Must Elders Be Married?
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 1] |
On Wednesday, August 4, 1880, the annual conference of Churches of Christ in Great Britain met at Huddersfield. Brother G. Y. Tickle presented a paper on "The Eldership." Later, he published it in The Christian Advocate, of which he was editor. Here is an excerpt from the printed version:
"1 respectfully submit that there is nothing in the directions given to either Timothy or Titus to make it imperative that they should be married men, and that they should have children.... The one, as opposed to plurality, is evidently the emphatic word. But it may be asked, Does it not even in that case include the injunction that he must be a married man? Most assuredly not. If the apostle has before him a man with a plurality of wives and intends to exclude him from the eldership on that ground, you have no right to say that is equal to having a single man before him who is to be excluded simply on the ground of his being unmarried or a widower--for to be consistent the language must exclude both."At the same time, Bro. David King was editor of the Ecclesiastical Observer. He took exception to the speech made at the conference. This provoked Bro. Tickle to write in the next edition of his paper as follows:
"When we presented our paper on 'The Eldership' to the Annual Meeting we did not expect, and had no desire that it should escape the sifting of a full and fair criticism. We know that it is only by such means that the question can be lifted out of the ruts which a superficial exegesis has sunk for it, and he made to move forward on broad apostolic lines. That the Editor of the Ecclesiastical Observer should allow the whole of our positions, some of them so widely divergent from those ho has accepted so many years as unassailable, to pass unchallenged, was not at all to be expected. We have felt, therefore, no surprise either as to the points of his attack, or to the manner in which the attack has been made, but we are bound to say we have never known the Editor so rash and heedless as he has shown himself in this critique on our paper."After another rebuttal by Bro. King, the controversy was suspended by Bro. Tickle in these words:
"We do not think it would be profitable to enter into further controversy on this subject. D. K. intimates that he is not satisfied with the reply in our last issue. We were not altogether satisfied with his attack and are not at all satisfied with his rejoinder. If we answered in the same vein, we are sure dissatisfaction would be increased on both sides. So we prefer to let the matter rest where it is, in the hope that the brethren may be enabled to look away from the men and theirInterest in the issue has been heightened in some sections of the disciple brotherhood in this country in the last two years. A Pennsylvania reader posed the following question to a fellow editor:little contention to the question in its different phases and on its merits, carefully weighing all that has been advanced in the way of argument in the balances of truth and right reason.
[Page 2]
"If a man has all the qualifications to be an elder except that he has no children, his wife being childless and thus he has no children through no fault of his own, would that in itself bar him forever to serve as elder?"The reply as published went far beyond the original question, for it would appear that the querist assumed that an elder must be married. But the editor responded in these words:
"If brethren generally will be gracious enough not to hang me on Haman's gallows, I would like to say that I think we have stretched the domestic qualifications for bishops out of proportions. Paul's stipulations to Timothy and Titus deal with a 'normal' situation, and normally men old enough to be bishops are married and have children. But does Paul draw the line on bachelors or childless married men? I think not. Our straight-laced interpretations would bar even Paul himself from being an elder. The 'husband of one wife' qualification literally means a 'one-woman man,' which is likely a moral restriction against polygamy. Most all scholars take this view, if that means anything. The 'Church of Christ' stands almost alone in its idea that bishops must he married men, an interpretation that is linguistically weak. With such a liberal view I would, of course, say No to the above question. I am always amazed at brethren who think a man must be a husband and father in order to oversee a church, and yet believe that an evangelist who sets the church in order and trains men to be bishops can be either single or childless."I was not disturbed by this reply. But I must admit that I was amazed at the reaction of many. They actually became emotionally upset and agitated. Instead of bringing forward proof to sustain their position and to show any fallacy in the reasoning of the editor, they began to whisper that he was unsound and unsafe. Some quit taking his paper on the ground that they did not want to read anything which disagreed with their position. My attitude is just the opposite of that. I have long ago determined that I do not learn by reading after those in perfect agreement with me. Those who are not, present things to challenge my thinking. They force me to re-evaluate my convictions. I am thus made to test all things so that I may retain what is good. Accordingly, when I read such an article I invariably follow a three-point program. First, I read it over very carefully to ascertain just what the author intends to convey; secondly, I examine such proofs as he presents by the proper criterion; thirdly, I formulate my own convictions in the light of my personal investigation.
