Single Bishops?

[Lionroot]

1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)1 Tim 3:1-5

Actually that is reading more into the text of 1Tim. 3:4 than is there. There is no implicit denial of a single person serving as an elder or bishop implied at all.

mlqurgw,
So lets put it all together: According to Paul, the overseer must be a husband, and not just that, he must be a father. He doesn't say "If he is married", no he uses infatic language here. He must be married to fulfill this obligation, so that his house hold can be judged. "(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)"

This is not implicit denial, it is explicit denial.

That's interesting, isn't it, especially since Paul preferred that people who wanted to serve the Lord should remain single.

Here is exactly what Paul says.

32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.-1 Corinthians 7:32-35

Your trying to connect, what is not connected in scripture. I never said single people cannot serve God, they just do not meet Paul's criterion for an Overseer. That is not in and of itself a bad thing. We all have different roles to play in the church.

God Bless,

Robert

 

[FallingWaters]

1 Timothy 3:2 ESV
"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach"


Adam Clarke says:
"...He should be a married man, but he should be no polygamist"
"The apostle’s meaning appears to be this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his wife and married another; nor one that has two wives at a time. It does not appear to have been any part of the apostle’s design to prohibit second marriages..."

John Gill says:
"though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife; or that he should not marry, or not have married a second wife, after the death of the first; only if he marries or is married, that he should have but one wife at a time; so that this rule excludes all such persons from being elders, or pastors, or overseers of churches, that were "polygamists"; who had more wives than one at a time, or had divorced their wives, and not for adultery, and had married others..."
He continues to say:
"So the high priest among the Jews, even when polygamy was in use, might not marry, or have two wives, at once..."

Albert Barnes says:
"(1) It is the most obvious meaning of the language, and it would doubtless be thus understood by those to whom it was addressed. At a time when polygamy was not uncommon, to say that a man should “have but one wife” would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy."
This is what I have always thought it to mean.

 

[Lionroot]

FallingWaters,



I can see Adam Clark's commentary from my desk, among others. These guys are not scripture, which is all that is authorative, they are after all flawed human beings with their own prejudices.

Really it would be more interesting if the bulk of your posts were from you.

1 Timothy 3:2 ESV

"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach"

The explicit language says, the overseer must be the husband. That is not an optional feature, thus the word "must".

Adam Clarke says:

"...He should be a married man[/b]"

John Gill says:

"though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife; ... only if he marries or is married, ...

OK, unfortunately Mr. Gill does not explain himself. How is it that you think he justifies his position? I think it is interesting that your "witnesses" do not seem to agree with each other on the issue. Which point are you trying to prove?



Let’s deal with the issue of single Bishops, Elders, and Overseers first.

Book: 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Pg 58

By Neil S. Wilson, Bruce B. Barton, David R. Veerman

" He should be a married man, the husband of one wife.”

John Wesley and Marriage by Bufford W. Coe

When Titus 1:6 says that an elder must be "the husband of one wife." Wesley editorializes, "Surely the Holy Ghost, by repeating this so often, designed to leave the Romanists without excuse."

So there you go. Here are some guys that agree with me.

The truth is men disagree on what this phrase means, but it really comes down to whether or not you believe the explicit text or not.

God Bless,

Robert

 

[Christler]

I believe in safe than sorry, and I believe Scripture always supercedes theologians,and Bible Scholars. We need to have enough respect for God's word to obey the literal when in doubt. We have to abstain from the very appearance of evil. If you take passages of scripture that are of this nature for face value at least there is no question to action being right or wrong, that is the only way to retain true confidence of doing thing "GOD'S" way, and not gambling on a bet that God could have meant this is ok.

 

[PaladinValer]

I'm Anglican, so I'm covered

 

[Simonline]

mlqurgw,
So lets put it all together: According to Paul, the overseer must be a husband, and not just that, he must be a father. He doesn't say "If he is married", no he uses [emphatic] language here. He must be married to fulfill this obligation, so that his house hold can be judged. "(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)"

Paul does not say that at all. What he does say is that if an overseer is married (the 'if' being implied) then he must not be a bigamist or a polygamist. The Scriptures do not teach that oversight is the exclusive perogative of family men. Whilst it was Jewish tradition for a rabbi to be a family man it was never a Biblical precept otherwise the Messiah as the one having absolute oversight of His own Body is well and truly screwed?!

