Recognizing Biblical Pastors and Pastoring (3 of 8)
An Elder Must Be Above Reproach as a Husband of Only One Wife
(Children's Sheet for Sermon Interaction is at bottom. Notes are throughout sermon)Pastor Kerry Kinchen, Bridgeway Bible Church
Turn to 1 Timothy 3:2. Go ahead and bookmark Titus 1:6. 1 Timothy 3:2, and Titus 1:6 will be our main passages under study this morning. As you are turning there, I will take the time to remind us that we have been exploring God's mandate for establishing certain men to serve him in serving the body. The servants are leaders who teach. They are called pastors, elders, overseers, shepherds, and bishops. Each term refers to the same thing. They are also called stewards of God in Titus 1:7 who rule in the church, 1 Timothy 5:17. The scriptures also refer to this type of leadership position as an office. It is also called a fine work to desire to do in 1 Timothy 3:1. Though desiring the office of overseer is good, it takes more than desire to be a pastor. There are God ordained qualifications for eldership. God gave them to us to help us identify a man's spiritual maturity. He wants us to use them to highlight the mans' giftedness for ministry. So, in this respect, the qualifications serve as kinds of identification markers for those who are truly called, and truly anointed, to be true pastors. With these things in mind, we will continue with our study in recognizing Biblical pastors and pastoring. Let's read our two passages now,
"2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife," 1 Timothy 3:2
"6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife," Titus 1:6
Please prepare your heart to learn, along with me, in this sermon titled,
Recognizing Biblical Pastors and Pastoring (3 of 8)
An Elder Must Be Above Reproach as a Husband of Only One Wife
[prayer]
Last week, we looked at the biblical qualification that only men can be, and truly are, the pastors of God's churches. Women can not be, and are not, pastors of God's churches. This morning we will examine the next qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:2, and Titus 1:6.
/1/
The first principle has to do with the necessity that an overseer be above reproach,
"2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, ..." 1 Timothy 3:2
"6 namely, if any man is above reproach, ..." Titus 1:6
One reason that I believe that Paul quickly brings out this qualification in both the Timothy and Titus lists is because it is so foundational. Paul actually repeats this kind of urging throughout Titus. He says it directly after saying it the first time in the passage we just read at 1:6 in respect to being a one woman man. Then in the next verse he says,
"For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward," Titus 1:7
Paul says that this requirement is also a must for the office of deacon,
"10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach." 1 Timothy 3:10
To look at why this is such a necessity, we need to recognize what "beyond reproach" means. Paul used a different word for being above reproach in the Greek in Timothy than he does in Titus, but both words are very similar. They are legal terms that have to do with indictment for criminal activity. In the Timothy passage the word's strength is important, because in Roman culture it was typically used of someone being acquitted from criminal accusation. In other words, to be above reproach means that the man cannot be held in arrest as if he were a criminal because there is no accusation or anything that can be found as grounds for holding him in custody. Another word for this is to be found blameless. Paul repeats the same word throughout 1 Timothy to express the importance of this blameless kind of fame. In 1 Timothy 5:7 Paul says that widows are to be above reproach by putting their hope in God and not living indulgent lives. In 1 Timothy 6:14, Paul tells Timothy to keep the commandment (which is the the royal law of love of New Covenant supernomianism) without reproach until Jesus comes. In taking this over to recognizing this as a qualification for elders, an unindictable, blameless, man who is above reproach, is someone known as an upstanding citizen. When Paul wrote to Titus, he used that slightly different word. It means that the man is blamelessly innocent of being a wrong doer. He is guiltless. So, you see, the words are both pretty much the same. Paul's use of these two words shows that the man qualified to be an elder is not someone who is known for improprieties. For example, someone may try to accuse him of being a wife abuser, but there is no substance for the accusation that will stand under scrutiny. There is no reason for indicting him as a child molester, or an embezzler, or a liar, or an adulterer, or drunkard. To understand more of what this means, someone who is above reproach is not someone that you would hear people say,
"The man is a criminal. He is known for ripping people off in his business dealings."
