http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1643
Examining the “Husband of One Wife” Qualification for Elders
The
leadership structure of the Lord’s church is spelled out in the pages
of the New Testament. Christ is the head of the church (Ephesians
1:22-23), which He purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28). In particular
localities where congregations of the Lord’s church meet, the inspired
text explains that leaders who are called shepherds (or pastors),
elders, or bishops are to direct the activities of each individual
congregation (Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 5:1-4). These terms are
used interchangeably to describe the same position of leadership in the
local church (Lewis, 1985, p. 14). The multiple terms are used in order
to provide a complete picture of what these leaders are to do and be.
In addition, the New Testament provides consistent teaching that each
local congregation should strive to maintain a plurality of
elders/pastors/bishops. As the late Bible scholar J.W. McGarvey once
wrote: “There is no proposition in reference to the organization of the
primitive churches upon which scholars and critics are more perfectly
agreed than that every fully organized church had a plurality of Elders”
(1950, pp. 66-67). McGarvey went on to correctly conclude that there is
New Testament authority and example for only a plurality of elders, and
no authority for a singular pastor or bishop to rule an entire
congregation or group of congregations.
If a plurality of men should be established as the overseers of any
given congregation, what qualities or characteristics should these men
possess that would enable them to fulfill their duties? Thankfully, the
Lord, through the inspired New Testament, has not left us to guess what
traits are needed for such a position. There are two very clear lists of
qualities that elders should possess in order for them to be appointed
to the eldership—1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. It is understood that
biblical passages are often complimentary, in which certain passages
include additional, supplemental information. With that in view, we will
consider these two lists as complimentary, and therefore as one
“master” list of the qualities that every elder should maintain.
An exhaustive study of every one of the qualifications for elders is
outside of the purview of this article. Additionally, some of the
qualifications are so self-explanatory, they call for little (if any)
discussion. For instance, in Titus 1:7 we read that one who aspires to
be an elder should not be “violent.” The meaning of that term is
unambiguous. It simply means that an elder should not be a person who
flies into violent fits of rage in which people are physically abused.
Again, in the same verse we are told that an elder is not supposed to be
“greedy for money.” A simple dictionary definition for the word
“greedy” quickly renders this qualification quite easy to understand.
Not all the qualities prescribed for elders, however, are as
self-explanatory as the two just mentioned. In fact, there are several
that have been at the heart of many heated discussions. One that has
often been discussed, and is viewed by many as being difficult to
understand, is the injunction that an elder must be “the husband of one
wife” (Titus 1:6; 1 Timothy 3:2). It is to this qualification that we
will direct our attention.
THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE
What does the statement that a bishop/elder/pastor must be the “husband
of one wife” mean? Just reading this phrase in any standard English
translation certainly leads to some ambiguity. Does it mean that he is
only supposed to be married to one wife for his entire life? Does it
mean that he is not to be married to two wives at once? If he was
married to one wife when he was appointed an elder, but she dies, is he
still the “husband of one wife”? If his wife dies and he marries another
woman, is he now the husband of two wives? Does it really mean that a
man must be married at all, or could it just mean that if he has a wife,
he must only have one? Does this injunction mean that women are
disqualified from the eldership? These are some of the most often asked
questions pertaining to this particular qualification. In order to
answer them, we will need to see if the original language clears up any
ambiguity that might have arisen through translation.
In Greek, the phrase is
mias gunaikos andra.
Vincent, in his word study, translates it as “the husband of one wife”
(1886, 4:228). R.H. Lenski translates the phrase as “one wife’s husband”
(1998, pp. 579-580). William D. Mounce renders the words “‘one-woman’
man” (2000, 46:156). And C. Michael Moss translates it as the “‘husband
of but one wife’ (literally ‘one woman’s man’)” (1994, pp. 69-70). What
we see, then, is that the original language does not elucidate the
phrase as much as we might like. In essence, it leaves us with the same
ambiguities as the simple English renderings of the term. Thus, in order
to gain a firmer grasp on the concept, we must think through the
available options.
