You seem to have neglected 1 Tim 3:5..."(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Nowhere in the scriptures including 1 Timothy 3:5 do I see that these scriptures command a man that he has to be married and have a wife and children. All I see these scriptures mean that if a man is married who wants to be an Elder or Deacon he must have only one wife and he should be able to rule his own house, that's all I see. I have never seen anywhere in the scriptures where God commands men or women they must marry or have children, even if a man wants to be an Elder or Deacon
I disagree.
"(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Tim 3:5)
Marriage and wife come before bishophood/pastorhood.
An unmarried man has nobody to "rule" over, if he lives alone.
You have added the word "only" to 1 Tim 3:2.
Nowhere in 1 Timothy 3:5 is God commanding a man he must be married to be an Elder or Deacon. The statement, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the congregation of God," isn't a commandment that a man wanting to be an Elder or Deacon must be married. It also doesn't mean all single men are incapable of taking care of the congregation.
Last edited:
I can't understand why you don't see the obvious.
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,..." (1 Tim 3:2)
If you feel you must progress under your misinterpretation, you will eventually have single women in charge of the churches.
I'm not going to add a commandment in this scripture that's not there, because this scripture in no way commands men that they must be married, and I'm certainly not going to reason that if a man is single he's incompetent and can't rule the congregation simply because he isn't married.
Being single is praised by the Apostle Paul as enabling more faithful service to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). Why would Paul restrict men from church leadership positions when he believes “…an unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs - how he can please the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32)
Last edited:
If the first two qualifications don't matter to you, why would any of the rest matter to you ?
"... vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." (1 Tim 3:2-7)
I've always understood Paul's statement to meant not a husband of multiple wives.
How much trouble was the church having with that problem ?
I don't believe it is even mentioned anywhere else.
The qualifications for being a bishop/pastor include having a wife, so the candidate can show he has experience leading a wife and household before he is given charge of a whole church.
I care about what the qualifications are for a man to be an Elder or Deacon, no matter whether you think I do or not. But the simple fact is, all Christian men whether they're married or not, should show love and therefore be vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, be patient, not a brawler, not covetous. For you to try to convince me that only married men can show this kind of love and have these qualities, I not going to agree with that. Also it seems you have completely ignore what I said in post #86 concerning what I said about the apostle Paul about what he said in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35.
Grailhunter
Member
Should religious leaders be married?
In Judaism it was a requirement for everyone but especial religious leaders that they be either married or widowers.
The Jewish culture was kinda homophobic…
It a man turned 20 and was not married his community would suspect he was homosexual. If he turned 30 and was not married it would start to disgrace him and his family. If a man would declare that was not going to get married it would be like a Christian spitting on a cross.
Today Jewish religious leaders have to be married or widowed.
Of course people wonder about this and Christ and it is one the reasons that some believe Christ was married. But the Bible does not say He was married and some or most of the Apostles were not married. So how that was…is not explained in the Bible.
In the New Testament where the Apostle Paul said that a leader in a church has to be the husband of one wife….is a directive. Not only required to be married but also not polygamous.
Today it is not a rule but most Protestant churches prefer their preacher to be married.
In Judaism it was a requirement for everyone but especial religious leaders that they be either married or widowers.
The Jewish culture was kinda homophobic…
It a man turned 20 and was not married his community would suspect he was homosexual. If he turned 30 and was not married it would start to disgrace him and his family. If a man would declare that was not going to get married it would be like a Christian spitting on a cross.
Today Jewish religious leaders have to be married or widowed.
Of course people wonder about this and Christ and it is one the reasons that some believe Christ was married. But the Bible does not say He was married and some or most of the Apostles were not married. So how that was…is not explained in the Bible.
In the New Testament where the Apostle Paul said that a leader in a church has to be the husband of one wife….is a directive. Not only required to be married but also not polygamous.
Today it is not a rule but most Protestant churches prefer their preacher to be married.
Didn't Paul say that being single is good but if a person cannot be then it would be good to marry...
one wife - and stay faithful.
Wouldn't this also apply to pastors or priests?
Priests CHOOSE not to be married. They know this going in.
Grailhunter
Member
Sometimes you have to consider who they are talking to, what they are talking about, and even the storyline. And it is the same back then as it is today....people would rather have a preacher that has settled down with a wife and a family.
Which brings up another topic….
Looking at the New Testament you do not see a “focus on the family”
That is not true of Christianity today.
Paul’s advise on marriage and lack of focus on the family was driven by the circumstances and priorities of the time. Spreading the Gospel was the number one priority. And also they were expecting for everything to go south and Christ to return any day…..and the persecutions and tribulations….why have a wife and kids to watch being feed to the lions?
Great points!
Thanks.
You left out verse 4 & 5..."One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Tim 3:4-5)
If a man can't run his own family, he will not be an able bishop of the church.
There's nothing in Verses 4 & 5 where it's commanded a man to have a wife and family. You're reading into this scripture what you want to read into it. There's nothing in verses 4&5 that commands a man to be married with children.
It isn't about commands, but about qualifications for a job.
Meet requirements X, Y, and Z, and you are fit for the job of bishop.
Do you also see "blameless, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;" as options instead of requirements for the job ?
You are putting into these scriptures what is not there. So because of you putting into the scriptures that a man who wants to be an Elder or Deacon must be married with children, that's a commandment from you that a man has to be married with children. These scriptures are not saying that one of the qualifications is that a man must be married or have children. None of the scriptures anywhere say that a man must be married with children, including if the man wants to be an Elder or Deacon. It's just that one of the qualifications, to be an Elder or Deacon is that if the man is married he should only have one wife, and be able to rule his own house if he's married with children.
I understand English quite well, and with the Holy Spirit, can also understand scripture.
You are ignoring the obvious.
If you want to believe only you can understand English, then so be it, but I will continue to disagree that these scriptures are saying a man who wants to be an Elder or Deacon must be married with children. You can claim all you want that you have God's Holy Spirit, I'm still going to disagree with you that these scriptures are saying that one of the qualifications for a man to be an Elder or Deacon is that he must be married with children.