Or,
"That guy cheats on his wife."
But on the other hand, to be above reproach, you would typically hear something like,
"He is a decent guy."
"He is a law abiding citizen."
"He is a faithful husband and loving father."
"He is known for being truthful."
In the Christian sense, you would hear or say something like,
"He lives the word of God."
"He manifests the fruits of the Spirit in a consistent, manner."
Now think about this for a moment. Consider that this particular qualification for eldership is a must because of the two main areas of influence that elders have; leading and teaching. Think about how elders set a high standard for Godliness in the church community. Their character trait, as law abiding citizens that are known for manifesting the fruits of the Spirit, influences people. Yet even if they lack these qualities, they will still influence people, right? The point is that they are leading and teaching. Then there is the fact that elders are a strong representation of Christianity to the lost world culture.The example set by elders is seen and scrutinized intensely by society. Think about when an elder stumbles into a sin that even the lost world culture considers to be horrible. The lost will treat a pastor more severely than the typical Christian in such cases. But, even the church will do this too. On the other hand, when elders manifest the fruits of the Spirit in decency that is noticeable, then even the lost world culture understands that this is the way that pastors should be. This makes sense when we recognize that elders are teaching-leaders. I also want us to notice something else about this qualification. It is meant for what other people think. The lost world culture has the natural affinity to be judgmental concerning the children of God. Ironically, the lost world culture is full of hypocrites. Being a hypocrite is wrong. We Christians know this. But it doesn't matter because the lost are still judgmental of other hypocrites. The point is that the lost are relentlessly looking at Christians to see if they can find fakeness and failure. The lost do not have grace, unless it is with their own selves in self justifying pride and personal philosophies that they are fascinated with. But when an elder is above reproach, he is seen as an authentic Christian that is somehow different from the hypocrisy, and fakeness that unsaved people are so familiar with. This manifestation of Christ in us is the way it should be. So whether we like it or not, an elder is a leader in the arena of other people's perceptions in respect to secular law and other considerations. By the way, this qualification does not mean that people can not, or will not, accuse an overseer. I'm accused of things all the time. Once I was accused of being a cult leader by a bitter man who was confronted with a heinous sin in his life. He accused me of being a cult leader because I believe and teach what the Bible declares about sin. By the way, the sin that we elders confronted him with was incest. He was guilty of it with several of his daughters. He finally admitted it. The point is that those kinds of empty accusations against pastors should slide off like Teflon. In fact, it is a blessing to be accused of, and even persecuted for, righteousness. The bottom line is that an elder's life is a testimony to the church. It is a testimony to the community too. So the testimony must be a good one. It protects everyone, including himself. Paul sums this point up well in verse 7,
"he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." 1 Timothy 3:7
So, we see that the arena of this qualification has the observation of others in mind which would be people outside of the church. The characteristic of a good reputation is protection. It helps keep us from the legal and moral snares of the world that are waiting to try and trap God's children. This leads us to consider that what people think of pastors then, in a certain respect, is part of what Pastors are teaching. Directly after covering the qualifications of elders in 1 Timothy 3, Paul goes on to tell Timothy to,
"Prescribe and teach these things."