Must a Bishop/Elder/Pastor Be Married?
A host of scholarly commentators who have written about 1 Timothy 3:2
have concluded that the phrase “husband of one wife” does not mean that
an elder must be married. They contend that the term simply means that
if a man is married, then he should exhibit marital fidelity, be
faithful to his spouse, and not be polygamous. There are a number of
reasons such writers give for arguing that marriage is not a requirement
for being a bishop. First, they believe that since Paul was not
married, he would not have inserted a qualification that would exclude
himself. Mounce summarized well this viewpoint when he wrote: “But the
list is not a checklist requiring, for example, that all church leaders
be married and have more than one child. Paul and Timothy were not
married, nor did they have families (as far as we know), so neither of
them could be a “one-woman” man or manage his household well” (2000,
46:156-159). Second, many of these writers believe that women should not
be excluded from the eldership.
Those who believe that being the “husband of one wife” (i.e. married)
is not a requirement often insist that what is being discussed is the
personality and character of the individual, not the life circumstances
in which the person finds himself. Thus, these writers argue that the
text is simply saying that the proposed candidate for the eldership
should have a character that he or she would remain faithful to one
spouse. If the candidate’s character appears to be one of fidelity,
whether or not the proposed elder actually is married to one wife is of
no consequence. This interpretation of the “husband of one wife” is
flawed for a number of reasons.
First, we must understand that life circumstances do dictate whether or
not a person is eligible to be an elder or bishop. One of the
qualifications for an elder is that he is not “a novice” (1 Timothy
3:1), or new Christian. Is it the case that a new Christian might be a
very spiritual person? Certainly. Could it be that a new Christian may
have an evangelistic attitude, have a close relationship to the Lord,
and be walking in the light? Absolutely. Is there anything about the
character of a “novice” that inherently excludes him from the eldership?
No, there is nothing about his character that would keep him from being
an elder. The only thing that keeps such a person from being appointed
to the eldership is the fact that he is a recent convert. His life
circumstance is such that he is not qualified to be an elder. He is not
less valuable to the church. Neither is a novice less spiritual, less
evangelistic, or of a lesser moral character than one who is qualified
to be an elder. The only reason he is not qualified to be an elder is
that God has stated that new converts are not to be appointed to the
eldership.
Furthermore, the idea that Paul would not include a requirement to be
an elder that would exclude himself carries no weight for a number of
reasons. First, Paul interacted with various elders during his ministry
(Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1). He and Timothy wrote to the elders and
deacons of the Philippian church (Philippians 1:1). And he instructed
both Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) in the way to
appoint bishops/elders/pastors. Yet throughout the text, Paul never
refers to himself as one who is in the “office” of bishop/pastor/elder.
This realization is telling, in light of the fact that we know Paul was
not married (1 Corinthians 7:6-9). On the other hand, we see the apostle
Peter speaking to the elders of the church, and stating that he was a
“fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1). Since we know that Peter was married and
had a mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), this would fit perfectly with the idea
that the “husband of one wife” qualification for elders was mandatory.
As J.W. McGarvey so clearly stated:
It has been urged as an objection to this conclusion, that it would
disqualify Paul himself, and Barnabas and Timothy for the office of
Elder although they held offices or positions of much greater
responsibility. But this objection can have no force, unless it be made
to appear that these brethren were qualified for the Elder’s office, or
that the qualifications of an Apostle or an Evangelist include those of
an Elder. Neither of the two, however, can be made to appear, and
therefore the objection has no force whatever. Indeed, it seems most
fitting that men whose chief work led them from city to city and nation
to nation, through all kinds of danger and hardship, should be freed
from the care of a family, and equally fitting that the shepherd, whose
work was always at home and in the midst of the families of his flock,
should be a man of family. A married man certainly possesses advantages
for such work that are impossible to an unmarried man, and the
experience of the world must confirm the wisdom requirement that the
overseer shall be the husband of one wife (1950, p. 57).
