Live Q&A Follow-up - The Husband of One Wife

Last night we had a second Live Question and Answer night to help conclude our message series, “God, I have a question.” One of the questions asked was: what is meant by the husband of one wife in the qualifications for elders and deacons? We did answer the question, but I wanted to provide a more detailed answer given the importance of the concept.

This characteristic, the husband of one wife, is the first of six positive qualities that Paul employed to help describe a life that is above reproach – being above reproach is fundamental qualification of a church leader. The husband of one wife is also the most difficult or contentious of the list to define. A scholar named C. K. Barrett described this characteristic as “notoriously obscure.”[1]

At least four basic interpretations and a number of variations of those views have been offered. One scholar suggested that it could mean: “(1) ‘Must be married,’ (2) ‘Not polygamous,’ (3) ‘Faithful to his wife,’ or (4) ‘Not remarried/divorced.” Another suggested that the trait was meant to exclude those who “(1) were unmarried, (2) were polygamous, (3) had been divorced, or (4) had remarried after the death of their first spouse.” Yet another writer described the views as marriage as a requisite, one wife in a lifetime, no divorce, and faithful to one’s wife. And one final scholar expressed the views as elders must be married, elders must not be polygamists, elders may marry only once, and elders must be martially and sexually above reproach.

Perhaps the simplest explanation for the challenge with this trait is that the phrase itself is unusual. A Greek scholar William Mounce noted, “The Greek has to be ‘squeezed’ to illicit any meaning.”[2] Homer A. Kent, Jr. wrote, “The interpretation of this short phrase has been disputed from the earliest times.”[3]

To help interpret the expression, two considerations should be made. First, the overall tenor of the list found in 1 Timothy 3 deals with issues of character not events or conditions. The marital fidelity view understands the phrase “the husband of one wife” not as a description of a condition that results from past events, but as a moral quality that is currently being demonstrated. From a review of the grammatical structure of the phrase in the context of the list, it appears that Paul was emphasizing the man’s character related to male-female relationships and not his actual marital situation. Well known pastor, John MacArthur affirmed the same conclusion when he stated: “Paul is not referring to the leader’s marital status, as the absence of the definite article in the original indicates. Rather the issue is his moral, sexual behavior.”[4] The first consideration gives merit to a marital fidelity view, which would be understood as Paul calling for an elder to be faithful in his relationship with his wife and with women in general.

Second, a scholar named Sydney Page concluded from a study of the New Testament and comparable literature that there was no obvious way at the time to express the concept of marital fidelity in the Greek language at that time.[5] The lack of such an expression may be a result of excessive moral laxity within the Greek culture. Again, John MacArthur noted this qualification of marital fidelity “was especially important in Ephesus, where sexual evil was rampant.”[6] The end result means that if you wanted to express the idea of man who was faithful to his marriage vows or to sexual morality if single, in a positive way, you would probably have to coin a phrase.

Understanding exactly what is meant by the words the husband of one wife is not simple. But it would appear that a noted part of being above reproach as a church leader would mean that the man in question exhibits faithfulness and fidelity to the marriage relationship. His interaction with his wife and women in general is worthy of imitation.

---

[1]C. K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles in the New English Bible: With Introduction and Commentary (London: Oxford University Press, 1963; reprint, Grand Rapids: Outreach Publications, 1986), 58.

[2]William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 172.

[3]Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in I and II Timothy and Titus (Chicago: Moody, 1958), 126.

[4]John MacArthur, Jr., 1 Timothy, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 104.

[5]Sydney Page, “Marital Expectations of Church Leaders in the Pastoral Epistles,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 50 (June 1993): 119.

[6]MacArthur, Different by Design, 116. 

Live Q&A Follow-up - Satan and Pride

I am almost through the questions we did not have time to answer at the Live Question and Answer night on September 29. Here is another question: If heaven is perfect and there is not sin there, how did Satan have the sin of pride which got him thrown out of heaven?

This question, like the other question, is a good question. Sometimes good questions are not easy to answer. We do have a good sense that at some point Satan had to sin. Some scholars have offered Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as expressions of that very sin. But not all scholars would agree those passages are directly referring to Satan and his fall. So though they might give us some idea of what the sin of pride looks like, it may not be an actual reference to Satan.