[Remember that those are the two main functions of an elder in his leadership calling. Prescribing is leadership direction. Teaching is explanation. Then Paul goes on and says,]
"Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe." 1 Timothy 4:11-12
@1 The example of a believer is seen in speech, ______________________, love, faith, and purity. 1 Timothy 4:12
This right here is the backbone of being above reproach. When a man who wants to be an elder shows himself as an example through speech by speaking things that build up, and by speaking biblical things of the New Covenant into people's lives, then he is exemplifying a model believer. When he shows himself to be one who conducts himself as a true believer in stability, humbleness, and seriousness about the things of Christ, then he is exemplifying a model believer. When he shows himself as an example of unfading love and commitment to others; and he shows himself as an example of steadfast faith in the one true God as a believer in Christ Jesus, and he shows that he consistently trusts God; and he demonstrates purity in speech, and actions; then he is exemplifying a model Christian which in turn is manifesting the quality of being above reproach. With all of that said, I also want to say that this qualification does not imply that an elder must be perfect. It is imperative that we agree with the theologian DA Carson when he says of this qualifier,
"This doesn’t mean that such a person is sinlessly perfect; there's too much in Scripture to the contrary of that sort of expectation. What it does mean is that there is no obvious inconsistency or flaw that everyone agrees is there and serves as a reproach to the man."--DA Carson (1)
There are no elite Christians out there. Every man who is qualified to be an elder is a sinner saved by grace just like all of us are. God does not expect perfection out of you or any other Christian. This is why Christ died on the cross for us. So, we should not expect flawless perfection out of men who aspire to be, or who are, pastors. But we are not finished with what Paul is saying here. The legal language qualification to be above reproach is connected to something else. Let's look at the passages again, and you will see what I mean, In 1 Timothy, Paul says,
"An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife," 1 Timothy 3:2
In Titus we read,
"if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife," Titus 1:6
/2/
This leads to the second principle concerning the recognition of biblical pastors and pastoring. It is the important fact that Paul uses his legal terminology in both these statements to connect directly to this particular qualifier that an elder who is an overseer must be the husband of one wife. In other words, Paul says that an elder must be above reproach which as a general principle applies to the whole expanse of the man's life; but Paul has made an intentional connection that he repeats in both 1 Timothy and Titus. It is the foundational arena that Paul is primarily concerned with in which he wants the scrutiny to stand for this particular unindictability. To see why this is so important, we must understand that the Greek phrase actually states that the man must be a"one woman man." This is the primary place of scrutiny that can either make the man indictable or unindictable in the legal language Paul is using in his immediate point. But this does not make this qualification any easier to understand. There are numerous interpretations of this passage. Of course, only one of them is correct. The question is, which one? As we proceed, I will briefly cover the major views. Then I will explain why I don't think certain ones are as tenable as the one I hold to. Then I will share the interpretation that I think is the right one.
--2a--
Starting out, we should be familiar with the interpretation which suggests that Paul is saying that a man must be married to be an elder. As a fundamental starting point in considering this view, we must recognize that this verse is not worded in such a way as to state that a man must be married for him to be an elder. Instead, it states that he must be above reproach, a one woman man. If Paul had meant that the elder must be married then Paul would have made that statement. Paul would have said, that the man must be "the husband of a wife;" or "the man of a woman;" or "the man must have a woman." But Paul never said those things. Look at the passage. What is Paul interested in? The passage shows clearly that Paul is concerned with the number (or amount) of wives. Paul says that the man must be "the husband of one wife." Paul's emphases is on the word "one." Further, there are words for "married" (such as gameo and it's derivatives) that Paul would have used (as he usually did) to make it unmistakably evident that he meant that an elder should be married; but Paul did not use any of that language either. So, at the outset, in considering the sentence itself, Paul is not indicating in the actual wording that he is speaking of the necessity of being married as a requirement for eldership. But there is another consideration that counters the view that Paul is saying that an elder must be married. We must remember that Paul was not married. Paul was an apostle like Peter. We do not know of Peter ordaining others to be elders but we know that Paul did. Though there is no recorded epistle wording that explicitly calls Paul an elder, Peter calls himself one as he exhorts his fellow elders in 1 Peter 5:1. Of course Paul exhorted, appointed, and cultivated, elders in overseeing them too. Absence of a Bible passage that specifically calls him an elder or overseer (or pastor) is meaningless. Paul implicitly operated as an overseer in the church of God. The main point is that not only was Paul not married, he calls his singleness his gift from God in 1 Corinthians 7:7. Paul also calls his singleness his assignment from the Lord in 1 Corinthians 7:17. Then Paul goes on to assert that singleness is actually a preferable way to be freed up for ministry in 1 Corinthians 7:32. In fact, Paul wished that all men would be like himself--having the gift of singleness, 1 Corinthians 7:7. This leads to some penetrating questions;
Why would Paul wish that all men (even those Corinthians who want to be overseers) would have the gift of singleness, if the gift of singleness disqualifies them from serving the Lord in the important ministry of being an elder?
