pinklight

Now I’m trying to make sense out of “anyone who desires” in comparison to “husband of one wife”.

A husband is not just “anyone” but particularily 1) a married person and 2) a male. So “husband of one wife” (if a requirement) just doesn’t fit logicaly with “anyone who desires”. Paul going from “anyone” to particularily a male who is married doesn’t make sense. A married man (“husband of one wife”) cannot be previously referred to as “anyone” – not sensibly. This may be reason why the interpretation is reduced to a meaning of males only whether married or not. But then that leads us right back to a problem -“However if “must be a **husband** of one wife” does not mean literally that one must be a **husband** for a man, then it cannot on the other hand disqualify a woman because she is also not a “husband”. You cannot have it both ways.”