• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Qualifications of elders: a new look

Doc

Doc

Member
Real Person
Most everyone on the forums is familiar with the passage found in 1 Tim 3. In it is contained the famous 'husband of one wife' passage which has been so thoroughly discussed on several threads on this forum.

It has always been my personal conviction that this passage written to Pastor Timothy was never meant to be a 'checklist', but rather an observational character description by Paul for leadership in the church. Using it as a checklist is merely adding a new law to the new covenant, in my humble opinion.

But I am not here to argue that. Nor am I here to defend the 'one wife' passage. Rather, there were two verses that recently jumped out at me, and I quote verses 4 and 12:

4(Let a bishop be) one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;-1 Tim 3:4 (KJV)

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.-1 Tim 3:12 (KJV)


I cannot tell you how many times in the 'checklist' that anti-polygamists use that will thump, thump, thump regarding the 'one wife' passage, and yet seemingly ignore these verses.

Why do I point them out? Because the Scriptures are pretty clear: if you want to be a bishop/elder, or a deacon, not only must you be MARRIED, but you must also have LIVING CHILDREN.

In other words, they cannot be CHILDLESS or ONLY HAVE ONE CHILD. You must have AT LEAST TWO.

That is, IF we are to use the logic of the anti-polygamists.

I wonder just how quick these experts at the law would respond to someone pointing this out? Now, to be sure, I would expect that there would be SOME who would say, "Yep, you're right, gotta have two or more kids." But, I am sure that the overwhelming majority would not hold a bishop/elder, or deacon to this item on the 'checklist'.

Now, we all know what Paul is saying: a bishop/elder/deacon must be a responsible PARENT, managing his personal affairs (household) well. But, you cannot get away from the letter of the law, right?

Therefore, if they say that a leader must be 'the husband of one wife', and they hold to the Romanic interpretation of that as monogamy, then they MUST also say those same leaders must have a MINIMUM of TWO CHILDREN. If they deny the second part, it nullifies the first.

Who else has some thoughts on this, or am I off my rocker here?
 
...am I off my rocker here?
Click to expand...
You might be off your rocker, Doc, but not about this. :lol:

I have often thought the same thing, that bishops/deacons/elders should be the head of a family. Look at the reasoning Paul uses:
1 Timothy 3:5 NKJV (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);
Click to expand...
How can a truly celibate man know how to rule his own house?

And on the flip side of that, how much more would a polygynous man know how to rule his?

The argument used by most monogamy-only zealots against this interpretation is the supposed "fact" that Paul was unmarried, making it hypocritical of him to require that bishops/deacons/elders should be married. But was he unmarried?
1 Corinthians 9:5 NKJV Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
Click to expand...
Why would he complain about not being able to take along a non-existent person?

All the passages such as...
1 Corinthians 7:7 NKJV For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
Click to expand...
...that the monogamy-only zealots use as evidence of Paul's supposed celibacy do not prove that assertion. Rather, they prove that he had control over his "hormonal urges," even when he was away from his wife for extended periods of time. Unlike many self-proclaimed "evangelists" today, he did not have a wife at home and a mistress in every town where he preached. But he probably had a wife at home.

This interpretation of the passages in question would not automatically disqualify a man who was widowed or divorced, or whose children have grown up and left the nest, because such a man will have a track record of ruling his house which can be examined. A celibate man will not have such a track record.

Having more than one wife and being successful in managing a larger family should be seen as a plus, not a disqualifying "sin."
 
However the verses are translated, two things stand out to me. One is that the Greek allows for translation that favors plural ideas and the other is that the emphasis is upon establishing an inherent qualification rather than a black and white rule. For instance, Paul said that if a man does not work he should not eat. However, I do not doubt there were lazy people in the church but I can not remember any history of the early church starving people to death. Historically if a man should be the husband of ("one", "a", "first", "one") wife, It is something like he should be able to read and write to do the job and have a certain qualification involving his ("one", "a", "first", "one") wife. It is a qualification not a moral code. Someone may not be qualified or able to use the Spanish language, but it has nothing to do with whether they could go to church or be accepted in church or not, but obviously they should not be an elder in a Spanish speaking church.
I know that is not the best theological argument on the verses but might be a slightly new look at the topic.
 
Excellent point, welltan, and one I think Doc was making - the "one wife" passages are not a checklist, but an set of desired qualities.

How many college grads do we all know that have never worked a day in whatever their major was? But the sheepskin is useful to show that the grad had enough motivation to finish college, and hopefully, learned how to learn.

Same principle in the "one wife" list of qualifications...an elder/deacon/bishop needs to have certain character traits.
 
I think you guys are getting my point. If this is a checklist, then I would contend that it is one that theologians and church leaders have not followed to the letter. How many bishops, elders and deacons have served that were childless, or only had one child? Probably quite a few. Even if you fall into the group that the 'mia' word is one, and only one, you are still faced with this issue.

We do not know for sure if Pastor Timothy was married, or had children. We cannot even be sure that Paul was married, or had children. According to the 'checklist', unless they WERE married and had at least TWO living children, even Timothy, Paul and even Jesus Himself were not qualified for these positions.
 
DocInMO said:
According to the 'checklist', unless they WERE married and had at least TWO living children, even Timothy, Paul and even Jesus Himself were not qualified for these positions.
Click to expand...
Unless, of course, The Da Vinci Code was right! ;)
 
Wouldn't DREAM of it!

So, of COURSE your theory MUST be right!

And it DOES make more sense than the mandatory checklist viewpoint. BTW, you forgot to mention that God doesn't qualify either: Only 1 begotten son, and a third of His household rebelled and is actively opposing Him. Nope, absolute checklist doesn't work out so well.
 
I guess Dr. Allen must be on vacation this week....I figured he would jump into this discussion hip-deep!
 
Vacation what is that? :lol: Easy my sabbatarian friends.....put the swords down....I do take breaks, sabbaths, :lol:

I have in fact read all of these posts on this.

I just don't have much to add to this dialog. The only real point of contribution might be the historical records [an early church father said Timothy was single and Paul was a joined man] and the one issue over verbs tenses here in the Greek. Verse 2 has finite and infinitive verbs governing the phrases where the phrase dealing with managing one's home and children is a phrase formed out of participle verbs and thus there is an assumptive element in those phrases that do not exist in verse 2-3. In simplistic terminology, the first set establishes what is right now to be in existence and then the second set of phrases deals with what should be done from what developed from the first set of phrases. Thus, the assumptive element is that, i.e. if you are a man of a woman then you are to thus be ongoing regularly leading those under your care well which includes even the children that naturally, but of course not always, arise from such a union. The text is built on a natural assumptive clause revealed through participle verbs.

Thus for the children phrase I tend to think the Greek grammar there is different than the grammar of the "man of a woman" phrase, and thus I lean towards Alexander Struach's view of that phrase. But overall I support the idea that this passage is contextually governed by the familial emphasis of the passage on the whole.
 
There was a time that I said Paul must be a joined man...he had a thorn in the flesh, right? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course, that was when I was joined to a closet feminist who refused to follow my lead as head of the family...

...the lovely, precious gift that my Heavenly Father joined me with 12 years ago is a joy to love and live with. I just pray that He will make me as much of a blessing to her as she is to me. A tall order, but nothing is too hard for YHWH!
 
Yup. Hip deep! :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top