In Discussing My Counterpoint – Part Seven, I address the Respondent’s third reply to my counterpoint, they said:
I brought up the blameless reference to show the way you earlier used it and ‘apt to teach’ would indicate one is not necessarily sinful even if not blameless. We are agreed on that. I acknowledge the requirement that church officers are mandated to be monogamists.
RH: “Is it more of a directive? I have to answer, no, because the word ‘directive’ insinuates, connotes, denotes: an order, or an edict, or a mandate, or a requirement. Nowhere does Scripture require, mandate, order a man to be only monogamous.”
Respondent: My view is that 1 Corinthians 7:2 could be that verse! I don’t know Greek but I understand “let … ” in Scripture in many such context to indicate a directive e.g. “let not man put asunder.” At times, LET denotes a request or permission but mostly it is an imperative. It could also mean rent [e.g. Matthew 21:41] or send down [e.g. Mark 2:4, Luke 5:5]
Paul was not inspired to write: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man be married, and let every woman have a husband.” I once alluded to singularity noting seed vs seeds in Galatians 3:16. Now I am alluding also to “OWN.” It connotes possessive/exclusive or better still personalization. This is harmonious with the permissible inference from Genesis 2 that ‘one man + one woman for life’ is God’s intent. Jesus went back to creation and the NT promotes/records only monogamy to take us back to God’s original plan.
In the link are my original comments, along with some added and extensive thoughts from me in my Post Segment Review: Discussing My Counterpoint – Part Seven.
Share on Facebook