Why would Paul say that being single is a preferable state to serve the Lord in undistracted devotion, if indeed marriage is required to serve the Lord in devotion as an overseer?
I think the best answer, of course, is because God did not direct Paul to make marriage a requirement for being a pastor. With this in mind, I want to add one final consideration. In addressing personal letters, the usual practice was for the author to greet the spouse of the recipient. The practice could be found in general letters too. Paul greeted the spouses of people in his general letters, such as in Romans 16:3 where he greets the married couple, Prisca and Aquila. Yet, in the personal letters to Timothy and to Titus, neither Timothy nor Titus are greeted along with a spouse. Neither is a spouse mentioned anywhere in the letters which would be highly out of the ordinary. Paul mentions young Timothy and Titus as if they are not married, yet both men were overseers who ordained overseers.
It is with these considerations in mind that I do not hold to the theory that Paul is saying that a man must be married to be an overseer.
--2b--
A second view on this passage is that Paul is saying that the man must not be divorced and remarried. There is a hybrid view on this which goes on to say that he must not be divorced at all. In other words, the man can not be divorced and single. It is not that singleness is the problem in this view. It is that he was divorced to begin with. Primarily here, I am going to go into the view that suggests that the man must not be divorced and remarried to someone else. As a first consideration (as in the last point) we must keep in mind that Paul's language does not speak of a man being loosed from a previous wife in the past. He speaks of being a "one woman man" in the present tense of a type of marital status. He speaks of the man being a one woman man right now, which as we will see, has a more evident meaning in another interpretation. Additionally, to suggest the divorce connection as a qualifier must assume certain presuppositions about divorce beforehand. What are those presuppositions? Someone must start out with the presupposition that divorce is illegal, or if one remarries after divorce, then that one is living in continuous state of sin, or that God does not allow any divorce to take place. Yet biblically those presuppositions are not supportable under exegetical scrutiny as I have demonstrated in the sermon series called "What God Has Joined Together." For example, we know primarily again from 1 Corinthians 7 that Paul says certain divorces are allowable--that men
"... are not bound in such cases," 1 Corinthians 7:15.
This particular teaching has to do with being abandoned by a non-Christian. We also know from 1 Corinthians 7 that Paul states that remarriage after divorce is not a sinful action,
"... Are you released [loosed] from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; ..." 1 Corinthians 7:27-28
Further, 1 Corinthians 7 is clear about loosing from the previous covenant of marriage in un-marriage (cf. agamos) which is paramount to de-marriage. A re-marriage is separately understood to be a new marriage. The prior one no longer exists because it has been dissolved and replaced. The man's state then, according to 1 Corinthians 7, is that his new wife is his new woman. In his remarriage, he is now a one woman man, unless of course, he is a polygamist. If he is not a polygamist, then he is not a two or three woman man. Why? Because he is only married to one woman--the new wife. In other words, Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 7 that a man that was un-married and has become re-married after a legal divorce is now legally married to another person. He is in no way married to the old spouse any longer, and so now he is the husband of only one wife. But there is still another point on this divorce view that we must consider. Essentially divorce was legal in both Israel and Roman society. The legality and acceptability of divorce is the important and intentional connection to the call to be unindictable in this qualifier. There is no indictment for being merely remarried. This was also true among the Jews who were still trying to live under the Mosaic Law. Divorce and remarriage was allowed under the Old Covenant Law in Deuteronomy 24. Jesus addressed the issue surrounding the Deuteronomy 24 passage in Matthew 19:9, where he expounded upon it by explaining that a type of porneia was the only exception that Lawfully allowed for divorce and then remarriage to another woman according to the Old Covenant Mosaic Law codes. So, all these considerations dispatch the divorce presupposition. But there is more about the legality issue of being a one woman man that we must explore. Unfortunately, the connection sometimes goes unnoticed by folks who make a cursory reading of this passage, or who follow the doctrinal traditions of men. In fact, Paul's intentional connection explains a third view very well. It is the view that I think is the correct view.
