy. 
15 
If the unbeliever separates, 9 however, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace. 
16 
For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband; or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? 

From HERE: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians7.htm


----------



## PWalls (Jul 22, 2008)

Branchminnow said:


> yep me too.



Branch, does the fact that a divorce occurred disqualify the Deacon? Should he step down? Even if for reasons of infedility on the wife's part? Does that fall under the category of not being in control of his own house?


----------



## Branchminnow (Jul 22, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Branch, does the fact that a divorce occurred disqualify the Deacon? Should he step down? Even if for reasons of infedility on the wife's part? Does that fall under the category of not being in control of his own house?



No the divorce is not the point. The point is that he keep himself from marrying again. Stepping down is certainly a personal choice, we had one deacon step down because his wife ran around on him, and though according to what we believe he did not have to, he did what he thought would not bring dishonor and reproach on the church and turned in his credentials. 

In control of his own house......need to do some studying about that.


----------



## PWalls (Jul 22, 2008)

Branchminnow said:


> No the divorce is not the point. The point is that he keep himself from marrying again. Stepping down is certainly a personal choice, we had one deacon step down because his wife ran around on him, and though according to what we believe he did not have to, he did what he thought would not bring dishonor and reproach on the church and turned in his credentials.
> 
> In control of his own house......need to do some studying about that.



I understand about the husband of one wife thing. Agree with your belief there.

What throws me is the following verse:

1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own house well.

So, in the same verse that we get our understanding of husband of one wife, we also get a sense of importance about ruling their own house.

Compare that back to this verse for bishops:

1 Timothy 3:5
For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

I guess the question is, does divorce in the house reflect on the man's rule over the house and his ability to be a deacon according to Scripture?


----------

