At a recent men\u2019s conference a question was raised: \u201cDoes an elder have to be married?\u201d \u00a0I answered live, but I wanted to record my thoughts here.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Textual Considerations<\/strong> The phrase is actually \u201cOne Woman Man\u201d or \u201cOne Wife Husband\u201d<\/p>\n Folk might get nervous about seeing that sort of ambiguity with the specific words but they shouldn\u2019t. In Greek you have words that can function in multiple places and mean different things depending on the context\u2014but not so different that it is necessarily outside of the range of what the word can do. So even in English the word man can mean different things like when we say \u201cThe Bride and Her Man\u201d which could mean Bride and Groom, or \u201cThe Wife and Her Man\u201d which could mean the wife and her husband or \u201cThe Baby Momma and Her Man\u201d which could mean her boyfriend.<\/p>\n This phrase has been interpreted different ways:<\/p>\n Mind you, each of these interpretations have been vigorously defended.<\/p>\n Contextual Considerations<\/strong> The Ephesian Church had people who were forbidding marriage (1 Tim 4:3) which may be supportive of position (1) but there also seemed to be a serious problem with sexual sin (2 Tim 3:6 where women are being swayed away by those who enter their households; or 1 Tim 2:15 where Paul says they\u2019re saved by childrearing within the family circle) and marital faithfulness which would lead credence to positions (2), (3) \u00a0and (4) but against (1). Apparently a concern since he repeats this for the deacons (1 Tim 3:12), women who are to be qualified widows (1 Tim 5:9) and in the letter to Titus 1:6 .<\/p>\n Against (1)<\/strong><\/p>\n Possible (2)<\/strong> Possible (3)<\/strong> Yeah, Single Elders\u2014Position (4) Makes Sense<\/strong> Indeed, position (4) makes sense of the thought-flow of the passage. It\u2019s not merely that Paul is making a list with point one as blameless then point two he\u2019s a husband, but rather Paul is trying to show what being blameless in the marriage relationship looks like. Opening this section with the dei<\/em>\/must should be thought of as \u201cmust be blameless [colon]\u201d instead of \u201cmust be blameless [comma]\u201d<\/p>\n Also if it is the case that Scriptures envisions a plurality of overseers, then having one overseer among a group of overseers is single shouldn\u2019t be a problem at all but rather a tremendous boon. You would have a worker who can fully devote himself to the Lord\u2019s work and can stand as a model for those who are currently single and doubting their calling. \u00a0Indeed, to have an elder who has had children, another who is currently in the process of raising children, and another who can\u2019t have children would all be good models to have for counseling as long as they meet the requirement of being \u201cabove criticism\u201d. This criticism isn\u2019t the criticism of the na\u00efve who point out the singleness of a person or the childlessness of a person but rather above the substantial criticism that brings into question the person\u2019s character.<\/p>\n This all being the case I think it\u2019s best to say that yes, single men (if qualified) can and should be elders.<\/p>\n Bibliography<\/em><\/p>\n At a recent men\u2019s conference a question was raised: \u201cDoes an elder have to be married?\u201d \u00a0I answered live, but I wanted to record my thoughts here.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3,19],"tags":[685,615,127,487,686],"class_list":["post-2733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-study","category-textlanguage","tag-1-timothy","tag-context","tag-greek","tag-text","tag-wife"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nIn Greek, the phrase of contention reads mias gynaikos andra<\/em>. The mias<\/em> is in the feminine and is a preposition (a word that points to the thing that is following) in the numerical form to indicate quantity of what follows, in this case it is \u201cone\u201d of whatever comes next; gynaikos<\/em> is a noun for the singular word \u201cwoman\u201d or \u201cwife\u201d; andra<\/em> is the singular noun which means \u201cman\u201d or \u201chusband\u201d.<\/p>\n\n
\nContextually we must remember that the passage opens with dei episkopon anepilempton<\/em> which means the overseer\/elder must be above criticism\/reproach\u2014some translations say blameless and then leads right into the phrase of contention.<\/p>\n\n
\nAs for position (2), Mounce points out how polygamy was very active in the first century and saying \u201cone woman\u201d is a very easy reading of the text but then he points out how the same phrase is applied to women who are to be qualified for the truly-widowed and there is no evidence of polyandry (a woman being married to multiple husbands at the same time). Off-handedly, he mentions that telling Christians to have only one wife is pretty redundant but then says that someone can easily level that charge against the rest of the list. Regardless, he points out how positions (3) and (4) can easily incorporate position (2).<\/p>\n
\nPosition (3) was held by the early Church, fits textually, matches Paul\u2019s teaching which allows remarriage but encourages celibacy (1 Cor 7:9, 39 and possibly Rom 7:1-3) and even Christ\u2019s teaching (Matt 19:9). But, against (3)<\/strong> we have the thorny issues in 1 Tim 5:14 and 1 Cor 7 where Paul actually encourages remarriage after divorce. Mounce points out that the phrase is so similar for the requirements for elders and widows that you would expect it to have the same meaning in both cases which would be an odd requirement that a widow who has even remarried but now is truly widowed shouldn\u2019t be supported because she has had more than one husband in the past!<\/p>\n
\nPosition (4) seems to have the most going for it. It may very well be an idiom (like a one gal guy) which underscores faithfulness within the relationship instead of a numerical requirement. If that\u2019s the case it would automatically disqualify a polygamous relationship (since the person is not faithful to his woman but to multiple women), it would allow for a person to have been faithful to his wife and be celibate after the fact, it would allow for men who have been divorced to be faithful to their new wife (while disallowing men who use divorce as a form of fornication by marrying-divorcing in cycles) and it would make sense of Paul\u2019s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 regarding the benefits of being a single worker. If married, the man is a one woman type of guy, if not married he is not-married.<\/p>\n
\n\n