Must Elders Be Married?

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     In our first article on this subject, published in MISSION MESSENGER last month, we reviewed the positions taken by various scholars. We urge you to read it as a preparation for this second article. It will demonstrate the great differences that exist as to the meaning of the language used by the apostle. It will also show that only a small minority of scholars entertain the view that marriage is a requisite for the eldership.

     Those of us who have always contended that a bishop must be married should face up courageously to the difficulties which must be met in the defence of that position. Let me cite but a few. Jesus speaks with commendation of those who "have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12). I understand this to refer to those who desist from marriage to advance the kingdom. Is it logical that one who deprives himself of marriage for the sake of the kingdom, should be deprived of an office or function in that kingdom, on the basis that he is not married? Again, we learn from the scriptures that continency is a gift (Matt. 19:11) and that it is a special gift from God (1 Cor. 7:7). Shall a man be barred from the eldership because he exercises this gift, or, if he desires the office of bishop, must he deny the gift of God?

     The expression "husband of one wife" as relates to the bishop, is on par with the expression "wife of one husband" as pertains to the widow in 1 Timothy 5:9. It is generally conceded, we believe, that the latter expression means that a widow is not to have married again after the death of her husband. In view of this, is it not implied that Paul, instead of setting up marriage as a qualification, was simply stating that no twice married man could qualify? If it be agreed that "husband of one wife" is a correct rendering, is the emphasis to be placed upon "husband" or "one." If we were laying down a qualification of marriage for a position, would we say that a man had to be the husband of one wife? If Paul intended to establish marriage as a requisite to office, why did he not use the word for ''married'' since he was familiar with it and employed it frequently?

     On the other hand, we should not feel that this is the only position beset with problems. Those who settle upon other meanings also have difficulties which they must meet. Certainly the language employed by the apostle meant something, and it meant just one thing when written. It is not a fair or wise approach to say that it could have included a number of various things, for this spirit would do despite to all interpretation, and it is the resort of shallow thinkers and surface reasoners who do not handle the word skillfully.

     In presenting my own view as to the question in our heading, I must admit that I do so with some reluctance which

[Page 2]

I did not feel five years ago. Always before, when writing upon this topic, I have been bold, forward and positive. I merely stated my position derived from years of traditional teaching. It never occurred to me that any person would be so rash as to question it. I admit that I did not strive to find out what the apostle meant, for I thought I already knew. Now that I am again faced with the necessity of declaring my thoughts I find myself both humbled and hesitant. Yet I cannot be true to my readers without expressing my feelings.

     My conclusion is that a bishop should be a married man. This is in opposition to the world's scholarship. It may seem presumptuous to array myself against the battery of great reasoners whose opinions I have cited. Surely I must present the bases for arriving at such a conclusion. I know these will be attacked and sifted, and they should be. It may be proven that they are inadequate and insufficient to justify my position. I submit them in all honesty and sincerity. They are my own. I have not consulted with others on the matter. No one else need be charged with them. My only justification in disagreeing with the scholars is that "God hath chosen the foolish to confound the wise." Here are the reasons which lead me to believe that bishops should be married.

1. The primitive community of saints, being Jewish, was patterned after the synagogue in government. It is my personal feeling that the synagogue, which was a spontaneous production of the Babylonian exile, was used of God to cushion the shock of transition from Judaism to Christianity. This theme I hope to develop in a future book if God spares my life. At the present, it is sufficient to say that all scholars of note agree that the congregation in Jerusalem was a Messianic synagogue, with its permanent form of government developing along the lines with which the people were familiar. Out of the great bulk of material before me, I present statements from two writers of note.
   
        The first quotation is from Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D.D., Dean of Westminster, in his "Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church," Vol.3, Page 409:

   "And thus, inasmuch as the synagogue existed where the Temple was unknown, and remained when the Temple fell, it followed that from its order and worship, and not from that of the Temple, were copied, if not in all their details, yet in the general features, the government, the institutions, and the devotions of those Christian communities, which springing directly from the Jewish, were in the first instance known as 'synagogues' and afterward by the adoption of an almost identical word 'Ecclesia,' assembly house."

        The second quotation will he found in "The Temple Dictionary of the Bible" by W. Ewing, M.A., and J. E. H. Thomson, D.D., under the article "Synagogue."

   "It is not difficult to trace the foundation and practice of the Apostolic Church to the Synagogue system, and to see that we have nothing to do with the Temple worship, which was meant to be unique and to be devoted to the sacrificial ritual.... Every detail of the Primitive Church organization is synagogal--the equality of elders and rulers (Acts 20:17, 28), the episcopal power vested in the presbyters, the daily ministration (Acts 6:1), the matter of collections, the use of the word angel (Rev. 2:1) for the presiding elder, and the general order of Christian worship: all are synagogal and presbyterian."

