Question about Bishops

1 Tim 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, [b]the husband of one wife[/b].."

Any insights on " ....the husband of ONE wife..."?

Thanks to all who reply

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.

Ditto to Krispy.

Also, do you think that elders [b]must[/b] be married, since it says that they must be the husband of a wife.

With care in Christ,
Taylor

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".

What if the divorce and remarriage took place before the person was saved?

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.

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

Hi Krispy,

Whether Paul was married or not has nothing to do with this conversation because Paul was neither an elder or a pastor. He was an Apostle, Missionary and Evangelist. Not a pastor. In Paul's "line of work" he made it clear it was better for a man NOT to be married.

In addition, the translators of the KJV chose a very poor word in this passage. The greek word used for "bishop" in this passage (I Timothy 3:2) is [i]episkopos[/i]. It is used six times as "bishop" and once as an "overseer" (in Acts 20:28). The word [i]episkopos[/i] literally means an "overseer," "supervisor," "guardian," "curator," or "superintendent." There is much debate over why the translators of the KJV chose to use the word "bishop." The most common perception is that it was derived from the traditional Roman and Holy Roman Empire (papal state) hierarchy, whereas "bishops" were often endowed with the status of "feudal lords." In the traditional Roman sense, a "bishop" held a higher position than a priest or local lay preacher.

I believe that it was a poor word choice by the authorized translators of the state Church in England. Several historical works state that the translators were instructed to keep certain "traditional" terms in the translation...even if they knew that they weren't particularly correct (such as [i]A Textual History of the King James Bible[/i] by the Cambridge University Press). The position of "Bishop" existed in both the official Roman and Anglican churches for many centuries prior to the publication of the KJV...with most claiming "Apostolic Succession."

Ironically, the last time that the word appears in Scripture, it is directed toward the Lord Jesus...as "the shepherd and [i]episkopos[/i] of your soul" (I Peter 2:25).

I do understand the arguments about marriage and divorce in regard to Church leadership. The aforementioned passage (I Timothy 3:2) could be speaking about divorce...or polygamy...or both. I just don't know if it is wise to use a different standard for different Church "positions" (like a pastor and an apostle). Peter was an apostle...and was married. Paul was an apostle...and was unmarried.

:-)

Hi Krispy...

I understand that you're pinpointing the role and responsibilities of "pastors." Yet the passage in question is directed at "bishops." Is a "bishop" a "pastor?" The word "bishop" seems to have been a poor choice of word by the translators of the KJV. Properly translated, it is an "overseer." Are we saying that God appliees a different standard to pastors than he does apostles? It seems like the words of Paul in I Corinthians 7 were directed to all men and women...and not just apostles and those outside of the "ministry."

Remember, at the time that Paul wrote both I Corinthians 7 and I Timothy 3, polygamy was rampant throughout the various states of the Roman Empire. It wasn't illegal in Rome...nor overtly in the Scriptures. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Caleb, Gideon, David, and even Ezra (amongst others) had more than one wife. Why? Because the Law did not expressly forbid it. Yet God set the example by giving Adam only one wife...which should have sufficed as an example (Genesis 2:24).

On the other hand, divorce/remarriage is not mentioned as a "sin" in the Law either. The hardest thing that the Old Testament says about divorce seems to be a command to NOT remarry a previous spouse who had been remarried (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). The New Testament, on the other hand, is far more direct in its prohibition of divorce. Jesus was very blunt about the matter of remarriage. The question, however, is whether or not this passage is applying to remarriage (where the believer is not at fault, before or after conversion...or both). This passage might have been directed toward all believers regarding polygamy, divorce or BOTH.

I don't pretend to know what it is that Paul is referring to in this passage. I can't help but question just what it is that would prohibit a man who remarried before his conversion (or after his unbelieving wife commits adultery and divorces him) from serving the Lord in ministry. The Assemblies of God held a very strict view toward divorce and remarriage until just recently...and even then, some still think that it is strict.

I have to admit that the best "pastor" that I have ever had was a youth pastor who had been divorced and remarried before he came to the Lord. This was the guy who introduced me to Christ more adequately than anyone else...and also introduced me to the messages of many of the men contained on this website. Granted: He was a strict youth pastor (too strict, according to some), but his words went a long way with the youth group and the rest of the congregation. He went through Bible School with the Assemblies of God but was denied a license or ordination at the time because of his "failure to uphold the conditions of I Timothy 3:2)."

I do find it interesting, however, that we are so eager to focus upon the divorce/remarriage portion of this passage -- when it seems that many more people would be restricted on the basis of the other conditions found with the passage. Here are the conditions found in I Timothy 3:1-3:

1. He must be blameless (verse 2)
2. The husband of one wife (verse 2)
3. Vigilant (verse 2)
4. Sober (verse 2)
5. Of good behaviour (verse 2)
6. Given to hospitality (verse 2)
7. Apt to teach (verse 2)
8. Not given to wine (verse 3)
9. No striker (or [i]not violent[/i] verse 3)
10. Not greedy of filthy lucre (verse 3)
11. Patient (verse 3)
12. Not a brawler (verse 3)
13. Not covetous (verse 3)
14. One that ruleth well his own house (verse 4)
15. Having his children in subjection with all gravity (verse 4)
16. Not a novice (verse 5)
17. Must have a good report of them which are without (verse 7)

This passage can be read in the NIV by clicking [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Timothy%203;&version=31;]HERE[/url].

It seems to me that there are plenty of conditions listed here that aren't quite followed either. It is easy to focus on the portion about divorce/remarriage, but I think that it is just one part of a larger list of conditions that are often ignored by would-be "bishops."