For several months in MISSION MESSENGER I have been conducting a survey of the eldership. Having considered the moral qualifications of the presbyters, I have arrived at the place where I must deal with the domestic requirements. The first question is whether or not a man must be married to qualify. Strictly speaking, the question is what Paul intended to convey in the expression "mias gunaikos andra." That is what should concern us. We ought not to be interested primarily, in whether these words confirm a qualification we have set up. We must seek to find what qualification they set up. Since I am dealing at such length with an issue which may appear to my readers to be of minor importance, I offer as justification the fact that I am of the sober opinion that we can never restore the church of God to its ancient order without restoring the polity ordained by the holy apostles. Any matter related to the government of the congregation of saints is important. This particular one has taken on added importance at this time.
I am deeply indebted to, and appreciative of, the great scholars who have done so much in clearing the ground for those of us possessed of humbler intellects. I doubt that any person now living has a more profound respect for scholarship than the writer. Yet, I recognize that the mere fact that the "Church of Christ" stands almost alone in its idea that bishops must be married men, is not in itself, proof of either correctness or error in thinking. I shall seek to be objective and not concerned with the idea of any
[Page 3] |
"Mias gunaikos andra." In generations past men of great learning
have held conflicting views. These words have been said to have the following connotations:
1. To forbid concubinage.
2. To forbid polygamy.
3. To forbid remarriage after divorce.
4. To forbid digamy, or deuterogamy (a second marriage after the death
of the mate).
5. To demand that elders be married men.
At the outset, it must be admitted that most all scholars positively reject the last as being a proper interpretation. There are some notable exceptions to which we will later call attention. But it is likewise true that a careful poll of the same scholars may prove that a majority of them reject the idea that Paul was opposing polygamy by his statement. They believe rather that he was opposing deuterogamy, that is, a second marriage after death of a companion.
Goodspeed translates: "Only once married." James Moffatt: "He must be married only once." The Berkeley Version: "One wife's husband," with an added footnote: "If married at all." The New Testament in Plain English has "Married only once." The Revised Standard Version reads: "Married only once," with the footnote: "Greek the husband of one wife."
On the original language itself, Kenneth S. Wuest, in his book on The Pastoral Epistles has this to say:
"The two nouns are without the definite article, which construction indicates character or nature. The entire context is one in which the character of the bishop is being discussed. Thus one can translate 'a one-wife sort of husband' or 'a one-woman sort of man.' We speak of the Airedale as a one-man dog. We mean, by that, that it is his nature to become attached to only one man, his master. Since character is emphasized by the Greek construction, the bishop should be a man who loves only one woman as his wife. It should be his nature to thus isolate and centralize his love."Edmund J. Wolff, D.D., Professor of Church History and New Testament Exegesis in the Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, says:
"Public sentiment at the time looked with disfavor upon the contraction of marriage after the death of one's consort. It was held to be unseemly, if not immoral. To forego a second wedlock was regarded as a mark of high moral strictness. Even the heathen deemed it unbecoming for a widow. It, therefore, behooved one about to step on the high pedestal of pastoral oversight to conform to public sentiment--as long as it was not sinful, and to set an example of self-restraint."Henry Alford, D.D., one time Dean of Canterbury, concurs in this view as shown by his statement:
"The view then which must I think be adopted is that.... St. Paul forbids second marriage. He requires of them pre-eminent chastity, and abstinence from licence which is allowed to other Christians. How far such a prohibition is to be considered binding on us, now that the Christian life has entered into another and totally different phase, is of course an open question for the present Christian church at any time to deal with. It must be as a matter of course understood that regulations, in all lawful things, depend, even when made by an Apostle, on circumstances: and the superstitious observance of the letter in such cases is often pregnant with mischief to the people and the cause of Christ."The reader is no doubt familiar with Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament. In espousing the above position, the author says:
