Bishops/Elder/Pastors required to be married?

[Hopeful 2]

You're calling God's holy word a lie?

Nope.

Timothy was appointed as an overseer of the Ephesian church, he was most definitely a pastor. Now you prove it to me that he was married. Produce evidence of his marital status.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine. (1 Tim. 1:3)

Paul wouldn't be telling him to stay there if that had been his bishopric.

Going away on a journey is not going astray from the faith.

Not from the faith, but from his assignment.

Church leader is a calling, not a job.

It is both.
And there is a set of requirements for the "calling".

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Nope.

Yes you are. Sister Phoebe was a deacon, Rom. 16:1-2. You're in denial of God's holy word.

Paul wouldn't be telling him to stay there if that had been his bishopric.

Nonetheless he was. Timothy was appointed to be in charge of the Ephesian church. Now you prove it to me that he was married. Produce evidence of his marital status.

Not from the faith, but from his assignment.

Assignment from who? Here's God's assignment for his servant: "here I am, send me!"

It is both.
And there is a set of requirements for the "calling".

You're promoting work-based false religion.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Yes you are. Sister Phoebe was a deacon, Rom. 16:1-2. You're in denial of God's holy word.

Nonetheless he was. Timothy was appointed to be in charge of the Ephesian church. Now you prove it to me that he was married. Produce evidence of his marital status.

Assignment from who? Here's God's assignment for his servant: "here I am, send me!"

You're promoting work-based false religion.

You are seeing things that are not there.

 

[hawkman]

Moderator note .
1.1: Grant others the courtesy to be understood and acknowledge their views. As best as one is capable, speak truth in love.; ( Mathew 7:12, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You are seeing things that are not there.

Drop it, man. Lean not on your own understanding, but the wisdom of God. I'm done with you, au revoir.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Drop it, man. Lean not on your own understanding, but the wisdom of God. I'm done with you, au revoir.

1 Tim 3 is quite clear to me.

 

[hawkman]

Moderator note .
1.1: Grant others the courtesy to be understood and acknowledge their views. As best as one is capable, speak truth in love.; ( Mathew 7:12, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13)

 

[Walpole]

Actually it does. "Must be the husband of one wife" requires him to be married.

• 1 Timothy 3:2
  An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
  
  
• 1 Timothy 3:12
  Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.

Actually, polygany (multiple wives) was rather rare in Jewish culture, but not uncommon in Greek and Roman society.

The only prohibition was on congregational leadership, not the general congregants.

Actually it does not state clergy are required to be married.

Marriage is not a requirement for clerics. Rather, what St. Paul is telling the young St. Timothy is that those clergy who are married MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, i.e., they cannot be divorced and remarried, which is a state of adultery.

Trying to twist this instruction to mean marriage itself is a requirement for the clerical state is self-refuting, since St. Paul was celibate as was Timothy to whom he is writing!. The Apostle would be contradicting his own teaching, as well as instructing Timothy to violate the teaching as well.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Actually it does not state clergy are required to be married.

Marriage is not a requirement for clerics. Rather, what St. Paul is telling the young St. Timothy is that those clergy who are married MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, i.e., they cannot be divorced and remarried, which is a state of adultery.

Trying to twist this instruction to mean marriage itself is a requirement for the clerical state is self-refuting, since St. Paul was celibate as was Timothy to whom he is writing!. The Apostle would be contradicting his own teaching, as well as instructing Timothy to violate the teaching as well.

The emphasis is on ONE in "husband of one wife", i.e. no polygamy or adultery. It's not a sin to remarry IF your partner passes away or initiates a divorce. It's never a mandate for clergy to marry. Reading it in this way would imply that all missionaries, theologians, chaplains, priests, monks, nuns, martyrs all throughout history who took a vow of celibacy were unqualified frauds, including Paul and Timothy who were not married. This "marriage requirement" interpretation is nothing but prosperity gospel, that God would reward your faith with a virtuous spouse. It also has a political and cultural undertone as a retaliation against the LGBTQ agenda and the anti-marriage, pro-career value.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Actually it does not state clergy are required to be married.

Marriage is not a requirement for clerics. Rather, what St. Paul is telling the young St. Timothy is that those clergy who are married MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, i.e., they cannot be divorced and remarried, which is a state of adultery.

Trying to twist this instruction to mean marriage itself is a requirement for the clerical state is self-refuting, since St. Paul was celibate as was Timothy to whom he is writing!. The Apostle would be contradicting his own teaching, as well as instructing Timothy to violate the teaching as well.