Furthermore, to conclude that a person does not have to be the husband
of one wife in order to be an elder ignores a very straightforward
statement found in the context. When Paul wrote to Timothy, he stated:
“A bishop then must be…” (1 Timothy 3:2). The phrase “must be” is a
mandate that requires all those who aspire to become bishops to maintain
the circumstances and characteristics that follow the phrase. The Greek
word translated here is
dei, which means “it is necessary, one
must, or has to” (Glasscock, 1983, 140:245). Surely no one would
contend that a man could be appointed as a bishop if he is greedy for
money. None would be so careless as to suggest that a person who is
violent could be appointed as an elder. Who would contend that a novice
be appointed to the eldership? None. And yet each of these
qualifications follows the phrase “must be” just as surely as “the
husband of one wife.” All of the qualifications that follow “must be”
are of equal value and importance and not one of them can be lacking
from a prospective candidate for the eldership. The text plainly states
that a bishop “must be…the husband of one wife.” To conclude that a
bishop does not need to be the husband of one wife is to ignore a
clearly worded inspired injunction.
In addition, numerous writers contend that “the husband of one wife”
would be better rendered as something like “a one-woman sort of man” or
“a man who has the character of fidelity to one woman if he were
married” (Glasscock, 140:249-252). Thus, many of them suggest that men
or women could be considered for the position of elder if they have a
personality of fidelity even if they are not married. A flaw of this
thinking is simply that a congregation would have to assume something
about a person that there is no possible way of knowing unless the
person were actually placed in that exact position. How in the world
could it be verified that a person would be faithful to a spouse if that
person is not married? In truth, there is no way to know, other than
watching the person exhibit such faithfulness in an actual marriage.
To illustrate, suppose that the text stated that any candidate for the
eldership must be “one who has taken a beating for Christ without
recanting his faith.” If modern scholars were to “characterize” this
qualification, they would assert that it means, not that he has been
beaten, but if he were to be beaten, he would remain faithful to God.
Yet to attribute to a person what he would do in a situation that he has
never been in goes far beyond the capacity of human knowledge. Thus, to
claim that a person is “a one-woman man,” without having seen that
person remain faithful to a spouse, is claiming knowledge that no person
can have. We can only know for sure if a man is a “one-woman” man if he
has proven it in the testing ground of marriage. To borrow and modify a
phrase from the inspired author, James, “show me your marital fidelity
without being married, and I will show you my marital faithfulness by
being married and remaining faithful.”
Can Women Be Elders/Pastors/Bishops?
A number of scholars contend that demanding that “the husband of one
wife” is literal would disqualify all women from the position of elder.
They contend that God would not allow men to attain a leadership
position that is not also available for women. Thus they insist that the
statement “the husband of one wife” cannot be taken literally.
From a general analysis of the inspired writings of Paul, one can see
that he certainly was not sexist or gender biased. In fact, Paul penned
one of the boldest statements of gender and race equality in all
religious literature. In Galatians 3:28, he wrote: “There is neither Jew
nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor
female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” About this verse, Jan
Faver Hailey wrote: “Common exegesis understands Paul here to be
advocating that access to God is open to all through faith in Christ,
without regard to race, social standing, or gender” (1993, 1:132).
While Paul consistently maintained that men and women are equal in
God’s sight, he insisted they have been given different duties and
roles. Many religious people mistakenly equate the concept of different
roles, with the idea of different status or worth. Even skeptics have
falsely assumed such. Atheist Charles Templeton wrote: “In his first
letter to the church at Corinth, Paul states unequivocally that men and
women have a different status before God” (1996, p. 186). Allegedly, if
Paul instructs men to be elders (Titus 1:5-9) and to lead publically in
worship (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:8-15), and husbands to be
the “head” of their homes (Ephesians 5:22-24), then he must view women
as less able, less valuable, or inferior to men. [NOTE: See Jackson,
2010 and
Miller, 2005 for biblical expositions of these verses.]