--2c--
It is the view that the man must not be a polygamist. Please know that I approach this view with reverential caution, (as I do with all my preaching). Why? Because I want to be correct. Further, I already know that touching this subject can be as controversial as just about any tradition laced passage of Scripture. It can even be as jaw dropping as some bizarre tidbits about church history that I read recently. What I mean is that dealing with this subject seems to me to be about as controversial as the trail blazers of the protestant reformation; Martin Luther, Philip Melanchton, and Martin Bucer when they advised Philip of Hesse, in 1540, that according to Scripture Alone, God approved of polygamy for Hesse. Luther caught flack from the Roman Catholics when he said that polygamy was scriptural. But there is an irony about controversial things. What I mean is that I was just as stunned to find out that the Roman Catholics gave much more flack to Martin Luther than they gave Pope Gregory II when he advised a missionary to Germany in 726, that if a man had an unhealthy wife, he could go ahead and practice polygamy! Controversy is a weird thing like that. I also want to say that it is not that I enjoy controversy. I don't. Also, I'm not advocating the practice of polygamy in the New Covenant either which I base on my interpretation of Ephesians 5:25-32 in which Christ has only one bride as His one church in exemplifying New Covenant marriages of his people. Nevertheless, the nature of the view that the 1 Timothy and Titus passages are teaching against polygamy for elders, typically invites controversy. For example, I once heard an adjunct expository preaching teacher give a lecture to our class that he believed that Paul did not have polygamy in mind when Paul said this. The reason the man thought that Paul could not have been talking about polygamy was because of the legality issue. Our teacher pointed out that polygamy was illegal in Roman law at the time that this qualification was written. Of course polygamy was illegal under Rome. In fact, the assertion of illegality is actually a greater argument for thinking that polygamy was what Paul was talking about. It is a strong supporting argument in concluding that polygamist relationships are the issue of indictability. In other words, since polygamy was illegal in Roman society when this was written, this would be the very reason why Paul says that an elder who is to be an overseer, must not have multiple wives. If he were a polygamist he would not be above the two legal terms that Paul uses in 1 Timothy and Titus. He would be reproachable, and certainly indictable, as a law breaking polygamist under Roman Law. He would not be above reproach among the Gentile world. If you have more than one wife in a polygamous relationship in the society where you would clearly be looked upon as a criminal for doing so, then you would not be above reproach. You would be indictable for breaking Roman law. In respect to this, I want to bring your attention to this same pattern used elsewhere by Paul. It is a demonstration of the legality connection to what he is saying. Paul gives the same order when he outlines the qualifications for the office of deacon. He starts out saying that men may serve in the office of deacon if they are above reproach, then the very next qualification for deacons that he puts (after his parenthesis in teaching women) is that deacons must be husbands of only one wife. I believe that this is not phrasing that is a subconscious coincidence that Paul repeats in all three instances. What I am saying is that the legality reason is an intentional and logical reason for saying that, at least in the sense of being an elder or deacon, polygamy is a disqualifier. What really adds weight to this is the understanding that polygamy was being practiced at the time of Paul within the jurisdiction of Rome whether legal or not. Jewish people believed they had a Biblical right to practice polygamy regardless of any Roman mandate. Remember, polygamy was the legacy of dozens of Old Testament patriarchs. Further, it was allowed by Yahweh in His Old Covenant Mosaic Law. You know, most Gentile Christians don't know this. But it is a fact. In Exodus 21:10, we see a commandment in God's Law for a man taking an additional woman in polygamy;
"10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights." Exodus 21:10
But there is more. In Deuteronomy 21:15-17, God gives instructions in His law for men who had two wives in polygamy;