"The opposition to second marriage became very strong in the latter part of the second century. It was elevated into an article of faith by the Montanists, and was emphasized by Tertullian, and by Athenagoras, who called second marriage 'a spurious adultery.'"Among the commentators who believe that the apostle was forbidding second marriages are Bloomfield, Wiesinger, Van Oosterzee, Huther, Ellicott, Wordsworth, and Faussett. There are a number of others who dissent from this view, among them H. H. Harvey, D.D., of Hamilton Theological Seminary, who declares:
"It seems clear, therefore, that the disqualification here intended is not remarriage after the death of a wife, but polygamy, or the having at the same time more than one living wife."To complicate this explanation, Alfred Plummer, M.A., D.D., affirms that:
"Polygamy in the Roman Empire must have been very rare. It was forbidden by Roman law, which did not allow a man toAs to the rarity of polygamy in the days of the apostles we have the testimony of E. F. Scott, Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York.have more than one lawful wife at a time, and treated every simultaneous marriage, not only as null and void, but infamous. When it was practiced, it must have been practiced secretly. It is possible that when St. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, not a single polygamist had been converted to the Christian faith. Polygamists were exceedingly rare inside the Empire, and the Church had not yet spread beyond it."
[Page 4]
"This has sometimes been taken to imply that only married men were eligible, but a rule of this kind would be contrary to the whole passage, which deals with character rather than status. Neither can it be polygamy which is forbidden, for this was never practiced in the civilized regions of Asia Minor. Perhaps Moffatt is right in translating he must be married only once".... But perhaps the meaning is simply that a bishop must show an example of strict morality. As a man of mature years he would presumably be married, and in the married relation, above all others, he must be above reproach."Edward Hayes Plumptree, D.D., Professor in King's College, London, suggests another alternative:
"A third explanation is, perhaps, more satisfactory. The most prominent fact in the social life of both Jews and Greeks at this period was the frequency of divorce. This, as we know, Jewish teachers, for the most part, sanctioned on even trifling grounds (Matt. 5:31, 32; 19:3-9). The apostle, taking up the law which Christ had laid down, infers that any breach of that law (even in the case which made marriage after divorce just permissible) would at least so far diminish a man's claim to respect as to disqualify him for office."Walter Lock, D.D., in The International Critical Commentary, reaches about the same conclusion:
"To be unmarried would incur no reproach: such a requirement (marriage) would be scarcely consistent with the teaching of our Lord (Matt. 19:12) and of St. Paul (1 Cor. 7:7, 8); so the writer is only thinking of the character of a bishop, if married; as in verse 4 he deals only with his children, if he has children.... It also implies, and was probably meant to imply, not divorcing one wife and marrying another."Paul E. Kretzmann, Ph.D., D.D., in Popular Commentary of the Bible, offers the following:
"That a pastor lead a chaste and decent life, confining his attentions to his wife if he have one, as he normally will, not living in concubinage or bigamy, or rejecting a woman to whom he is lawfully betrothed for another."N.J D. White, D.D., in The Expositor's Greek Testament sets forth the view:
"It does not mean that the episcopus must be, or have been married. What is here forbidden is digamy under any circumstances."Nothing is more apparent to the researchist than the wide area of disagreement among the scholars. They are not agreed upon what the apostle meant. They are not even agreed upon what he did not mean. It is true that a majority take the position that Paul did not intend to set up the married state as requisite to office. On this point, we quote from R. C. H. Lenski, who says:
"The emphasis is on one wife's husband, and the sense is that he have nothing to do with any other woman. He must be a man who cannot he taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity. It is plain that Paul does not say here that none but married men may enter the ministry, that every pastor must be married."John Peter Lange, in his comments upon the passages under consideration, says:
"The view that Paul speaks here only of the married state, as a conditio sine qua non for the episcopoi, or that he merely discourages anything unusual, immoral, or illegal in the married life of such officers, does not fully explain his language."Scott's Bible agree with the thought expressed by Lange and others, with the words:
"Some have inferred from this text, that stated pastors ought to be married, as a prerequisue to their office; but this seems to be a mistake of a general permission, connected with a restriction, for an express command."
