Did the Apostle Peter have kids?????

[daydreamergurl15]

In 1 Peter 5:1

The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:​

We are told that the Apostle Peter was an elder.

in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 the qualifications of an "overseer/bishop/elder (different names for the same position)

1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.​

I'm curious is there anyway that the Apostle Peter would not have to meet that qualification and still be an elder, if he didn't have kids?

In John 21:15-19 Christ tells Peter to "Tend My sheep" which is what elders do, but is there any indication that he didn't have kids at the time when Christ gave him that command or that he doesn't have kids at all???

Btw....this is not a cause to get angry, I'm just asking a question.

 

[narnia59]

In the first letter of Peter, he references his son, Mark. One might assume that is his child, unless he is referencing a spiritual fatherhood relationship as Paul often does.

I think you are misinterpreting the requirements however. I do not believe it is saying one must have children in order to be qualified to be a bishop, rather that the children one has should be an indication of his ability to 'father' well.

Remember that Paul was neither married nor had children, yet met the qualifications for a bishop.

 

[Harry3142]

Church tradition states that St. Peter had a daughter. She was named Petronella, and is listed as one of the early martyrs of the Church.

 

[MamaZ]

Scripture does not give insight to if Peter had children or not so I cannot answer whether he did or not.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

In the first letter of Peter, he references his son, Mark. One might assume that is his child, unless he is referencing a spiritual fatherhood relationship as Paul often does.

I think you are misinterpreting the requirements however. I do not believe it is saying one must have children in order to be qualified to be a bishop, rather that the children one has should be an indication of his ability to 'father' well.

Remember that Paul was neither married nor had children, yet met the qualifications for a bishop.

No, it specifically says that "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)-1 Tim 3:4-5. Men who want to be bishops have to show that they rule their house well, before they can become bishops.

In your last paragraph, you said this: I do not believe it is saying one must have children in order to be qualified to be a bishop, rather that the children one has should be an indication of his ability to 'father' well.
Am I correct in thinking that however you interpreted it, it still says that the man has children?

And If I am thinking correctly, I don't think the apostle Paul was ever an elder, seeing as Paul wrote 1 Timothy, he would have known the qualifications for being an elder, not only did he not have kids, but he also didn't have a wife, which is another qualification for being an elder.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Scripture does not give insight to if Peter had children or not so I cannot answer whether he did or not.

I understand what you mean. I'm just saying based on scripture that we do have, could be conclude that he did have kids? I don't know, I'm just being curious.

 

[The Mighty Sword]

Did the Apostle Peter have kids?????

No, he was a virgin till death and he didn't have any brothers or sisters either that's blasphemy

 

[MrPolo]

In your last paragraph, you said this: I do not believe it is saying one must have children in order to be qualified to be a bishop, rather that the children one has should be an indication of his ability to 'father' well.

That's correct. Incidentally, as others mentioned Paul did not marry (according to Scripture and Tradition), nor did John (according to Tradition), and perhaps other of the Apostles. It is not mandatory to be married in order to be a minister of Christ. In fact both Jesus and Paul encourage unmarried life for serving God. In other words, it is not necessary one have children to be a minister of the Lord.

 

[narnia59]

No, it specifically says that "one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)-1 Tim 3:4-5. Men who want to be bishops have to show that they rule their house well, before they can become bishops.

In your last paragraph, you said this: I do not believe it is saying one must have children in order to be qualified to be a bishop, rather that the children one has should be an indication of his ability to 'father' well.
Am I correct in thinking that however you interpreted it, it still says that the man has children?

And If I am thinking correctly, I don't think the apostle Paul was ever an elder, seeing as Paul wrote 1 Timothy, he would have known the qualifications for being an elder, not only did he not have kids, but he also didn't have a wife, which is another qualification for being an elder.

Good explanation from a "Bible-alone" based site (lest you think my Catholic bias is in the way.)

At any rate, it sums it up quite well. Red is mine for emphasis.

Question: "Can an unmarried man be a deacon or elder?"

Answer: The passages referring to the qualifications for an elder or deacon in the church are 1 Timothy 3:12 “A bishop (elder) then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach”; 1 Timothy 3:12 “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well”; and Titus 1:6-7 “. . . appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination...” These three passages have been interpreted by some to indicate an elder or deacon must be a married man.