"15 If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, 16 then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn." Deuteronomy 21:15-16
Of course, Israelite converts to Christianity respected the actions of Old Testament patriarchs under God's Old Covenant Law as superior to the actions, and the laws, of pagan Rome. Jewish Christians in particular would be more prone to be polygamists as a matter of their cultural heritage, especially if they got saved while already being polygamists. Herod the Great, for example, had ten wives. He murdered two of them; but he still had several wives at one time in polygamy. Polygamy was also rampant in the borderlands of the Roman Empire. For example in places like Lystra, polygamy was common. This makes sense because Rome's jurisdictional policing power was more difficult to enforce in those places. Dr. Instone-Brewer of Cambridge University provides proof from surviving historic records that reveal that polygamy was practiced all through the first and second centuries. He also demonstrates that the Rabbinic writings assumed that polygamy occurred. And contrary to the theories asserted by some, polygamy was not relegated to the upper class either. Dr. Instone-Brewer also demonstrates from surviving documents, such as family records, that polygamy was being practiced among every class of Israelite in the time of Paul--not merely among the royalty and the wealthy. He sites a document surviving from around 93 to 132 AD, that clearly records the practice of polygamy in a middle class home. All of this is made especially revealing when we realize that the practice of polygamy was only officially prohibited in Judaism in the 11th century. Yes, I said polygamy was accepted in Judaism until the 11th century. To get the impact of this fact, we need to realize that polygamy was not prohibited among the Jews for a thousand years after Paul's epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus. So, when we look at Paul's phrase at face value, what do we see? We see that Paul says that the man must be "a one woman man," and so the man could not be a polygamist, which would be a multi-woman man. But, because of the nature of this subject, I am compelled to be a bit more comprehensive. So, I want to cover some of the other objections to accepting this verse as referring to polygamy. One objection is the suggestion that 1 Corinthians 7:2 is a biblical teaching against polygamy, and so supposedly Christians in the first century would not have practiced it. Paul said in that passage:
"But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband." 1 Corinthians 7:2
Notice that Paul says "each man have his own wife." Some people read this and they think "his own wife" must mean that Paul considers that there is no other wife to have. In examining this, we must recognize a few things. First we must admit that in the context Paul is not making a statement about polygamy. He is teaching on having sexual relations. So Paul uses the word "having" to represent sexual intercourse. This is the context of 1 Corinthians 7:2. The man having his own wife is to be having a sexual relationship with her. Likewise, the wife is to have a sexual relationship with her husband. Further, this passage does not negate the Israelite's cultural practice of polygamy at all. Why do I say that? Because a polygamist man having his own wife is something he can do with his own first wife. A polygamist man having his own wife is something he can do with his second wife. A polygamist man having his own wife is something he can do with wife number three and so on. Each time a man, who is a polygamist, is having his own wife, he is having his own wife no matter if she is a different one each time. He is not having someone else's wife. Actually, the patriarchs demonstrated this point as is recorded in the Bible. Each time one of them would have one of their wives, they were having their own wife. The biggest point I want to make is that let's just say for the sake of argument that this 1 Corinthians passage is teaching against polygamy (which is highly unlikely) but just in case it is, then it would simply support the fact that the requirement for being an elder would be to not be a polygamist in the Israelite legacy, right? So it amazes me whenever I see people use this 1 Corinthian passage to try and prove that Paul was not speaking of polygamy in respect to qualifications for eldership. Therefore I reject the theory that 1 Corinthians 7:2 helps prove that Paul could not have been referring to polygamy as a qualification for elders.