Is it true that since the Bible assigns different roles to males and
females, their status or worth must be unequal? Certainly not. In Titus
3:1, Paul explained to Titus that Christians were supposed to be subject
to rulers and authorities and to obey the government. From that
statement, is it correct to conclude that Paul views all those in
governmental positions to be of more value than Christians? Does this
passage imply that, because Christians are to obey other humans who are
in governmental positions, Paul sees those in governmental positions as
mentally, physically, or spiritually superior to Christians? Not in any
way. The mere fact that Christians are to obey those in the government
says nothing about the spiritual status or value of either party. It
only addresses the different roles that each party fulfills.
Again, in 1 Timothy 6:2, Paul instructs Christian servants to be
obedient to their own masters. Does this imply that Paul believed
masters to be superior, or to be of more inherent worth than servants?
No. It simply shows a difference in roles, not of status. Logically
speaking, different roles can never be used to support an accusation
that such roles imply different value or status. In Ephesians 6:1-2,
Paul instructs children to obey and honor their parents. Does this mean
that children are of less worth or value than their parents? This can
hardly be the case, especially considering that Jesus described those in
the kingdom of heaven as being like little children (Matthew 19:14),
commanding His audience to be “converted and become as little children”
(Matthew 18:3) in order to be able to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Furthermore, while many are quick to seize on Paul’s alleged sexism in
his ordination of men as elders and leaders in their homes, those
writers often neglect to include the responsibilities involved in such
roles. Husbands are called upon to give their lives for their wives
(Ephesian 5:25), physically provide food, shelter, and clothing for
their families (1 Timothy 5:8), and to love their wives as much as they
love themselves (Ephesians 5:25). While much is said about the
“unfairness” of Paul’s instructions, it is productive to ask who would
get the last seat on a life boat if a Christian husband and wife were on
a sinking ship? The Christian husband gives himself for his wife in
such instances. Is that fair that he is called upon to accept the
sacrificial role of giving himself for his wife? Is she more valuable
than he because God calls upon him to protect and cherish her and die
for her if necessary? No. It is simply a difference is assigned roles,
not in status or worth. Thus, one must conclude that to establish
elders/bishops/pastors as men, each of which is the “husband of one
wife,” does not imply gender bias or unfairness. It simply denotes a
circumstance that must avail in the life of a person who is eligible to
be an elder.
Polygamy, Bigamy, and “the Husband of One Wife”
A number of writers have concluded that the phrase “the husband of one
wife” means that the man in view is not a bigamist or polygamist, but is
married to “only” one wife. They stress that the force of the
instruction lies on the concept of “only” one and not multiple wives. In
considering this view, Michael Moss wrote: “Since polygamy was only
infrequently practiced in the Greco-Roman world of the first century, is
seems very unlikely that Paul would write to condemn a practice among
overseers that would not be practiced even among Christians outside the
leadership” (1994, pp. 69-70).It would seem prudent to argue, then, that
the phrase is not inserted solely to exclude polygamists or bigamists
from the eldership. To clarify, however, the condition would exclude
polygamists, but would carry as much positive force for a man to be
married to one wife as it would negative force not to have more than
one. As McGarvey stated: “That he should be the husband of one wife,
forbids having less than one as clearly as it forbids having more than
one” (p. 56).
Only One Wife His Whole Life?
We have established, then, that the candidate for the eldership must be
a man who is literally “the husband of one wife.” Our work is not done,
however, because questions still remain concerning the qualification.
Does “the husband of one wife” mean that the candidate must currently be
married to the only wife that he has had his entire life? If his wife
dies and he remains single, is he still the “husband of one wife,” since
he was only married to one woman in his life? Or, if his wife dies and
he remarries is he no longer the “husband of one wife,” since he has now
been married twice to two different women?