The issue is not the elder’s or deacon’s marital status, but his moral and sexual purity. This qualification heads the lists, because it is in this area that leaders are most prone to fail. Some take the qualification for deacons “a deacon must be the husband of but one wife…” in 1 Timothy 3:12 as meaning that for a man to be a deacon, he must be married. That is not the meaning of “husband of one wife.” In the Greek, the phrase “husband of one wife” literally reads “one-woman man.” For a man to be considered for a position of church leadership, and he is married, he must be committed to his wife. This qualification is speaking of fidelity in marriage and sexual purity. It is not a requirement of marriage. If it were, a man would have to be married and also have children, because the second half of 1 Timothy 3:12 states, “…and must manage his children and his household well.” We should understand this qualification as: If a man is married, he must be faithful to his wife. If a man has children, he must manage them well.

Some think this requirement excludes single men from church leadership. But if that were Paul’s intent, he would have disqualified himself (1 Cor. 7:8). A “one-woman man” is one totally devoted to his wife, maintaining singular devotion, affection and sexual purity in both thought and deed. To violate this is to forfeit blamelessness and no longer be “above reproach” (Titus 1:6,7). Being single is praised by the Apostle Paul as enabling more faithful service to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Why would Paul restrict men from church leadership positions when he believes “…an unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs - how he can please the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32)? In the first nine verses of this chapter, Paul establishes that both marriage and singleness are good and right before the Lord. An elder or deacon may be either married or single, as long as he meets the qualifications of godliness outlined in 1 Timothy and Titus.


Can an unmarried man be a deacon or elder?

 

[narnia59]

Scripture does not give insight to if Peter had children or not so I cannot answer whether he did or not.

So you think his son Mark was a spiritual father/son relationship?

 

[MamaZ]

So you think his son Mark was a spiritual father/son relationship?

Direct me to the scripture you refer to please.

 

[narnia59]

Direct me to the scripture you refer to please.

1 Peter 5:13

She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

That's correct. Incidentally, as others mentioned Paul did not marry (according to Scripture and Tradition), nor did John (according to Tradition), and perhaps other of the Apostles. It is not mandatory to be married in order to be a minister of Christ. In fact both Jesus and Paul encourage unmarried life for serving God. In other words, it is not necessary one have children to be a minister of the Lord.

That's true, we are all called to be a servant. But being an elder is a title given meaning you have a huge responsibility in pasturing the church. They have to meet qualifications for that one. And you'll notice that not every Apostle were considered elders.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Good explanation from a "Bible-alone" based site (lest you think my Catholic bias is in the way.)

At any rate, it sums it up quite well. Red is mine for emphasis.

Question: "Can an unmarried man be a deacon or elder?"

Answer: The passages referring to the qualifications for an elder or deacon in the church are 1 Timothy 3:12 “A bishop (elder) then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach”; 1 Timothy 3:12 “Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well”; and Titus 1:6-7 “. . . appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination...” These three passages have been interpreted by some to indicate an elder or deacon must be a married man.

The issue is not the elder’s or deacon’s marital status, but his moral and sexual purity. This qualification heads the lists, because it is in this area that leaders are most prone to fail. Some take the qualification for deacons “a deacon must be the husband of but one wife…” in 1 Timothy 3:12 as meaning that for a man to be a deacon, he must be married. That is not the meaning of “husband of one wife.” In the Greek, the phrase “husband of one wife” literally reads “one-woman man.” For a man to be considered for a position of church leadership, and he is married, he must be committed to his wife. This qualification is speaking of fidelity in marriage and sexual purity. It is not a requirement of marriage. If it were, a man would have to be married and also have children, because the second half of 1 Timothy 3:12 states, “…and must manage his children and his household well.” We should understand this qualification as: If a man is married, he must be faithful to his wife. If a man has children, he must manage them well.

Some think this requirement excludes single men from church leadership. But if that were Paul’s intent, he would have disqualified himself (1 Cor. 7:8). A “one-woman man” is one totally devoted to his wife, maintaining singular devotion, affection and sexual purity in both thought and deed. To violate this is to forfeit blamelessness and no longer be “above reproach” (Titus 1:6,7). Being single is praised by the Apostle Paul as enabling more faithful service to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Why would Paul restrict men from church leadership positions when he believes “…an unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs - how he can please the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32)? In the first nine verses of this chapter, Paul establishes that both marriage and singleness are good and right before the Lord. An elder or deacon may be either married or single, as long as he meets the qualifications of godliness outlined in 1 Timothy and Titus.