So how did Satan have the sin of pride? I do not believe that the Bible takes the time to deal with that question. The Bible was written to help us live in a world that is marked by Satan and his sin of pride. But given the validity of the question let me offer a suggestion from Augustine. In his book The City of God, Augustine wrote, “For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil – not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked.” What I am suggesting is that perhaps Satan allowed himself to be captured more by the wonder of himself as a creation of God than he was with the God who created him. Pride came into his life because he got caught up in his goodness, but forgot that goodness was a gift of God. Pride came because of failing to focus on the One who was the completeness of goodness. God’s creations are amazing. But they will always be lower than God. When we forget that, we will be in big trouble. I would suggest that Satan got caught up in himself instead of God and the whole of creation has paid ever since. Even in the perfection of heaven, turning attention from lesser good can bring the evil of pride.

Live Q&A Follow-up - Pacifism

One more question from the September 29 Live Question and Answer night: should Christians be pacifists?

This question deals with a subject that I am not well versed on in any measure. I do know that a number of serious, thoughtful people have come to the conclusion that we should embrace such an approach to life. In contrast I do know other mature believers who would disagree with the idea that Christians must be pacifists.  Given that this issue is not one that I have study in depth in the past, I thought it might be wise to offer three links to other people who obviously have thought through the subject. If you have questions after reading their thoughts, please comment below.

Link #1 - Five Biblical Reasons Why Christians Should Be Pacifists

Link #2 – Five Reasons Why Pacifism is Not a Biblical Approach to Ethics

Link #3 – Must Christians Be Pacifists

Live Q&A Follow-up - Euthanize a Pet?

Another question from the Live Question and Answer night: Do you believe it is right to euthanize pets? Is it right to take their life just because they suffer?

To answer this question I think it is wise to remember Genesis 1:26-28:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." ²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ²⁸ And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

As a part of our creation as humanity, God gave us responsibility to rule over creation. The idea of the word translated dominion is that of absolute mastery. God has given us the responsibility over creation as listed in those verses. Please note carefully though, we do not have absolutely right over ourselves or other people.

If we take into consideration the responsibility God has given us to rule or have dominion, then I think it is possible to suggest when it comes to our pets that God has placed them into our responsibility in manner similar to God being responsible for our lives (Job 1:20-21 teaches that God is rightfully sovereign over our beginnings and endings). If that suggestion is accurate, then I would offer that we do have the right to make decisions about the ending of the life of a pet who is suffering. We have been given the responsibility to make, in the case of the pet, that kind of decision. We do not have the right to make that decision about ourselves or other people, because God has not given us that responsibility – that is His responsibility.

Live Q&A Follow-up - Cremation

I am trying to answer a few more of the questions left over from the Live Question and Answer night on September 29. The question for this post is: Cremation – how should we view it – is it biblical? how should we discuss this option with others?

To answer the first part of the question in terms of whether or not cremation is biblical, two things should be noted. First, there are at least three examples in the Old Testament of a type of cremation – Achan in Joshua 7:25, Saul in 1 Samuel 31:12, and the King of Edom in Amos 2:1. Though cremation took place, each of those examples is tied in some way to God’s judgment and curse. Second, there is no direct command that I am aware of that prohibits cremation. So if we just give consideration to the biblical data, we can say on occasion cremation took place, but it is not something that was promoted and the more normal practice was burial. Why was that the case?

To answer the why question we should probably consider history and tradition for a moment. Cremation was a normal practice for Greeks and Romans, yet the catacombs in Rome suggest that the early Christians buried their dead. Christian grave sites, cemeteries, which comes from a word that means sleeping places, were understood o reflect a belief in the future resurrection.

Why did the early church adopt that view in a culture pro-cremation? It seems that early church believed that cremation was associated with pagan rituals and beliefs that were unbiblical. As such the most God-honoring way to handle the body of a Christ follower who died was to bury the body in anticipation of the future resurrection. As result for most of church history, burial was the common method.

Cremation entered into American culture on December 6, 1876 when Baron Joseph Henry Louis Charles De Palm was cremated in Washington, Pennsylvania. Baron De Palm was part of the Theosophical Society, a group that was influenced by many things other than God and the Bible. The cremation ceremony included readings from Charles Darwin and Hindu sacred writings.

So where does that leave us? Well, I cannot say that the practice of cremation is unbiblical, in that it is not directly prohibited in Scripture. But, cremation does have a tainted history and was not associated with God in a positive manner. Personally, I believe it might be wiser for a follower of the Lord Jesus to be buried rather than cremated.