First, let us state that the most ideal situation is one in which a man
has been married to one woman for his whole life and they are still
together during the time of his eldership. This situation would meet
every conceivable challenge of the phrase “the husband of one wife.” Of
course, stating the ideal does not exclude other possibilities that
might be less than ideal but still potentially viable.
Let us then deal with the situation in which a man has been married,
his spouse has died, and he is currently in his second marriage. Is this
man a candidate for the eldership? Those who suggest that he is not,
often refer to 1 Timothy 5:9 where Paul discussed widows who were to be
“taken into the number” of the church. In that verse, Paul stated that
only a widow who “has been the wife of one man” should be taken in. In
light of this, some believe that having only been married to one person
in one’s life has some type of spiritual significance, or at least
offers a person some type of life circumstance that would be desirable
for one who is an elder. Such an understanding seems to leave something
to be desired based on the actual wording of 1 Timothy 3:2.
The qualification in 1 Timothy 3:2 states that a bishop “must be” in the present tense. The Greek words
dei and
eivai
combine to form the “must” and “be” so that each of the qualifications
is one that must at the present be a part of the potential elder’s life
or character. For instance, it would do no good to have an elder who at
one time was hospitable, but is no longer such. Nor would it behoove a
congregation to have an elder who in the past was able to teach, but
currently is not able to do so. Ironically, the present tense force is
conspicuously absent from 1 Timothy 5:9, and a widow could not be taken
into the number of the church if she was married to a man who was living
(for she would not be a widow). Yet the ideal for an elder is for him
to be currently married. Thus, it seems an unnatural and tenuous stretch
to force the “parallel” between 1 Timothy 3:2 and 1 Timothy 5:9 to mean
that an elder cannot be remarried after the death of a spouse. As
Glasscock wrote: “First Timothy 3:2 does not say ‘an elder must be
married only once’ nor does it say ‘an elder cannot remarry’” (140:247).
He further stated that if Paul had wanted to insist that an elder must
be married to one woman his whole life, the inspired writer could have
written, “having had only one wife.” Since Paul did not make such a
statement when it was in his power to do so, it goes beyond the bounds
of the phrase “the husband of one wife” to insist that it means “having
had only one wife” (140:247).
An understanding of the biblical teaching of marriage adds weight to
the idea that a man can be qualified for the eldership, even if he has
been married after the death of a spouse. In 1 Corinthians 7:39, Paul
stated: “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives, but if her
husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only
in the Lord.” Marriage is a covenant that holds sway only as long as a
person lives on this Earth in a physical, mortal body. Once a person’s
spouse dies, he or she is no longer married to that person.
Jesus elucidated this fact in His discussion with the Sadducees. This
particular Jewish sect did not believe in the resurrection of the soul.
In order to trap Jesus, the Sadducees concocted a situation which they
thought rendered the idea of the resurrection absurd. They presented to
Jesus the situation in which a woman married a man, he died, so she
married his brother. Subsequently, his brother died, and she married the
third brother. Eventually, she lived through seven marriages to seven
brothers and finally died. The Sadducees then asked Jesus, “Therefore,
in the resurrection, whose wife will she be? For they all had her”
(Matthew 22:23-28). Jesus explained to the Sadducees that they did not
understand the resurrection or the Scriptures. He stated that “in the
resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like
the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). From Jesus’ teachings, we
learn that a marriage contracted on Earth has no force in the
resurrection.
Thus, a person who was married to one wife on Earth, when she dies, is
no longer married to that person. While she was his wife in the past,
she cannot rightly be called his wife now, since the covenant of
marriage is over at the point of the death of a spouse. Glasscock
summarized this idea when he wrote: “Surely no one seriously believes
that if a man’s wife dies that he is still bound to her in marriage;
thus if he marries a second time, he still has only one wife, that is,
he is truly still ‘the husband of one wife’” (140:247). As J.W. McGarvey
stated: “It may be well to add that one living wife is clearly meant,
and that there is no allusion to the number of deceased wives a man may
have had. If my wife is dead, I am not now her husband” (1950, p. 57).
