From: David Moore (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Mar 11 1996 - 09:35:52 EST
On Sun, 10 Mar 1996, Arlie D. Rauch wrote:
> Perhaps we should not dismiss the view of Nikolaos Adamou, PH.D., as merely
> traditional. I read somewhere that the early church fathers held the same
> view. That in itself doesn't prove anything, but can we discover why they
> did? There is practical wisdom in that view.
> Does 1 Tim. 5:9 shed any light? It seems that what is claimed for 1 Tim.
> 3:2 would have to be claimed for 1 Tim. 5:9 also, since the grammatical
> construction is identical.
> Though again it doesn't prove anything, notice that marriage law regarding
> the priests in Lev. 21 is more stringent than the general population. Is
> it possible that marriage requirements for church elders be more stringent?
It is possible that marriage requirements for church elders may
be more stringent than for other believers. Nevertheless, if Paul
counseled the young widows to remarry (I Tim. 5:14), either hENOS ANDROS
GUNH (5:9) does *not* mean "never remarried," or, alternately, Paul was
willing that they should forever disqualify themselves from becoming part
of the program he is talking about.
The singular construction we find in these verses may hold the
key to the interpretation. That this construction (number - genitive -
noun where the number and genitive together modify the other noun) did
not show up in a search of the NT except in these passages in the
Pastorals may indicate it is a singular construction with a singular
meaning. I was looking through a book of personal-correspondence papyri
last night to see if I could locate a similar construction, but no luck
on that score.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
firstname.lastname@example.org Department of Education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:40 EDT