        It should not be necessary to tell the serious student that the last word in the quotation has no reference to a denomination in the Protestant world, but to a form of government.
   
        The Jewish disciples were familiar with the rule of elders in the synagogue. (See MISSION MESSENGER, June 1957, page 8). It is conceivable that when the apostles visited a synagogue and reasoned from the Jewish Scriptures, proving that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the entire synagogue might be converted, in which case there would be no necessity of a change of government, worship or procedure, except the addition of the Lord's Supper. But the Jews had a high regard for the married state and the home. For that reason they taught that a priest should be neither unmarried or childless, lest he be unmerciful.
   
        Dr. Alfred Edersheim, D.D., Ph.D., in an article on "Marriage Among the Hebrews," says:

   "Thus viewed, marriage was considered al-

   [Page 3]

   most a religious duty, that is, not from lust, nor for beauty, nor yet merely for wealth. For whatever woman was, either for good or bad, she was always superlatively. Stringing together several portions of Scripture, it was argued that an unmarried man was without any good (Gen. 2:18), without joy (Deut. 14:26), without blessing (Ezek. 44:30); without protection (Jer. 31:22), without peace (Job 5:24); indeed, could not properly be called a man (Gen. 5:22)."

        The same writer in his "Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ" has this to say:

   "We can understand how, before the commg of the Messiah, marriage should have been looked upon as of religious obligation. Many passages of Scripture were at least quoted in support of this idea. Ordinarily, a young man was expected to enter the wedded state (according to Maimonides) at the age of sixteen or seventeen, while the age of twenty may be regarded as the utmost limit conceded, unless study so absorbed time and attention as to leave no leisure for the duties of married life. Still it was thought better even to neglect study than to remain single."

        In the same book, the author, himself a Jew who came to believe in the Messiah, has this to say about those who had charge of the conduct of public worship, as well as of the government and discipline of the synagogues:

   "They were men learned in the law and of good repute, whom the popular voice designated, but who were regularly set apart by 'the laying on of hands,' or the 'Semichah,' which was done by at least three, who had themselves received ordination.... The special qualifications for the office of Sanhedrist, mentioned in the Rabbinical writings, are such as to remind us of the directions of St. Paul to Timothy (1 Tim. 3:1-10)."

        Our next authority is C. D. Ginsburg, LL.D., who writes in "Early Attendance at the Sanctuary" as follows:

   "It was deemed most desirable that he who acts as the mouthpiece of the people should be able to sympathize with the wants of the people, and should possess those moral and mental qualifications which became so holy a mission. The canon law, therefore, laid it down that 'even if an elder or sage is present in the congregation, he is not to be asked to officiate before the ark; but that man is to be delegated to officiate who has children, whose family are free from vice, who has a proper beard, whose garments are decent, who is acceptable to the people, and who has a good and amiable voice, who understands to read properly the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, and who knows all the benedictions of the service' (Mishna Taanith, 2:2). How strikingly this illustrates the apostolic injunction, 'A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, and modest...one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity,...not a novice,...he must have a good report of them that are without' (1 Tim. 3:1-7, with Titus 1:1-9).

        It would not have been necessary to set forth marriage as one of the qualifications for the presbyters who were selected by the congregation at Jerusalem and appointed to administer the affairs of the community of saints. The brethren who constituted that community were all Jews. They regarded themselves as a synagogue of disciples of the Nazarene. Their superintendents and administrators selected by popular voice would be married men. And we believe that this pattern would be followed in other congregations, even those remote from Palestine. "For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus" (1 Thess. 2:14).
   
   
2. The whole tenor of the teaching seems to indicate that a presbyter will be a married man. It may be argued that a definite rule of marriage based upon the mere statement "mias gunaikos andros" is linguistically weak, but we do not think it will be seriously disputed that the context relates to one who is domestically situated as the head of a household. And just as a gem loses part of its luster out of the setting designed for it, so it is sometimes difficult to appreciate fully a passage isolated from the general frame in which it is placed.
   
        Edward Hayes Plumptre, D.D., Professor in King's College, London, has this to say:

   "Both this verse and verse 4 appear to take marriage for granted. It is obvious that in a community much exposed to the suspicions or the slanders of the heathen, this would be a safeguard against many of the perils to which a celibate clergy have always been exposed."

