BlazedbyGod
Mar 6, 2009
1 Tim 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, [b]the husband of one wife
Any insights on " ....the husband of ONE wife..."?
Thanks to all who reply
1 Tim 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, [b]the husband of one wife
Any insights on " ....the husband of ONE wife..."?
Thanks to all who reply
In context it is excluding anyone who has been divorced because the most of the requirements for "bishops" (elders/pastors) have to do with his reputation and the reputation of his family. Thus the verse about if he can't guide and direct his own house how can he be expected to guide and direct God's house?
For me, this is not open to debate, altho some here will debate all day long that a divorced man can be an elder/pastor. Scripture says [b]no, he can't
In my opinion, this does not refer to men who's wife passed away and then he married a second time. Other scriptures make it clear that that is perfectly acceptable in God's eyes.
This is not in any way to say that divorced people can not be used of God. I get accused of saying that. That's not what I'm saying. But when it comes to being an elder/pastor... scripture, [b]not me
Got an issue with that? Go tell God about it... He wrote it.
Krispy
KrispyKrittr wrote:
In context it is excluding anyone who has been divorced because the most of the requirements for "bishops" (elders/pastors) have to do with his reputation and the reputation of his family. Thus the verse about if he can't guide and direct his own house how can he be expected to guide and direct God's house?For me, this is not open to debate, altho some here will debate all day long that a divorced man can be an elder/pastor. Scripture says
[b]no, he can't[/b] .In my opinion, this does not refer to men who's wife passed away and then he married a second time. Other scriptures make it clear that that is perfectly acceptable in God's eyes.
Krispy
Thanks Krispy, I tend to see it that way too. But I am just cuirous, because a brother of mine joined a ministry where the Bishop there is called an " ARCH-BISHOP"-and the man is recently divorced from his wife of 26 years and 4 children, they've divorced before, got married again-and now divorced again, and now, he as of 2008 married someone else.
He has no business being in the pulpit or mascarading as an elder. The Bible has another name for "Arch-Bishops"... it's called "NICOLAITAN". This was people who lorded their religious "authority" over the common people. Thats what these titles and robes and all that stuff does.
Krispy
Ditto to Krispy.
Also, do you think that elders [b]must
With care in Christ,
Taylor
Personally, I think it's better if they are. But I dont think we can be dogmatic about that based on what this verse says. It's obviously stating that if you're going to be an elder you need to have your own house in order. I think if a single man meets every other requirement, then it's hard to deny him... and God may have given him the gift of celebacy in order to have more time to serve God.
But personally, I think it's better if he is married because a wife and family keeps a man grounded.
Also, how can a single man teach others about marriage or raising children?
Krispy
Paul was single, wasn't he? :-)
Yep, Paul was single and look how much insight he had into marriage! He wrote Corinthians. He said that being single is preferred though not required so it can't mean that a bishop be REQUIRED to have a wife. What he meant by "husband of one wife" was basically a condemnation of polygomy.
Paul was knowledgable of marriage, yea, Paul was single, yea......but I still think there is a difference between someone who just has the knowledge and wisdom, versus someone who has the knowledge, wisdom, AND experience.
Paul was not married, ...........but Jesus is, (and of course I do not mean in the flesh)
I think the verse, applies to both againist polygomy, but aslo against divorce and remarriage for someone who calls themselve a bishop.
Paul was an apostle, but isn't a Bishop different?
You said that Jesus is married which is correct. Was not Jesus speaking through Paul as he wrote the scriptures? So I don't see why the Holy Spirit speaking through a single man cannot give advice to a married man.
the husband of one wife
Literally this means "one woman man". The sense in which Paul is writing is that in that culture it was customary to have multiple wives at a time. Thus a bishop should have one wife not many like the unsaved around him.
If you look at the verb tense for the whole passage and the given requirements, it is in the present tense which means "at that moment". It does not mean for his whole life.
Consider the qualifications given-
1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1Ti 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
1Ti 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
1Ti 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Now if we take the wife part to mean what is being presented by most here, then the language for the whole passage would be different.
If we say that a man can only be married once forever or he is disqualified from being an overseer, then we must also say that if he was ever angry, not hospitable, not sober, quarrelsome, or if he did not keep any of the other traits, or if he broke them at any time in his life then he is disqualified and I really don't know who would be qualified then.
The language does not support this view as it means "presently".
Paul was single, wasn't he?
Paul was single... and Paul was not an elder or a pastor. He was an Apostle and Missionary. You're comparing apples to oranges.
In Paul's particular calling being single is actually an advantage.
Krispy
Literally this means "one woman man". The sense in which Paul is writing is that in that culture it was customary to have multiple wives at a time. Thus a bishop should have one wife not many like the unsaved around him.
This is the typical argument that is used to justify the ordination of divorced men into the elder/pastoral ministry... and it is a fairytale. Sorry, dont mean to offend, but thats what it is.