Another attempt is to say that if this qualification of a one woman man is really describing polygamy, then 1 Timothy 5:9 must be describing polyandry. Polyandry is the practice of one woman having several husbands at the same time. It is necessary to show that Paul can not be talking about polyandry, or numbers of past husbands for widows in 1 Timothy 5:9, but that he is describing a unique situation in which the number of men currently in her life since being bereaved is the issue. Here's what Paul said,
"9 A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having existed as a one man woman." 1 Timothy 5:9
Paul's prior distinction for elders and deacons, though worded similarly, "one woman man" does not necessitate that 1 Timothy 5:9 need to be referring to polyandry for widows which is an act that was not practiced either legally or illegally. This is important because people say that if you recognize that "one woman man" means polygamy in the requirements for elders and deacons, then they say that "one man woman" in 1 Timothy 5:9 must necessarily be taken to mean polyandry. But because it can not, then it is surmised that "a one woman man" must really mean divorce and remarriage. Actually, there is no grammatical rule anywhere that states that such a connection between the two instructions must be made because of similar wording. In fact Paul refers to the widow as having existed as a one man woman since her bereavement. The second perfect tense and active voice of ginomai indicates that this is what she had existed as, and still is now in continuation in the present which is a very important point in respect to how to understand this identifier. Further, in recognizing that Paul is talking about two completely different things in two completely different contexts, we can see how the argument fails. In other words, a one man woman who is a widow, and a one woman man, are completely different describer sentences that can only be understood in their contexts. The only similarity is that the sentences that Paul uses in both describe numbers of people involved in each person's state. Being a one woman man describes the number of living wives the man presently has in his state. Being a one man widow describes whether she is in a state of remaining as what Paul calls a "true widow" in 1 Timothy 5:3 in the context which means that she does not have any man who is alive to take care of her since the death of her husband. She can not have had a spouse who died, and then be remarried, and truly call herself a true widow in need. The key to understanding why Paul says that the widow must be a one man woman in 1 Timothy 5, hinges on recognizing who can be put on a special kind of church list for benevolence for widows. A true widow must have been the wife of a man, and if she has a new man now that is taking care of her, then she can not claim,
"I am a widow of a previous marriage, so put me on the list."
Yes, it is true to say that she is a widower of that one man, but it is not true that she is a true widow. Why? Because she now has a man. All this will become evident as we walk through 1 Timothy 5. To get the context, we must understand that there was some kind of an official widows charity set up in the church to honor widows by caring for them. We don't have that kind of thing in our church so it's hard for us to relate to. Nevertheless, Paul says starting in verse 3,
"Honor widows who are truly widows; ..." 1 Timothy 5:3 ESV
@2 As a principle that manifests the love of Christ, we should honor _________________ who are truly _________________. 1 Timothy 5:3 ESV
[The NKJV makes the reference as "really a widow." Why does Paul say to honor widows who are truly, really widows? Because if you were a wife who had a husband that died, then you will always be known as the widower of that husband, right? You would be a widow. But in respect to remarriage, and the help from others, then you may not be a true widow in the sense that you are left destitute with no means for help. Notice the rest of the contextual flow,
"4 but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. 5 Now she who is truly a widow, left all alone,
[Now notice those last six words. She is truly a widow which means what? She has been "left all alone" which means what? She does not have a new man to take care of her. Paul goes on, saying that she]
"has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day. 6 But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7 Prescribe these things as well, so that they may be above reproach. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 9 A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having existed as a one man woman."
[This last verse here is the contextual issue verse. A widow is to be put on the list if she has always been existing as a one man woman since the death of her husband. Since polyandry does not exist among the Romans or the Israelites, what makes this woman a truly real widow indeed? Of course we know, don't we? She is a widow indeed if she is truly left all alone. But, if she has another man right now who can take care of her, she is not a one man widow after all. This is part of Paul's whole point of the needy who qualify to be on the widows list. Jumping down to verse 16 (because of time constraints), we see the continuation;]
"16 If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed."