Can an unmarried man be a deacon or elder?

I think some people are making this issue more difficult then it needs to be. The qualifications says what it says. All those qualifications show their morality and purity. How? By them being qualified for all that the scripture have asked. If a man meets the qualifications in verses 2-7 then it shows that he is a moral man. The moment we try and deny these qualifications, we open the gates to allow other people in who are not qualified, and having someone as an elder who aren't supposed to be can be a very dangerous thing.

 

[narnia59]

I think some people are making this issue more difficult then it needs to be. The qualifications says what it says. All those qualifications show their morality and purity. How? By them being qualified for all that the scripture have asked. If a man meets the qualifications in verses 2-7 then it shows that he is a moral man. The moment we try and deny these qualifications, we open the gates to allow other people in who are not qualified, and having someone as an elder who aren't supposed to be can be a very dangerous thing.

So you believe that to be qualified they have to be married, and have to have children?

 

[MamaZ]

1 Peter 5:13

She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

Kewl... It just may be that Peter did have a son named Mark..

 

[daydreamergurl15]

So you believe that to be qualified they have to be married, and have to have children?

That's exactly what the scripture says. But not only should they be married and have kids but that their kids are in submission to them and that he rules his own house well.

first part of verse 2 says "A bishop then must be...."
I'm sorry, I don't know how to interpret it any other way. Why would I interpret it differently when it speaks so plainly?

 

[narnia59]

That's exactly what the scripture says. But not only should they be married and have kids but that their kids are in submission to them and that he rules his own house well.

first part of verse 2 says "A bishop then must be...."
I'm sorry, I don't know how to interpret it any other way. Why would I interpret it differently when it speaks so plainly?

Scripture 'exactly' says many things 'plainly'. When people tend to agree with an exact literal interpretation of the verse they point to its 'plain speaking' and wonder why anyone could disagree. If they don't agree with the exact literal interpretation of the verse, they point to the need to look at context, who it was written to, the nuances of language, etc.

I have yet to find any group that sticks with the exact literal, plain interpretation all the way through.

The specific verses which are 'plain' and those which require further analysis vary from group to group. This is why you can have different groups who base their doctrine solely on the Bible with quite different doctrine, and this is a good example.

Regarding the husband of 'one' wife -- are you aware some groups in the past have used this to understand polygamy as being okay, that Scripture is clear that an elder can only have one wife, but others can have more than that?

 

[narnia59]

Kewl... It just may be that Peter did have a son named Mark..

Incidentally, since Babylon is known to be a code word for Rome, some see that as an indication that Peter was with his family (wife and son) in Rome at the time this epistle was written. "She who is in Babylon" refers to his wife sending her greeting, and this was a way to communicate to the church where he was.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Scripture 'exactly' says many things 'plainly'. When people tend to agree with an exact literal interpretation of the verse they point to its 'plain speaking' and wonder why anyone could disagree. If they don't agree with the exact literal interpretation of the verse, they point to the need to look at context, who it was written to, the nuances of language, etc.

I have yet to find any group that sticks with the exact literal, plain interpretation all the way through.

The specific verses which are 'plain' and those which require further analysis vary from group to group. This is why you can have different groups who base their doctrine solely on the Bible with quite different doctrine, and this is a good example.

Regarding the husband of 'one' wife -- are you aware some groups in the past have used this to understand polygamy as being okay, that Scripture is clear that an elder can only have one wife, but others can have more than that?

Listen, I don't know how to interpret verses that specifically says:

1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.​

Size there for emphasis. These verses are speaking plainly, it should be a literal interpretation. There is nothing otherwise that tells us that is should be figurative. And yes the context is important, it will tell us if something is literal or figurative. These are qualifications for eldership, they should be literal. If these qualifications were figurative or subjective, then we can interpret it anyway we want so others can be elders when they are not supposed to be.

And for those of us who based our doctrine solely on scripture, that's what's amazing about the bible, when you give it that chance, it speak for itself.

And about the "one wife bit", just because people use this scripture and twist it the way they want, doesn't mean it supports their point. But regardless, I'm not in that camp that believe polygamy is okay, especially since there are other verses that tells us:
1 Corinthians 7:2

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.​

I have heard that the scripture about "husband of one wife" means that someone who was divorced and now remarried cannot be elders. I have not heard of people twisting the scripture to say that polygamy is okay, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is actually true.