Yes, one can read into this that he is speaking about multiple wives... but quite clearly when speaking to the same cultures he dealt quite a bit with adultry. So there was a general culture of marriage (1 man/1 woman) in all of Paul's writings... but NOW we want to say he's only speaking of multiple spouses? No, he is speaking of divorce and remarriage. And yes, "husband of one wife" can address multiple spouses should that ever be an issue... but it was not addressed at all by Paul in any other passages, therefore it is unreasonable to think that this was all Paul was referring to.
Context, baby! Context!
Krispy
What if the divorce and remarriage took place before the person was saved?
I would still err on the side of being too conservative. However, I had an uncle who was married and divorced when he was like 20 yrs old. He was married for about 6 months. No children.
Then he married my aunt, and they were married for about 10 yrs before they got saved. About 5 years after they got saved he felt called to preach.
I think under those circumstances, after much prayer, if the "powers that be" believe God is giving the ok... then yes.
See the spirit of what Paul was writing to Timothy is that the man needs to be above reproach. As to his immediate family, his wife and kids also need to be above reproach. Why? Because if they are not then they bring reproach on the name of Christ, and many folks wont listen to the man anyway.
A man who gets married, has kids, gets divorced, remarries and gets saved STILL has to deal with his ex-wife... still has to deal with a chaotic homelife because his children are torn between two homes... and that is a distraction to him.
A man who has his house in order, who's wife is a support to him and his ministry, and his kids are godly can lead a church effectively and without bringing reproach to the name of Christ.
What I get sick of hearing are all the justifications of why it's ok for pastors to have been divorced. Scripture says it isnt. Period. And when people have to justify something that usually means they ought not to be doing it in the first place. It also strikes me as extremely prideful for a man to say "I know I've been divorced, but God called me to be a pastor!".
There is nothing in me that wants to be an elder, yet I am. If anything I'm always looking for an escape hatch to get out of it! Not looking to justify why I am.
Krispy
Thanks for the response,
I understand when you say "There is nothing in me that wants to be an elder, yet I am. If anything I'm always looking for an escape hatch to get out of it! Not looking to justify why I am." God uses those that see themselves as unbelievly unqualified, such as Moses, Isaiah, the disciples (after Jesus rebuke), and Paul.
I was recently asked to be a sunday school teacher for a class that has young believers and older saints that have been part of our fellowship for many years. Do I feel qualified? Not even close, and have made it clear to the group that I am tempted often by spiritual pride, and that I would expect them to hold me accountable to them. With that being said, all I can hope for is to glorify God first, and edify our fellowship second.
Not that I'm a seasoned expert, but I think alot of trouble could be avoided in churches if people were more stringent (ie. biblical) with their leadership choices.
Paul was a Pharisee, and a member of the Sanhedrin, and therefore at one time had to have been married.
The book of Acts describes some of the activities of Saul (Paul), as well as some of his own statements. Saul belonged to one of the
strictest sects of the Jews. “...I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee...” (Acts 23:6). He did not say; “I was a Pharisee, he said; “I am a Pharisee...
Saul studied under the head of the Sanhedrin (the highest court in Judea). “...brought up in this city (Jerusalem) at the feet of Gamaliel...” (Acts 22:3).
Saul was himself most likely a member of the Sanhedrin, as evidenced by the following scripture, which fits perfectly the Jewish practice of stoning: “And cast him (Stephen) out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet whose name was Saul.” (Acts 7:58).
[b]Since it was the responsibility of the members of the Sanhedrin to witness public stonings, I believe that Saul was present (in an official capacity) at the stoning, while those who were witnesses against Stephen were required to cast the stones.
So, in conclusion, Paul had to have been married at one time. Did his wife die? Did she leave him after his Damascas Road experience? We will never know.
Sincerely,
Walter
HomeFree89 wrote:
Paul was single, wasn't he? :-)
Hi Walter,
How does this prove that he may have been married? Were the Sanhedrian required to be married? If they were not, this seems to be pure speculation.
Hi Jlonsinski:
I have always thought that it was a requirment that all members of the Sanhedrin had to be married. After your post, I checked it out in detail, and can honestly say that it must be an "urban legend".
I will have to retract my prior post. If anyone else has information to verify that members of the Sanhedrin had to be married, from the Talmud or wherever, please post it here.
So, in conclusion, it would appear that there is no proof that Paul was ever married, but then what does that have to do with being a deacon, anyway?
Sincerely,
Walter
:-)
jlosinski wrote:
Hi Walter,
How does this prove that he may have been married? Were the Sanhedrian required to be married? If they were not, this seems to be pure speculation.
No problem :-D I just wanted to be sure I hadn't missed somthing. Grace and peace,
Joe
P.S.- I'm used to people mispronouncing my name when they're talking to me, but come on man, my user name is right there on the page :-P :-P
This discussion is locked.