Anca

Mike said,” Paul says “husband of one wife” (or “man of one woman”) to make sure that the overseer was not practicing polygamy, so hopefully a single man would not be practicing polygamy either, or he would be unqualified. A single man however would still be a “he.”

Mike that is a very good point! BUT, when using the same logic the other way around, we come to the same exact conclusion in regards to women! Let me explain. You are using common sense and realizing that it wasn’t necessary for Paul to address the unmarried men in that way since it wouldn’t be a moral issue for them in the first place. Simply put, the unmarried man cannot( by it’s very definition) be polygamous. For if you are polygamous, than you are also married! You are recognizing that Paul wasn’t’ addressing all men in general but rather the polygamous man. And it is on that recognition that you know better than to disqualify all men in general. I encourage you to be Faithful with this logic and carry that exegesis Full Circle!

Using the same logic, can we say that since in that culture women were not allowed to be polygamous, Paul would not have had a reason to address them in that context? That it was already understood from silence and culture that women, (substituted for men in your conclusion) were not polygamous? That Paul was not making a broad point but had a particular audience in mind in regards to the restriction and that women and unmarried men were not it? So then, if single men are not excluded on the those grounds of not meeting the criteria, than neither should the women be excluded! As far as you saying “At least he is a he” – think about it! It wouldn’t matter since “shes” were not polygamous and Paul would not need that restriction place on them in order to qualify for that position! Paul did not address the women for the same reason he did not address the unmarried men! He was not concerned with the sexes, he was concerned with polygamous men! It was not a command to restrict the unmarried men nor the women, it was a command to restrict the polygamous who at that time were only males!
After knowing the motive behind Paul’s command, using the argument to justify the exception for unmarried men but not women is being partial and dishonest!

Will you please help me with a problem I keep running into by giving me some expert advice? Every Friday night I have a prayer meeting in my home with a mixed group of both men and women. Since the men have different biological parts than the women, they have an issue that applies particularly to them. I unfortunately had to put a sign on the bathroom door that says” Any Man Who Wants To Use MY Bathroom Must Put The Toilet Set Down After He Is Done, Or He May not Use It! I The next thing I know, the men start arguing with the women and refuse to allow any of them to use the bathroom! They insisted that since the note addressed men only that the women were not allowed to use the bathroom!! That because of the specific mention of the men the women did not qualify! I was so disappointed to see that they had completely missed my point and treated the women so unfairly! What do you think I should tell the men to help them understand what I really meant?

If I offended you by the above example, please remember that Jesus also spoke in parables. As foolish as the story above may seem, when one uses the “husband of one wife” phrase to restrict women from aspiring to the position of an overseer, they are using the same unintelligent logic as the men did in the story above!