[Page 5] |
"Sometimes wrongly interpreted as alluding to polygamy or adultery, or of forbidding celibacy."Professor T. Croskery, D.D., in The Pulpit Commentary, also declares:
"It does not necessarily compel pastors to marry, like the Greek church.... It seems to mean that the pastor was to be 'the husband of one wife,' avoiding the polygamy that was then common among the Jews, and the system of divorce still so common in that age, and remaining faithful to the wife of his choice."We need to be careful, lest we leave the impression that all of the commentators and historians are united in the view that Paul did not set up marriage as a qualification. Carlstadt, the illustrious contemporary of Luther, and the fiery reformer, who advocated that a destructive process was the only method of reform, was a notable exception. This man, who was anxious to introduce into ecclesiastical and civil affairs an unconditional adherence to the obvious and literal construction of the Scriptures, steadfastly contended that the bishops should be married men.
Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., Principal of Glasgow College, in his book, "The Church and The Ministry in the Early Centuries," says:
"Titus is told that a presbyter or elder must be a man who is above suspicion, who is a faithful husband, and whose children are Christians of well-regulated lives."In a footnote on the same page is contained the following explanation:
"'A faithful husband' appears to be the best translation of mias gunaikos andre, one who acts on the principles of Christian morality and is not led astray by the licentious usages of the surrounding heathenism."But Macknight in his work on "The Epistles" dissents from this view, in this language:
"The direction I have been considering does not make it necessary, to one's being a bishop, that he be a married person.... But the apostle's meaning is, that if such a person be married, he must, as was observed above, have only one wife at a time"Albert Barnes concludes that the apostle intended to prohibit polygamy, but writes:
"This need not be understood as requiring that a bishop should be a married man."In the face of all of this contradictory material what is the honest student to do? What did the apostle actually mean by the terms he used? It is possible we may not be able, at this late date, to definitely determine, in the absence of more complete testimony. Certainly we should not be arbitrary or dogmatic in our personal views. We need to proceed with caution and becoming humility, lest we advance an interpretation, then make of it a creed, and proceed to disfellowship others because they will not bow to our will. There is a difference between what the apostle said and what men think that he meant.
It is an easy matter for us to ignore the results of research and investigation and cling to a traditional view without regard to its validity. But this is not an honest approach to the revealed word of heaven. One of our greatest difficulties is that, having taught a thing for so long, we become lifted up with pride. We feel that we cannot change for this would be an admission of error! Or, perhaps, we learn better, but conclude that silence is the better part of valor. If we remain still and say nothing on the issues that are raised, we can retain the plaudits of the masses; whereas, if we speak out boldly we may be hated and hounded as troublers of Israel.
The writer does not feel that he should suppress his honest views in order to please men. In the next issue those views will be clearly set forth and the reasons given for them. Those reasons may not satisfy all of our readers. They may be deemed as insufficient to justify the conelusion reached, but they will be presented in kindness and love, and those who differ will not be castigated nor driven out by the editor. It is our very fervent prayer that you shall read this review again very carefully and save this issue until the next appears. In the meantime, we believe that there is one thing of which all may be certain, and that is that the enforced celibacy of the Roman Church is contrary to the word of God.