To address the second part of the question in terms of how do you talk to others about cremation and burial, I would suggest you start with recognizing it is difficult to talk about things related to death. Then I would simply look at the history of cremation and its biblical connection.  Then I would probably ask the question:  Does my burial method communicate any message about the hope of the gospel? Should the resurrection have any impact on how I am buried? Please note, I am not saying that cremation prevents a person from being resurrected in any way. But I do see value in thinking about the how a burial may make a statement about the resurrection and not simply think about the economics of cremation versus a full casket burial.

Live Q&A Follow up - Pentecostals and Tongues

Here is another question that we did not have time to answer at the Live Question and Answer night on September 29: Why do Pentecostals seem to the gift of tongues and we don’t?

In trying to answer this question, I sense the possibility of the answer generating follow-up questions. Please either use the comment section of the blog site or bring your question to the next Live Question and Answer night on October 27 from 6 to 7:30 pm.

To answer the question I think we need to start by explaining the Classical Pentecostal understanding of salvation and the connection of the salvation to the Holy Spirit. To double check my answer please refer to the Assemblies of God's Fundamental Truths, especially points 7 and 8.

First, the whole process obviously begins with a person repenting and trusting the Lord Jesus as his or her Savior. Then, subsequent to that, this same person should expect and earnestly seek to experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Please note, I do not believe this experience is guaranteed, so it might be possible for a person who is saved to not experience it. It is at this point that tongues come into the picture, Classical Pentecostals hold that the initial physical evidence of experiencing the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. Though this type of speaking in tongues is similar to the gift of tongues discussed in 1 Corinthians, it is actually different in purpose and use.

So when we talk about Pentecostals having this gift, they might in fact state that in a number of cases it is not the gifts of tongues, but rather it is the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

That kind of changes the question to why do we not have this initial physical evidence for the baptism of the Holy Spirit? We would agree very much with our Pentecostal friends that people do repent and trust the Lord Jesus as their Savior. But, in light of verses like 1 Corinthians 12:13, we believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not something that we should seek subsequent to being justified by the Lord Jesus. Rather the baptism of the Holy Spirit is something that occurs simultaneously to every believer at conversion. It is an objective salvation fact every believer benefits from not an experience that comes later that we may or may not receive. The initial physical evidence, the most controversial portion of the Classical Pentecostal position, is something that we do not see as having biblical warrant. We do not believe that a person needs to speak in tongues to give evidence of having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. So that is why you will see many Pentecostals speaking in tongues, but we do not.

Prophets today?

Here is another question left over from the Live Question and Answer night on September 29: Are there still prophets today?

In pondering this question I think we need to keep a few things in mind as we move toward an answer. First, in the Old Testament there appeared to be an office of prophet (see for example 1 Samuel 10:11). There are also a number of books in the Old Testament that we refer to as the Prophets. It has been suggested that the Old Testament prophets did basically two things. One, they were involved in foretelling, meaning they revealed new information that was not previously known. I was told, though I cannot find a footnote to confirm it that about 10% of the prophecy was foretelling. The second thing the prophets did was to forth telling or remind people of things that had already been said. This function could account for 90% of what is called prophecy in the Old Testament.

Second, in looking at 1 Corinthians 14, specifically verse 3, it seems like the role or function of the prophet was to speak to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and comfort. They did not necessarily speak with divine authority according to 1 Corinthians 14:29. Other people, most likely the elders of the church, would evaluate and weigh what had been shared.

Third, the book of Revelation appears to share with the church a message about how the future will unfold. At the end of Revelation 22, the following is stated in verse 18 and 19:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, ¹⁹and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

It seems like God believes He has spoken a final word to us in Revelation, and there is not a need for the church to receive a further divinely authoritative message concerning the future. We may like to have more information, but God does not seem to be of the same conviction on the matter.

Putting those three matters into the mix, here is how I would answer the question.  In 1 Corinthians 14:1 and 14:39 Paul speaks highly of prophecy that would lead me to think that there could very well be a role for prophecy or a prophet today. With the statement in Revelation, I would hold that the idea of prophecy being something new and authoritatively binding on church is not possible. Foretelling would seem to be something that came to an end. But the idea of forth telling, especially in the sense of forth telling to encourage and strength people seems valid and within the biblical message. In that sense I do believe that we could have people today who could serve as prophets or speak prophetically in that they could remind us of God’s truth, renewing our minds to a heavenly or divine perspective on issues. In many ways I can see that we need that type of prophetic voice as we seek to operate in a changing culture.