A woman who is taking care of widows who depend on her, must assist them so the church can assist the truly real widows who have been left alone who have no one to assist them. When we look at the context and thus recognize the terminology, it all makes sense. A one man woman is someone who has had a man in the past but he died and so he can no longer take care of her, but if she has a man taking care of her now, she is no longer a one man widow anymore--she is a widow with another man to help her, and so she is not truly a widow indeed. Therefor I reject any attempt to try and utilize 1 Timothy 5 to argue against Paul's qualifier that an elder, or a deacon, must be above reproach in society by first of all not being a polygamist. My conclusion in the matter is that I agree with the biblical scholar DA Carson in respect to this qualifier when he says,
"Paul rules out the polygamist from being pastor/overseer/elder." DA Carson (1)
Quickly recapping what all I have covered in this qualification, I see that being unindictable, means that a man is guiltless of crimes in the specific sense, and any other improprieties in the general sense, such as in respect to sin. I also see that there is a real sense of what the lost world culture is perceiving in the character conduct of such men;
"he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." 1 Timothy 3:7
This does not mean perfectionism. It is impossible to be perfect. It also does not mean that a man can not ever be accused of things. Further, I have suggested that the usage of the two legal terms for being unindictable in respect to crime, is key in the immediate connection to being a one woman man in all the three instances the terms are used for the qualifier. I have shown that the passage is best understood to be, as the Greek renders it, that the man must be a one woman man. The number of wives is the focus. Paul's emphasis is on the word "one." Subsequently, this is not a teaching that the man must be married. I also pointed out that Paul who had oversight among the churches was single. He called it his gift, and his appointment, from God. He wished all men were single like himself because he recognized that singleness frees one up for the ministry. Of course, pastoring is ministry. Then we looked at the divorce view. We saw that Paul does not mention divorce in the passage. Such a thing must be read into the passage from a presupposition. Instead, Paul is interested in how many wives the man has right now in his possession. Further, we saw that to be divorced from the legal bond of marriage frees one from that bond. Since the prior marriage does not exist anymore in an un-marriage, then remarriage brings about a new and distinct marriage. Then we looked at why I see that an elder must be unindictable as a one woman man--meaning he must be monogamous and not a polygamists. Instead of thinking that the illegality of being a polygamists as an argument against this view, we actually recognize it as one of the strong supporting arguments for the view. Further Polygamy was being practiced at the time of Paul despite the jurisdiction of Rome. There was provision for it in Old Covenant Mosaic Law (cf. Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17) which as semitic tradition, was something that Israelites would practice while ignoring pagan Rome's mandates. Historic documents support this recognition. Then we saw that objections such as 1 Corinthians 7:2 where Paul says that a man must have sexual relationships with his own wife, is not an argument against this interpretation. Rather, it is an argument for the interpretation. Then we saw that the objection which takes one sentence in 1 Timothy 5:9 out of context of Paul's whole chapter fails. The similar wording that a widow must have been truly existing as a one man woman since bereavement has to do with being a true widow indeed, who is a true widow in need. I am hoping that we all understand that this is one of the most notorious qualifications for eldership, but it is only one of many qualifications that we will look at in the next couple of weeks. I encourage you to keep these qualifications in mind as we seek God and His word recognizing Biblical pastors and pastoring.
[prayer]
FOOTNOTES:
(1) "Defining Elders"By D.A. Carson, A lightly edited transcript of a talk given at Capitol Hill Baptist Church
@1 The example of a believer is seen in speech, ______________________, love, faith, and purity. 1 Timothy 4:12
@2 As a principle that manifests the love of Christ, we should honor _________________ who are truly _________________. 1 Timothy 5:3