You are trying to argue from silence. Arguments from silence are invariably prejudice writ large in neon lights.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

FallingWaters,

The explicit language says, the overseer must be the husband. That is not an optional feature, thus the word "must".

You're missing the point. The emphasis is on the number of wives an overseer is permitted (not compelled) to have at any one time, not on whether or not he is married.

The truth is men disagree on what this phrase means, but it really comes down to whether or not you believe the explicit text or not.

OK which text explicitly states that single people cannot be overseers?! So far you have referred only to a text that may or may not imply it?! Like I said, arguments from silence are prejudice writ large in neon lights

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

I believe in safe than sorry, and I believe Scripture always supercedes theologians,and Bible Scholars. We need to have enough respect for God's word to obey the literal when in doubt. We have to abstain from the very appearance of evil. If you take passages of scripture that are of this nature for face value at least there is no question to action being right or wrong, that is the only way to retain true confidence of doing thing "GOD'S" way, and not gambling on a bet that God could have meant this is ok.

So, relative to the point in question, what exactly are you saying?!

Simonline.

 

[FallingWaters]

FallingWaters,

I can see Adam Clark's commentary from my desk, among others. These guys are not scripture, which is all that is authoritative, they are after all flawed human beings with their own prejudices.

Really it would be more interesting if the bulk of your posts were from you.

...

I am aware that commentaries do not have more authority than scripture.

Since I am not a scholar of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages as Adam Clarke was, and perhaps the others were as well, I benefited myself of their opinions of the original intent of the writer.

My opinion of the English translation does not much matter.

 

[FourScoreandaGecko]

Paul does not say that at all. What he does say is that if an overseer is married (the 'if' being implied) then he must not be a bigamist or a polygamist. The Scriptures do not teach that oversight is the exclusive perogative of family men. Whilst it was Jewish tradition for a rabbi to be a family man it was never a Biblical precept otherwise the Messiah as the one having absolute oversight of His own Body is well and truly screwed?!

You are trying to argue from silence. Arguments from silence are invariably prejudice writ large in neon lights.

Simonline.

It's easy to throw that "if" in there because if fits not only your theology, but is also very possible to do in English. However, in Greek there are four very distinct ways to form a conditional sentence, and Paul has never shown hesitancy in using them. This, however, is not formed as a conditional clause.

Consider what might happen if you began arbitrarily adding "if"s where you thought they might belong in English.

 

[Christler]

So, relative to the point in question, what exactly are you saying?!

Simonline.

I'm saying if scripture says a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, and that he must rule his own household well, and there arise a question that there be found no accurate answer of certainty if it is acceptable to be single and a Bishop, then it is better to for He who is single to not pursue the office of Bishop, rather than to assume the apostles meaning by way of historical issues pertaining to the time in which he wrote the epistle. Nevertheless it is important to use the tool of relation to culture to get a better understanding of scripture, but I say stick to the face value, unless you can otherwise prove a possition on a particular passage by way of more scripture to support the soundness of one's doctrine. Otherwise don't dare to advise one on the contrary to what is written in the canon.

 

[Lionroot]

What he does say is that if an overseer is married (the 'if' being implied) then he must not be a bigamist or a polygamist.

I learned in school about an "implied you" but I never heard of "implied if". There is no "implied if " that is simply wishful thinking. Do they teach diagraming sentences in school anymore. Ask your English teacher to diagram the sentence. You cannot deal with the phrase until you deal with the object.

The Scriptures do not teach that oversight is the exclusive perogative of family men.

You certainly cannot prove that from this scripture.

Whilst it was Jewish tradition for a rabbi to be a family man it was never a Biblical precept otherwise the Messiah as the one having absolute oversight of His own Body is well and truly screwed?!

In that this scripture is addressed to people seeking a specific position, I dont think that is going to be a problem for Jesus or Paul. Neither was a Bishop, or a Deacon.

You are trying to argue from silence.

Thats quite a charge for someone making up new gramatical rules. There is no "if" and the definately is no implied if.

Arguments from silence are invariably prejudice writ large in neon lights.

One does not argue from silence when we deal with the words that are there. Your making up words that simply are not there to make it say what you want it to.

Check the log in your own eye first.

God Bless,

Robert

 

[Lionroot]

Since I am not a scholar of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages as Adam Clarke was, and perhaps the others were as well, I benefited myself of their opinions of the original intent of the writer.

