Why an elder must be the husband of one wife.
Over on Conservative Colloquium Tony and I had quite a
discussion on why an elder must be the husband of one wife. It was a bit wide
ranging and so I never got to really lay out the argument as a consistent
whole. So, thought I would take the time here:
First of all the verses:
1Ti 3:1 This is a
true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 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; 1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine,
no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not
covetous; 1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well
his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own
house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice,
lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 1Ti
3:7 Moreover he must have a good report
of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the
devil.
---
Tit 1:6 If any be
blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of
riot or unruly.
Tit 1:7 For a bishop must
be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given
to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; Tit 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good
men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Tit 1:9
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be
able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Tit 1:10 For there
are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the
circumcision: Tit 1:11 Whose mouths must
be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for
filthy lucre's sake.
---
So then we read here that a bishop then must be “… the
husband of one wife… One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house,
how shall he take care of the church of God?)”
And
“the husband of one wife, having faithful children not
accused of riot or unruly.”
Now, this seems clear enough, where comes the confusion?
It seems to me that the first confusion is that these qualifications
are seen as ‘hurdles’ that the candidate must ‘jump over’. Most of them are the
opposite of sins, for example “blameless”, “not soon angry”. The (false) logic
then goes like this: because some of these are sins, all of them must be sins…
not being married is not a sin… ergo Paul could not have meant that the prospective bishop couldn’t
be unmarried.
Hopefully most of my readers caught the illogic. A list that
includes *some* sins need not include *all* sins. A company can drug-test its
employees… and judge them on their abilities and skills that having nothing to
do with illegal behavior.
Looking again, then, at the above list we can see at least
three categories:
Sins: not covetous, no striker, not greedy, etc.
Gifts: apt to teach[1],
given to hospitality
Life conditions: Not a novice, A husband of one wife, having
faithful children
And many things that are a combination of these things. “Holding
fast the word” is both a gift and the counterpart of a sin. Only by the work of
the spirit can we do that, and some people are more gifted in that area than
others.
Similarly the ‘family’ qualifications of an elder or deacon.
Only God can give a good and faithful wife, and the most Godly of men can end
up with prodigal children. At the same time any sin in the man’s life, any lack
of training, of Godly leadership, will show itself in the result… divorce,
unfaithful children.
So, let us put that idea aside. The fact that a man may not
have sinned in remaining unmarried does not, but that alone, qualify him as an
elder; or obviate the requirement that he be ‘the husband of one wife… having
faithful children…’.
The next thing that gets floated about is that the noun
phrase ‘the husband of one wife’ should really be translated ‘a one woman man’.
This, they argue, means that all Paul was really trying to say is that the man
not be unfaithful, that *if* the man had a wife he was faithful to her.
This fails on several counts. The first is purely
linguistic. It is perfectly true that the phrase literally means ‘a one woman
man’. However it is also perfectly true that that the term ‘woman’ is not a
denial or opposition to the term ‘wife’, or the term ‘man’ in opposition to the
term ‘husband’. The simple fact is that the same Greek word is used for both a
generic woman and a wife; and the same Greek word is used for both man and
husband.
Which leads us to the second linguistic failure. The terms ‘man’
and ‘woman’ are distinguished from each other by context. A man, in the
Scriptures, who is told to ‘sleep with’ ‘his woman’[2]
is generally considered to have to limit that love to the ‘woman’ that is given
him by God, and not any other woman. A ‘woman’ who comes to Jesus for healing
is, in the context, not considered to be his ‘wife’, but a random woman.
And the context of the passages concerning elders makes it
very clear that we are talking about a wife. This is a woman who has provided
him with children, children who are not unruly but who are faithful. This is
why all of the translations, and all of the commentators, render this phrase,
accurately: ‘the husband of one wife’.
And the context then, goes on to argue even more strongly
against the unmarried man; since this is a man who must have children!
Obviously any never married man who had children would falter under the ‘blameless’
qualification.
The capstone to the entire issue comes in the Timothy
passage where the apostle asks, almost sarcastically, “For if a man know not
how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” This
qualification, the longest and most elaborate in the passages, concludes here:
that the church will be able to tell a man who is not qualified for the
eldership by his family. A qualified elder will have a qualified family: a
faithful, Godly wife; and faithful Godly children… perhaps even grandchildren![3]
The man who wishes to be an elder, then, must be ““… the
husband of one wife… One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
subjection with all gravity” That is how we will be able to tell if he can take
care of the household of God.
Calvin quotes ‘Fr Ser’:
“The house of a believer ought to be like a little church.
Heathens, who did not know what a church is, said that a house is but an image
and figure of any public government. A poor man, living with his wife and
children and servants, ought to be in his house like a public governor; but
Christians ought to go beyond this. Every father of a family should know that
God has appointed him to that place, that he may know how to govern his wife
and children and servants; so that God shall be honored in the midst of them,
and all shall do Him homage. Paul speaks of children; and why? Because he who
wishes to discharge his duty as pastor of a church must be like a father to all
believers. Now, let us suppose that a man cannot govern two or three children
which he has in the house. They are his own children, and yet he cannot keep
them in subjection; they are deaf to all that he says to them. How then shall
he be able to govern those who are at a distance, and who may be said to be
unknown to him, who even refuse to become wiser, and think that they have no
need of being instructed? How shall he be able to keep men in dread when his
own wife is not subject to him? Let us not, therefore, think it strange if it
is required in all pastors, that they be good fathers of a family, and know
what it is to govern their own children well. It is not enough to condemn the
children, but we must condemn the fathers, when they permit their children to
be worse than others.” — Fr. Ser.
The Scriptures, then, make it clear that we are talking
about a married, family, man; and they give good reason for this qualification.
But surely we can at least imagine others. Indeed, we hardly need to imagine
them, they surround us both in Scripture and life.
Paul, in I Cor, says that ‘because of fornication’ every man
should have his own wife, and elsewhere he commands young widows to marry. While
the married man is not immune from sexual temptation, and married men can, and
have, fallen within the church; nonetheless we all know of the temptations that
face unmarried men. And, even more, we
know of the reputation that unmarried men have. Catholic priests have been
accused, and convicted, of Sodomy and other sexual perversions. But how much
more do they have a reputation… unmarried men facing constant sexual temptation
with no prospect of sexual release: forced by their job into constant intimate
settings with people of all kinds from their church.
Secondly, the flip side of Paul’s requirements for elders is
that the family serves as the training ground for elders. Dealing with their
wife, dealing with their own children, prepares them for the daily struggle of
dealing with sin in the church: sexual sin, sin dealing with the (lack of)
training of children, etc. The married man, when faced with an attempt at
rebuke or counsel from the unmarried man, can be slightly excused for saying ‘who
are you?’
The Catholic Church, with its Gnostic condemnation of
marital sexual relations, is not alone in suggesting that unmarried men can, or
even should, be elders in the church. Our modern world, including much of our
modern church, has rejected the vital role that marriage plays, and has denied
the importance and blessing of children. As a result they find it easy to
suggest that unmarried men should be elders.
Even ‘our’ part of the church, with its unGodly list of ‘qualifications’
and vetoes for each courtship, has, by ending up with ‘Godly’ men of older and
older age, begun to slip from its insistence on the importance of marriage. But
we need to stand: against the Catholic Church, the world, and the courtship
advocates, and teach, with Paul, that and elder must be…
“… the husband of one wife… One that ruleth well his own
house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know
not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)”
0 comments:
Post a Comment