Bishop, One Wife - Critique?
Forum category
I wrote this awhile ago, and as you can see it’s not finished.
I also know that my wording and formatting need to be worked on.
Would anyone mind commenting on the content, the arguments: Are they correct, are they incorrect?
I am considering making this publicly available, and I want to avoid error.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I argue that a bishop must be married to exactly one wife, he cannot have multiple wives and he cannot be a single man.
First, the Bible plainly states this. He must be .. the husband of one wife, just as he must be vigilant.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Many counter this argument by saying that the culture determines the context of this scripture, and that proves that this means not polygamous. While it is true that polygamy was common in that culture, and this verse could mean that - it does not. It says one, it does not say less than two. Note that one wife also excludes two wives, so a polygamous ‘pastor’ is no pastor at all.
In this verse, almost the same wording is used,
1Ti 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.
If it only refers to polygamy, then a widow who is supported (1Ti 5:8, 16 - financially) by the church can be a single woman. It also means that she may have given birth to bastards, which will probably disqualify her on the grounds of conduct: well reported of for good words (1Ti 5:10).
This does not make sense. The verse plainly states that she must have been married, with almost the same wording used for the bishop earlier in the same book.
In 1Ti 3:4, we are given one reason that he must be married: to prove that he can rule his own house.
Next, the deacon’s wife has qualifications that must be met, as well. Not slanderous, sober, etc. (1Ti 3:11). A similar requirement is given to the deacon as the pastor: even so their wives must be … Must a deacon have a wife, and a pastor is not required to?
Also, Paul had the ability to phrase it that way - did he not? Not polygamous, not married to multiple women, etc. No, he said, the husband of …one… wife.
Next, many argue that Paul was a pastor and we know that he was single. From 1Co 7, we do know that he was single. However, there is not one verse in the Bible that calls Paul a pastor.
Peter is called a pastor (insert reference), but we also know that he had a family (insert reference.)
Some also argue that Christ was a pastor, and single. Again, it is true that he was single…
However, Christ is called the Great Shepherd (insert reference), he is also called our High Priest. (insert reference.) The high priest was required to be married, therefore Christ has a different position, or is above those requirements. If he failed to meet the requirements for being a high priest, then cannot he also fail to meet the requirements of a shepherd?
The same is with Paul. While he may have functioned as a pastor, he was first an Apostle. His authority was higher than that of a pastor. For example, look at a manager and an employee. The employee has this task and that task, but at any time the manager may come in and do his tasks. Does that make him an employee, or a manager? He is still a manager. Therefore Paul was not necessarily a pastor.
While to some degree this contradicts the argument about Peter being a pastor and having a family, because Peter was an apostle then he too would be above the requirements .. There is a difference from functioning as something, and having the position.
It also does not mean having ‘been’ the husband of one wife. For, if the wife dies, he is free from the law and can remarry. (insert reference)
Some say that this verse means not merely not polygamous, but also that he cannot have been married to more than one wife. This is suprising for two reasons.
One, it says must “be” the husband of one wife.
Two, they are going past what the text clearly says, and denying what it does clearly say: one wife, and NOT single.
Last of all, some would say that the prefered state is singlesness, then it is only logical that a pastor could be single. While that is the prefered state - 1Co 7:32, it is not absolute. God sends (thrusts) forth His ministers (insert reference), and He gives charisma (divine gifting) to marriage or to singleness, 1Co 7:7.
This proves first, that if God can choose us for the ministry, then he can choose those who are called to the ministry to be married.
Second, their calling to marriage or singleness can be proven by their inability to contain themselves, 1Co 7:9. If marriage is your chosen state by God, then singleness is not YOUR prefered state. Paul is speaking generically, not absolutely. (1Co 7:7)
I also know that my wording and formatting need to be worked on.
Would anyone mind commenting on the content, the arguments: Are they correct, are they incorrect?
I am considering making this publicly available, and I want to avoid error.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I argue that a bishop must be married to exactly one wife, he cannot have multiple wives and he cannot be a single man.
First, the Bible plainly states this. He must be .. the husband of one wife, just as he must be vigilant.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Many counter this argument by saying that the culture determines the context of this scripture, and that proves that this means not polygamous. While it is true that polygamy was common in that culture, and this verse could mean that - it does not. It says one, it does not say less than two. Note that one wife also excludes two wives, so a polygamous ‘pastor’ is no pastor at all.
In this verse, almost the same wording is used,
1Ti 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.
If it only refers to polygamy, then a widow who is supported (1Ti 5:8, 16 - financially) by the church can be a single woman. It also means that she may have given birth to bastards, which will probably disqualify her on the grounds of conduct: well reported of for good words (1Ti 5:10).