        Much along the same vein is the statement of J. R. Dummelow, M.A., Queen's College, Oxford, who says the expression probably means that a presbyter must be faithful to his wife, "a man of one wo-

   [Page 4]

   man." He adds, "In any case the presbyter or bishop is contemplated as a married man."
   
   
3. The Holy Spirit presents an analogy in which the home, or household, sustains a relation to the congregation of God, and it is in ruling the first that one demonstrates his ability to govern the second. A presbyter must "rule well his own house." He must have "his children in subjection with all gravity." The purpose of this qualification is not to determine his ability to beget offspring but to afford a demonstration of his ability to govern them. The argument is that "If he know not how to rule his own house how shall he take care of the church of God?" The word for house is oikos "the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household." A part of this family are children. In ruling them, the candidate for the eldership shows his ability to govern. If he is not married and has no children how can he demonstrate this ability? How can the congregation know he will be able to take care of the church of God if they have never seen a demonstration of his ability in a household? Can a congregation select a man to govern the church of God who has not demonstrated ability to rule his own house, including his children?
   
        But what about the argument that by setting up marriage as a qualification, Paul would render himself, Barnabas, and Timothy, disqualified for the office? We propose to allow David King to answer this.

   "We consider that either polygamy or celibacy disqualifies for the eldership. It has been urged that celibacy cannot do so, as, in that case, Paul and Timothy would have been disqualified; certainly they would, and there is no evidence they were not. No one can produce proof that they were qualified for the elder's office, and nowhere are we taught that the qualifications for an apostle, an evangelist, and an elder are the same. On the point now immediately under notice, nothing could be more fitting than that apostles and evangelists, whose work largely required them to move from place to place, and generally rendered impossible a settled home, should be unmarried; while on the other hand, nothing is more seemly and desirable than that overseers in one church, whose duties require settled residence and involve frequent interposition between husband and wife, parents and children, should themselves be married men, who have given evidence that they understand and rightfully deport themselves in that relationship. No one can fail to see that such, other circumstances being equal, could not but present a fitness for the office which the unmarried are without. This is our conclusion after years of thoughtful investigation, and after reading, perhaps, all that can be said on either side."

        What should be our attitude toward brethren who honestly differ from us and who think that we make a rigid interpretation without proper justification? Here is how Brother King resolved that issue.

   "Still the fact remains, that thoughtful, learned, pious brethren conclude that it is not certain that the intention is wider than the exclusion of the polygamist, and, therefore, they decline to reject an unmarried man who is, in all other respects, qualified. Now, we are not prepared to say that these brethren must of necessity be wrong. That they are wrong we have little or no doubt, but the impossibility of their being right is not here affirmed. How then shall the difficulty be met? Each church must meet it for itself, and the understanding of the majority must prevail. Not that the church shall decree what the interpretation shall be; but that each member determine for himself, whether the person, or persons, named has, or have, the required qualifications; each to determine this according to his own understanding of the terms, and the declared will of the majority must be taken as the church-recognition or non-recognition of the fitness of the men submitted for their judgment. But just here comes in an important consideration, which to some extent should influence the decision. There is perfectly safe and certain ground. If only those are ordained who possess the other qualifications and who also are married, everyone will know that the requirements are fully met. Thus perfectly safe and reliable ground invites to occupation."

   [Page 5]

        What course shall I pursue personally? Since starting this series I have learned of a group of brethren in another part of the world who do not consider marriage as a necessary qualification. They will not reject a man who is otherwise qualified but has never married. Suppose I should visit them and labor among them, as I have been invited to do. Would I seek to divide them over this issue? Indeed I would not! If asked to explain my position I would offer my interpretation in meekness and humility. I would avoid becoming dogmatic or arbitrary. I would not tell them that I could not worship with them, nor serve under an eldership, with one or more constituents unmarried. I could not conscientiously appoint such a brother to office with my present attitude, but I would not make an unwritten creed of my interpretation and divide brethren into "a married elder faction," and "an unmarried elder faction." If I have not grown much in knowledge in recent years I trust that I have at least grown in grace.

     To any of my brethren, at home or abroad; to those who fellowship me and those who do not; I would like to say that I will be pleased to read anything you have to say on this issue which may help to throw additional light on the matter. I do not solicit your personal opinions, for I have more of my own than I know what to do with. But if there is some scripture I have overlooked, or some point of logic or reasoning I have failed to see, you will be my friend if you point out my shortcoming, and call my mistakes to my attention. I want to be right above all things else. I am willing to learn from any person who can teach me.

     God willing, I shall deal with the questions concerning the children of bishops in my next issue. I trust that you will look forward to that, and that God may bless us all with a deeper insight into His revelation of truth.