Therefore, if a man’s wife dies and he becomes a widower, the present
tense force of being the “husband of one wife” would seem to exclude him
from being qualified for the eldership. We must be careful to insist
that such a situation does not make him any less of a Christian, any
less spiritual, or any less valuable to the Lord’s cause. It simply is
the case that a circumstance in his life has arisen that renders him no
longer qualified to serve as an elder at a particular time. To
illustrate further, suppose a man was an exceptional teacher, but was in
a tragic accident and lost his voice and his ability to communicate his
thoughts properly. Could it be that such an accident would render him
unable to teach? Certainly. Since he is no longer “apt to teach,” and
would most likely not be in the physical condition to serve as an elder,
would it be the best course for him to no longer be an elder? Yes. Is
he less valuable to God, less spiritual, or in any way less “Christian”?
Absolutely not. It is simply the case that a circumstance in his life
has rendered him unable to serve as an elder at a particular time in his
life. The eldership is a functional role that requires a person to
maintain the qualifications throughout the time of his tenure as an
elder. On the other hand, if a widower were to remarry after the death
of his wife (and the woman he remarried met the qualifications detailed
for the wives of elders—1 Timothy 3:11), the present tense force of
being the “husband of one wife” would allow him to be considered for the
eldership.
Can a Man Who Has Been Divorced and Remarried Be an Elder?
If a man who loses his spouse to death and remarries can be considered
for the eldership, the natural question arises, “What about a man who is
divorced and remarried?” If the phrase “the husband of one wife,” does
not mean “having been married only once in his life,” that would seem to
admit the possibility that a man who has been divorced and is remarried
to “one wife” could be eligible. Before delving into this, let us
restate the ideal. The perfect situation is one in which there is a man
who has been married once to the same woman and she is living during the
time he serves as an elder. Is it possible, however, that a divorced
man who is remarried may still be an elder?
When we look to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, we see that God
hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), and that in every divorce sin and
selfishness on someone’s part lie at the heart of the broken marriage.
When the Pharisees questioned Him about divorce, Christ explained that
from the beginning of the human race, God instituted marriage to be
between one man and one woman for life (Matthew 19:1-9). In the course
of that discussion, Jesus noted that there is only one possible
exception in which a person can divorce his wife lawfully in the sight
of God. Jesus said: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except
for sexually immorality, and marries another commits adultery; and
whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).
The sole exception that Jesus gave for dissolving a marriage in the eyes
of God is if a person’s spouse has sexual intercourse with another
besides his/her spouse. Jesus’ statement implies that if a man divorces
his wife for sexual immorality, and he marries another person, he does
not commit adultery by remarrying the second person. If a man can be
married to a second wife (because he divorced his first wife due to
sexual infidelity), and not be considered by God to be committing
adultery, then it follows that God must (at least in the innocent
party’s case) view the first marriage as dissolved and the covenant
broken. Therefore, it would still be the case that a man who divorced
his wife because of sexual infidelity and married another woman
would/could be “the husband of one wife.”
It would appear logical that a man’s condition upon the death of a
wife, or due to a divorce because of marital infidelity, would be the
same, and a subsequent marriage would not disqualify him from being the
“husband of one wife.” Robert Saucy aptly summarized the situation:
If divorce on the basis of adultery is legal and dissolves the
marriage so that the one divorced can marry another, is the one
remarried considered to be now “the husband of one wife”? It seems
evident that legally such a remarried person is the husband of only one
wife. He is not considered to have two wives. If this is true, then
technically, he meets the requirements of the language of 1 Timothy
(1974, 131:234).