I totally understand that. The translators of all major translations had similar credentials, and generally speaking they worked on committee. So basically a group of linguistic scholars have come to an agreement as to what the English should say before it gets in your Bible.

Still one does have to wonder how Mr. Clark could arrive at a conclusion so different from the English text.

God Bless,

Robert

 

[JDIBe]

What part of "must" implies an "if"??

 

[ebia]

mlqurgw,
So lets put it all together: According to Paul, the overseer must be a husband, and not just that, he must be a father. He doesn't say "If he is married", no he uses infatic language here. He must be married to fulfill this obligation, so that his house hold can be judged. "(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)"

This is not implicit denial, it is explicit denial.


Here is exactly what Paul says.

Your trying to connect, what is not connected in scripture. I never said single people cannot serve God, they just do not meet Paul's criterion for an Overseer. That is not in and of itself a bad thing. We all have different roles to play in the church.

God Bless,

Robert

Yep. If you take it hyper-literally then yes, an overseer must have exactly one wife and at least two children. But then, if you do that, you'd better strictly enforce the rest with the same hyper-literal excessiveness, which will mean you have no valid candidates whatsoever. Including, it would appear, all the New Testament ones. Hmmm.

Or you can read it sensibly and realise that Paul is speaking about those with 'two wives', excessivly unruly familys, and other clearly inappropriate people.

 

[Simonline]

I learned in school about an "implied you" but I never heard of "implied if". There is no "implied if " that is simply wishful thinking. Do they teach diagraming sentences in school anymore. Ask your English teacher to diagram the sentence. You cannot deal with the phrase until you deal with the object.


You certainly cannot prove that from this scripture.




In that this scripture is addressed to people seeking a specific position, I dont think that is going to be a problem for Jesus or Paul. Neither was a Bishop, or a Deacon.



Thats quite a charge for someone making up new gramatical rules. There is no "if" and the definately is no implied if.



One does not argue from silence when we deal with the words that are there. Your making up words that simply are not there to make it say what you want it to.

Check the log in your own eye first.

God Bless,

Robert

So what you're really saying is that the Church is simply another version of Mormonism with it's worship of the nuclear family rather than God and which has absolutely nothing to say to single people?! Yeah, right...meanwhile, back in the real world. Spiritual oversight is not limited to deacons, presbyters and bishops so my comments about the Messiah still stand (in spite of the fact that you have chosen to dismiss them out of hand). If we're not going to argue from silence then the only one of the original twelve disciples who was known to be married was Peter.

Simonline.

 

[heavensangelwv]

I Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

First of all, we have to consider the time period that this was written in. It was not uncommon for men to have more than one wife. Paul was simply saying that if you are to become a bishop, you can have no more than one wife. It is not saying you have to be married.

 

[Lionroot]

Yep. If you take it hyper-literally then yes, an overseer must have exactly one wife and at least two children.

Thats not "hyper literal" at all, that is precisely what it says. If you cannot believe what the Bible says plainly then we cannot trust it at all.

No it is a hyper liberal reading that inserts the thought "if".

So what you're really saying is that the Church is simply another version of Mormonism with it's worship of the nuclear family rather than God and which has absolutely nothing to say to single people?!

I said nothing of the sort. You have created a nice straw-man for yourself, but you have failed to prove your case. Single people have a role in ministry, just not as an Elders or a Deacons. Missionaries, Teachers, and small group leaders just to name a few.

First of all, we have to consider the time period that this was written in. It was not uncommon for men to have more than one wife.

Nevertheless you cannot get around the word "must". It is simple grammar.

Paul was simply saying that if you are to become a bishop, you can have no more than one wife. It is not saying you have to be married.

Why is it so important for you to insert "if"?

To all "if" instead of "must" people.

How does this threatens your faith? Is your pastor single, or perhaps female. If it gets your dander up perhaps you should consider changing your condition, because no matter what you do Paul says "must" not "if", and that is not going to change by your contention.

God Bless,

Robert

 

[ebia]

If you cannot believe what the Bible says plainly then we cannot trust it at all
1. What you propose may be literal, but it's hardly plain.
2. This simply doesn't follow, however much literalists repeat it.

 

[ReformedChapin]

If you cannot believe what the Bible says plainly then we cannot trust it at all
1. What you propose may be literal, but it's hardly plain.
2. This simply doesn't follow, however much literalists repeat it.

What is the proper hermanutic then mr ebia? subjectivism?