If a man doesn't have the experience of running a household, he is not yet fit to run a church.

 

[Walpole]

If a man doesn't have the experience of running a household, he is not yet fit to run a church.

Again, St. Paul himself was celibate and he was writing to Timothy, who was also celibate. The witness of the Apostolic fathers (those who immediately succeeded the Apostles) testifies to the fact that celibacy was the practice of the majority of the Fathers. Married clergy in the early Church was a concession at first since the earliest Christians were converts. This is a historical fact.

 

[Tenchi]

Again, St. Paul himself was celibate

Paul was an Apostle of the Early Church, by his work as a traveling missionary/church-planter establishing the Church. As such, he was unable to act in the role of an Elder properly, overseeing directly, in a personal, hands-on, face-to-face way, one particular church, as an Elder typically would do. I don't see, then, that Paul, not actually being an Elder, offers any ground for arguing that an Elder can be single, as he was.

Was Timothy married? I don't know. I don't think anyone living today knows for certain if he was married or not. If he wasn't, his acting in the office of an Elder would have been an exception to the rule; in fact, he would have been in clear violation of the plainly-stated criteria issued by Paul and thus cannot serve as an example to follow in regards to being an Elder.

The witness of the Apostolic fathers (those who immediately succeeded the Apostles) testifies to the fact that celibacy was the practice of the majority of the Fathers.

The practice of the "Apostolic Fathers" does not dissolve the plainly-stated stipulation of Paul in God's word that an Elder was to be both a husband and father. Historical fact does not trump the clear declaration of divine Scripture.

 

[Walpole]

Paul was an Apostle of the Early Church, by his work as a traveling missionary/church-planter establishing the Church. As such, he was unable to act in the role of an Elder properly, overseeing directly, in a personal, hands-on, face-to-face way, one particular church, as an Elder typically would do. I don't see, then, that Paul, not actually being an Elder, offers any ground for arguing that an Elder can be single, as he was.

But if you are arguing St. Paul stated marriage is a requirement for ministry, he would preclude himself from that ministry, as he was celibate. He would be contradicting his own teaching.

Was Timothy married? I don't know. I don't think anyone living today knows for certain if he was married or not. If he wasn't, his acting in the office of an Elder would have been an exception to the rule; in fact, he would have been in clear violation of the plainly-stated criteria issued by Paul and thus cannot serve as an example to follow in regards to being an Elder.

We know from history (Polycrates) that St. Timothy was not married, along with the Biblical text and tradition that followed.

"Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." (1 Tim 4:12)

Men of youth did not marry in Jewish antiquity. Furthermore, there is no tradition in the history of Christianity where the ordained then get married. Rather, any married clergy in antiquity were already married prior to receiving ordination. This is still the case with the Church’s married clergy today. The youthful St. Timothy, like the man who ordained him (St. Paul), was celibate.

The practice of the "Apostolic Fathers" does not dissolve the plainly-stated stipulation of Paul in God's word that an Elder was to be both a husband and father. Historical fact does not trump the clear declaration of divine Scripture.

Well we have the example of St. Paul, who again was celibate. Then we have the example of our Blessed Lord Himself, who is the model of what a shepherd should be and He of course was also celibate.

The Apostolic Fathers testify to the Church's practice once it was handed on to them from the Apostles. Celibacy was the practice of the vast majority of the Apostolic Fathers. Married clergy was merely a concession, since the faith's first adherents were already married. Furthermore, those clergy who were married in the ancient Church were expected to practice clerical continence. (cf. Council of Nicea, Canon 3)

 

[Hopeful 2]

Again, St. Paul himself was celibate and he was writing to Timothy, who was also celibate. The witness of the Apostolic fathers (those who immediately succeeded the Apostles) testifies to the fact that celibacy was the practice of the majority of the Fathers. Married clergy in the early Church was a concession at first since the earliest Christians were converts. This is a historical fact.

Paul wasn't a bishop.
I don't think Timothy was either, as he too was a wanderer.
You are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Walpole]

Paul wasn't a bishop.

Paul was an Apostle.

I don't think Timothy was either, as he too was a wanderer.
You are comparing apples and oranges.

Timothy became the bishop of Ephesus. (1 Tim 1:3) Christianity's first historian records this for us...

"Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete." - Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Ch. 4:6

Bishops are the successors to the Apostles.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Was Timothy married? I don't know. I don't think anyone living today knows for certain if he was married or not. If he wasn't, his acting in the office of an Elder would have been an exception to the rule; in fact, he would have been in clear violation of the plainly-stated criteria issued by Paul and thus cannot serve as an example to follow in regards to being an Elder.

Lord Jesus loved everyone, he shed God's grace on the most marginalized people during his ministry - Samaritan, tax collector, leper, prostitute, people whom decent and proud Jews shunned and despised. The only group he hated and repeatedly criticized was the hypocrites who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. By suggesting Timothy, the recepient of these qualification instructions an "exception to the rule", you're making him a hypocrite. You can argue that Paul was an "apostle", not an "elder" or a "bishop," but Timothy most definitely was, appointed by Paul personally to preside the Euphesian church, according to the plainly-stated words of God.

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. (1 Tim. 1:3)

The practice of the "Apostolic Fathers" does not dissolve the plainly-stated stipulation of Paul in God's word that an Elder was to be both a husband and father. Historical fact does not trump the clear declaration of divine Scripture.

You're presenting a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy you onced accused me of. Scripture is divine because it's perfectly aligned with historical fact. History is His story, God's story validates God's words. This is not my opinion, it's God's word spoken through Moses. God knows our misgivings, and He asks us to scrutinize any message spoken in the name of God through a reality check - which is "historical fact". Therefore, according to "plainly-stated stipulation" in God's word, show me any historical evidence that this Timothy had faithfully followed this "husband and father requirement" to the teeth. Show me how this requirement had come to pass for Timothy. Show me any evidence of that he had wife and children. It is not I, but GOD'S WORD demands so. There were biblical texts that indicate he was a young man who still lived with his parents at the time Paul met him, and he was appointed as the head of Ephesian church, which was effectively an elder.

What you fail to understand is that God is consistent, what also doesn't trump the clear declaration of divine Scripture is OTHER clear declaration of divine Scripture.

And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18:21-22)

 

[Hopeful 2]

Paul was an Apostle.

That being the case, 1 Tim's requirements for being a bishop don't apply to him.

Timothy became the bishop of Ephesus. (1 Tim 1:3)

You are seeing what you want to see, but with no evidence.
Why would Paul tell him to be bishop, and then outline the requirements for being a bishop, if Tim' couldn't meet them ?

Christianity's first historian records this for us...

I put no trust in unverifiable men's recollections.

"Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete." - Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Ch. 4:6

Don't you think that Eph. already had its own bishop ?
Paul told Tim' to go there and make sure things were in order, so who was Tim' teaching ?

Bishops are the successors to the Apostles.

Scripture, please.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You are seeing what you want to see, but with no evidence.
Why would Paul tell him to be bishop, and then outline the requirements for being a bishop, if Tim' couldn't meet them ?

Because while he was chosen be God and appointed by Paul, your own flawed understanding out of context disqualified him.

 

[D-D-W]

Actually it does not state clergy are required to be married.

Marriage is not a requirement for clerics. Rather, what St. Paul is telling the young St. Timothy is that those clergy who are married MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, i.e., they cannot be divorced and remarried, which is a state of adultery.

Trying to twist this instruction to mean marriage itself is a requirement for the clerical state is self-refuting, since St. Paul was celibate as was Timothy to whom he is writing!. The Apostle would be contradicting his own teaching, as well as instructing Timothy to violate the teaching as well.

The requirements are for local congregational leaders: elders/shepherds and deacons/servants. NOT for apostles. Besides, to have been a student of Gamaliel Paul/Saul would have had to have been married at that point.

Do you have proof (chapter and verse) that Timothy was NOT MARRIED?

Trying to make an exception to what the text plainly says is improper eisegesis.

 

[D-D-W]

But if you are arguing St. Paul stated marriage is a requirement for ministry, he would preclude himself from that ministry, as he was celibate. He would be contradicting his own teaching.

Not so. It was for local elders and deacons; not those with trans-local ministries.

We know from history (Polycrates) that St. Timothy was not married, along with the Biblical text and tradition that followed.

Church tradition made up after the fact.

Men of youth did not marry in Jewish antiquity.

Au Contraire mon Captitan.

The average age of marriage in Judea during the late 2nd temple period was this:

• become arranged by both sets of parents about age 8 or 9.
• negotiate and sign the Ketubah - marriage contract age 12-13 At this point the couple is betrothed but not fully married - like Joseph and Mary.
• about a year later the marriage is consummated. Age 13-14