This does not make sense. The verse plainly states that she must have been married, with almost the same wording used for the bishop earlier in the same book.
In 1Ti 3:4, we are given one reason that he must be married: to prove that he can rule his own house.
Next, the deacon’s wife has qualifications that must be met, as well. Not slanderous, sober, etc. (1Ti 3:11). A similar requirement is given to the deacon as the pastor: even so their wives must be … Must a deacon have a wife, and a pastor is not required to?
Also, Paul had the ability to phrase it that way - did he not? Not polygamous, not married to multiple women, etc. No, he said, the husband of …one… wife.
Next, many argue that Paul was a pastor and we know that he was single. From 1Co 7, we do know that he was single. However, there is not one verse in the Bible that calls Paul a pastor.
Peter is called a pastor (insert reference), but we also know that he had a family (insert reference.)
Some also argue that Christ was a pastor, and single. Again, it is true that he was single…
However, Christ is called the Great Shepherd (insert reference), he is also called our High Priest. (insert reference.) The high priest was required to be married, therefore Christ has a different position, or is above those requirements. If he failed to meet the requirements for being a high priest, then cannot he also fail to meet the requirements of a shepherd?
The same is with Paul. While he may have functioned as a pastor, he was first an Apostle. His authority was higher than that of a pastor. For example, look at a manager and an employee. The employee has this task and that task, but at any time the manager may come in and do his tasks. Does that make him an employee, or a manager? He is still a manager. Therefore Paul was not necessarily a pastor.
While to some degree this contradicts the argument about Peter being a pastor and having a family, because Peter was an apostle then he too would be above the requirements .. There is a difference from functioning as something, and having the position.
It also does not mean having ‘been’ the husband of one wife. For, if the wife dies, he is free from the law and can remarry. (insert reference)
Some say that this verse means not merely not polygamous, but also that he cannot have been married to more than one wife. This is suprising for two reasons.
One, it says must “be” the husband of one wife.
Two, they are going past what the text clearly says, and denying what it does clearly say: one wife, and NOT single.
Last of all, some would say that the prefered state is singlesness, then it is only logical that a pastor could be single. While that is the prefered state - 1Co 7:32, it is not absolute. God sends (thrusts) forth His ministers (insert reference), and He gives charisma (divine gifting) to marriage or to singleness, 1Co 7:7.
This proves first, that if God can choose us for the ministry, then he can choose those who are called to the ministry to be married.
Second, their calling to marriage or singleness can be proven by their inability to contain themselves, 1Co 7:9. If marriage is your chosen state by God, then singleness is not YOUR prefered state. Paul is speaking generically, not absolutely. (1Co 7:7)
Most agree that “husband of one wife” is only a qualification for the pastor that is married. If this was to be taken absolutely literally, he would also need to have children (and possibly more than one child because it says “children” and not “child”) as well. The children would also probably have to be living in the household directly under their father’s authority, so this might disqualify a pastor with adult children that live outside of the house as well. I guess that too is debated: how much an adult child is freed from parental authority, and whether an adult child could disqualify a pastor. Timothy not having been recorded to have a wife seems to strengthen the case of non-married pastors. Glad you’re thinking and not just blindly accepting though.
I don’t think I followed you exactly on the widows comparison.
I don’t think I followed you exactly on the widows comparison.
To read it as a requirement that a Pastor or Bishop be married is to demonstrate a certain ignorance of normative assumptions. For example, when the Bible makes this command:
“Children, obey your parents”
It is not requiring children to have living parents. Some children’s parents are dead. They may live in an orphanage where there is no parent but there are guardians. Yes, they must obey the guardians but the guardians are not their parents. The passage assumes the norm of children having parents that are living but does not prescribe or command the norm.
This is the same, here. The norm is marriage for most people including Pastors. Hence, it is addressed with the normative in view. This is a very elementary reality of communication that seems easily understood for most and for whatever reason, when it comes to this text, it is simply rejected though it is quite obvious.
“Children, obey your parents”
It is not requiring children to have living parents. Some children’s parents are dead. They may live in an orphanage where there is no parent but there are guardians. Yes, they must obey the guardians but the guardians are not their parents. The passage assumes the norm of children having parents that are living but does not prescribe or command the norm.
This is the same, here. The norm is marriage for most people including Pastors. Hence, it is addressed with the normative in view. This is a very elementary reality of communication that seems easily understood for most and for whatever reason, when it comes to this text, it is simply rejected though it is quite obvious.
Discussion