Husband to one wife...

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R

rainacorn

Guest
#1
#1
I put this in the Bible Study thread because it really is a question of interpretation and understanding.

1 Timothy 3 gives the qualifications for church leaders. It says they must be the husband to one wife.

What exactly does that mean?

To me, the verse is pretty cut and dry- you cannot be divorced and remarried. It's part of being 'above reproach' and handling your household. However, I have learned recently that there are a wide variety of opinions on this.

What do you think, and can you please provide verses to back up your opinions?

Thanks!
 
dscherck

dscherck

Banned [Reason: persistent, ongoing Catholic heres
#2
Aug 3, 2009
1,272
3
0
#2
Well, back then it was quite common to have men with multiple wives. Essentially the description is saying that if a man is married, they should have just one wife. And if they have kids, they need to be well behaved.

It doesn't really make sense to read it as requiring a man to be married because Paul himself was unmarried, as was Our Lord. And if we insist they need to be married they also need to have children who are well behaved. So that would rule out people who are impotent or who have unruly kids. And keep in mind that Our Lord told us of some who would forsake marriage for the kingdom of heaven. Should we rule them out from church leadership as well?

Really if you look at it logically and take into account the practices of the time, it's just a recommendation regarding church leaders who are married already.
 
tribesman

tribesman

Senior Member
#3
Oct 13, 2011
4,622
282
83
#3
dscherck said:
Well, back then it was quite common to have men with multiple wives. Essentially the description is saying that if a man is married, they should have just one wife...
Click to expand...
Agreed on this one.

dscherck said:
It doesn't really make sense to read it as requiring a man to be married because Paul himself was unmarried, as was Our Lord....
Click to expand...
I think Paul was not unmarried, as he was a pharisaical teacher. Could have been divorced/separated/widower. But wholly unmarried? Not likely.
 
dscherck

dscherck

Banned [Reason: persistent, ongoing Catholic heres
#4
Aug 3, 2009
1,272
3
0
#4
tribesman said:
Agreed on this one.



I think Paul was not unmarried, as he was a pharisaical teacher. Could have been divorced/separated/widower. But wholly unmarried? Not likely.
Click to expand...
He talks about his marital state actually in his letters.

"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Cor 7:8-9)

Emphasis added.
 
tribesman

tribesman

Senior Member
#5
Oct 13, 2011
4,622
282
83
#5
dscherck said:
He talks about his marital state actually in his letters.

"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Cor 7:8-9)

Emphasis added.
Click to expand...
KJV renders it like this:
1Cor.7

[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
[9] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Click to expand...
At the time of writing he may have been a widower or at least divorced/separated. Wholly unmarried I think he was not as he was a teacher among the pharisees and not unlikely part of the Sanhedrin.

Apostle Paul Timeline: Paul's Birth to First Missionary Journey <- link

Was the Apostle Paul Married? | Denny Burk <- link
 
R

rainacorn

Guest
#6
#6
dscherck said:
Well, back then it was quite common to have men with multiple wives.
Click to expand...
Where is this from? I've heard the exact opposite. Divorce was quite easy to obtain and bigamy was virtually unheard of.


dscherck said:
It doesn't really make sense to read it as requiring a man to be married because Paul himself was unmarried, as was Our Lord. And if we insist they need to be married they also need to have children who are well behaved. So that would rule out people who are impotent or who have unruly kids. And keep in mind that Our Lord told us of some who would forsake marriage for the kingdom of heaven. Should we rule them out from church leadership as well?
Click to expand...
Well that's kind of silly, don't you think? Jesus wouldn't qualify to be a deacon by these rules... but He is God, which is certainly better, yes?

Paul made the rule. I suppose you could think he didn't mean what he said because by those standards he wouldn't qualify (that is unless he was a widower, which he could've been). But Paul seems to think that someone who is a loyal spouse and in control of their family is preferable to someone who isn't a loyal spouse and doesn't have control of their family.

So yes... I would say that a man who has unruly children isn't qualified to be a deacon. He is to be above reproach. A man with no control over his own home is not above reproach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.