An Additional Consideration
When discussing such “technicalities,” as we have in this article, it
is often easy to forget that we are dealing with situations that play
out in the real world of human relationships. While it may be true that a
person could be technically qualified for the position of an elder, it
might also be true that those who he is contemplating leading would not
consider him qualified for one reason or another. It may be the case
that many members of a congregation believe that a man must have only
had one wife his whole life in order to be qualified to be an elder. It
might be that a significant number of the members believe that death
would dissolve a marriage, but a divorced man could never be qualified
as an elder. What is to be done in such situations? The various other
character qualities prescribed for an elder in Titus and 1 Timothy would
help a Christian man come to the best possible conclusion. Any man who
is qualified to be an elder, who is hospitable, wise, experienced,
sober-minded, and temperate, will certainly consider more than the
“technicalities” of the qualifications for the eldership before he seeks
such an appointment. A man who is qualified to be an elder will have,
at the heart of any decision he makes, the unity and overall good of the
congregation of which he is a part.
CONCLUSION
Paul states that an elder must be “the husband of one wife.” There are
some aspects of this statement that are clearer than others. It can be
determined that the phrase necessarily means that only men are to be
considered for the office. The exclusion of women from the office of
elder does not imply that men are of more value, or that women are less
capable. It simply accords with the biblical teaching that men and women
have different roles, not different status as Christians. In addition,
the phrase “the husband of one wife” is a present tense statement that
implies that a man should be currently married to one woman. The
candidate for the eldership, about whom there is no question as it
pertains to this one qualification, is a man who is currently married to
the one and only woman who has ever been his wife, and they stay
married throughout the duration of his eldership. A close look at the
qualifications, however, would seem to indicate that a man who is
remarried after the death of a spouse, or one who is remarried after a
divorce caused by his wife’s sexual infidelity, is technically still
viewed as the “husband of one wife.”
REFERENCES
Glasscock, Ed (1983), “‘The Husband of One Wife’ Requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, 140:244-258, July-September.
Hailey, Jan Faver (1993), “‘Neither Male and Female’ (Gal. 3:28),”
Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, ed. Carroll Osburn (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Jackson, Wayne (2010), “Women’s Role in the Church,” http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/169-womans-role-in-the-church.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1998),
Commentary on the New Testament: The
Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the
Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Lewis, Jack P. (1985),
Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
McGarvey, J.W. (1950),
The Eldership (Murfreesboro, TN: Dehoff).
Miller, Dave (2005), “Female Leadership in the Church,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2694.
Mounce, William (2000),
Pastoral Epistles (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).
Moss, C. Michael (1994),
1, 2 Timothy & Titus (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Saucy, Robert (1974), “The Husband of One Wife,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, 131:229-240, July.
Templeton, Charles (1996),
Farewell to God (Ontario, Canada: McClelland and Stewart).
Vincent, Marvin (1886),
Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
The
PC crowd regularly and incessantly levels charges of “phobia” against
all those who disagree with them on any number of moral issues.1
If you believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful, you are
declared “homophobic” or “lesbophobic”; if you believe Islam is a false
religion that endangers the American way of life, you are deemed
“Islamophobic”; if you are concerned about the moral and spiritual
impact on the nation of those who enter America illegally, you are
labeled “xenophobic”; if you believe in the God of the Bible and
consider atheism to be false, you are “atheophobic”; if you believe
transgenderism is a mental illness, you are demeaned as “transphobic”;
and the list goes on.
To
many people, the Earth looks extremely old—not hundreds or thousands of
years old, but millions or billions of years old. When these
individuals hear a creationist talk about a “young Earth” that is only a
few thousand years old, they may wonder how someone could hold such a
view. “How can anyone look at Earth and think it was created less than
10,000 years ago?” Aside from their reliance on faulty (and often
contradictory) assumption-based radiometric dating methods,
evolutionists simply believe the Earth looks
exceedingly old. The Earth’s rocks, hills, canyons, and mountains leave
them with the impression that the Earth has been around for billions of
years.