Replies

I didn't interpret it at all. Here is what it says:

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,

Note it says "must be the husband of one wife". Note it does not equivocate. It says "must be" the husband of one wife. That means married and only once. It doesn't say "if married, must be the husband of one wife". It doesn't allow for much spin.

Now, now -- no need to waste your time... Facts and logic will only confuse the True Believers (in the commandments of men). For example, don't bring this passage up, either:

I Timothy 4:1-3 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

the husband of but one wife

That means "not the husband of more than one wife". If it excludes celibate men from church leadership, then you're claiming it excludes Jesus. You're also excluding John the Apostle, because there's no evidence that he ever married. There's a dispute about whether Paul was married, but it's clear that, if he was, he lived continently, because in 1 Corinthians he counsels his readers to be unmarried, saying "I wish you to be as I am".

Dear AppyPappy,

Yes, you are interpreting, and against the most natural meaning of the verse.

It doesn't say, "It says 'must be' the husband of one wife."

Now, you're not only misinterpreting, you're misquoting. You got it right just a sentence or two earlier, "the husband of but one wife".

This is a little archaic. It would be easier to understand if translated, "the husband of only one wife."

I own a rental condo in a building where the rule is that each unit must have only two cars. The word "must" doesn't apply to having two cars ("must have two cars"), it applies to having ONLY two cars, no more, that's the limit. I know a lot of folks in the building that only have one car. No one has cited them for breaking the condo rules.

But your interpretation, though it seems strained to me, isn't altogether outrageous. It is your interpretation.

It happens to be an interpretation that the overwhelming number of professed Christians worldwide reject. Catholics reject it. Holy Orthodoxy rejects it. The Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Methodists, most Baptists, etc., etc. reject this interpretation. But, I will grant, for the sake of argument, that it is a rationally defensible interpretation. It is clearly not an interpretation required by the text. The very fact that a relatively small number of professed Christians agrees with you is testament to that.

So, the question remains, by what authority do you assert that your interpretation is superior to the interpretation given to this verse by, say, 80% or 90% of the rest of the Christians in the world?

Just curious.

In charity,

sitetest