A Husband of One Wife

“If there is one who is irreproachable, a husband of one wife, whose children have faith, not open to the accusation of reckless living or undisciplined behavior, for it is required that the overseer is irreproachable as God’s steward, not intractable, not short-tempered, not violent, not greedy, but hospitable, a lover of good, prudent, upright, pious, disciplined, being devoted to the faithful Word as taught, that he might be able to exhort people in doctrine that is sound and reprove those who deny it.”

(Titus 1:6-9)

The second of Paul’s qualifications in this list is that an Elder must be the “husband of one wife.” There are several issues that come out of this statement. First of all, the most obvious qualifications are that an Elder must not by a polygamist and he must be a male. There is an analogy we find in scripture between marriage and Christ’s relationship to the church. So, just as Christ is portrayed as the bridegroom and the church as the bride (and thus the relationship of submission and love found between the church and Christ reflects the behavior of the wife toward her husband and the husband toward his wife — see Ephesians 5:22-33), so too, that analogy is found in the church, with male headship ruling as Christ ruled. Yet, just as Jesus has one bride (the church through the ages), not two peoples (as someone like Scofield suggested), so too the husband is to have one bride. Along these line, Paul will write that each man should have his own wife and each wife her own husband…there is no way to construe anything but monogamous relationships in view here, despite what “progressives” in our culture might suggest (see 1 Corinthians 7:2).

There is some debate around the matter of whether someone must be married (or have been married and a widower) to qualify as an Elder. For example, when Paul gives this list to Timothy, he speaks of one who has ordered his household well (implying not only a wife, but children — what better way to demonstrate whether you have ordered your home well than, well, your home). On the other side of this debate is Paul’s language of being good for a man to be celibate (1 Corinthians 7:1). This, arguably, allows the Elder to devote himself to the congregation without reservations or restrictions. Families need time and care to order well and there are many illustrations from history as well as all around us of pastors who have shipwrecked their home-lives because they were obsessively dedicated to their spouses. Further, it seems that Paul (at least) was unmarried — of course, Paul held the office of Apostle and is not referred to as an Elder in the scriptures.

So, how do we make sense of this? First, there are some obvious conclusions. Abstinence is mandatory if you remain single and if that becomes a trial or temptation, then marry. The notion of requiring priests to remain single is both unbiblical and contrary to promoting the spiritual wellbeing of the individual forced to be abstinent when it becomes a stumbling block. Second, if one marries, one must order one’s own household well. Third (and this is my personal conviction), as a pastor, it is better to have a wife who can be a helpmate. She will keep you grounded and keep you from losing sight of your calling as well as be your companion when you get old and are no longer able to serve the church as you once did. She can also help you order your own house and thus, with a wife and children, you (in my opinion) best fulfill Paul’s mandate about being “a husband of one wife.”

Abuses, temptations, and perversions are all around us. I can think of no better remedy for them but a loving Christian wife who can stand with you during the trials and successes of the work God gives to you in Christ as an Elder.

2 Comments

  1. marksentell2014

    Perhaps a little more exploration of the Greek here? A ‘one woman man’ is the more precise language…how would address the issue in regards to divorced elders?

    Like

    1. preacherwin

      Fair enough, and that is a great question. First, as to the Greek…γυνή (gune) can mean either “woman” or “wife,” depending on context just as ανήρ (aner) can mean either “man” or “husband.” Given the similarity to 1 Timothy 3:2, it seems that we ought to understand both phrases in the same context — and with the 1 Timothy passage also later addressing families, it seems out of place to suggest that Paul is not speaking of a married couple to Titus. I can’t imagine that anyone would suggest that Paul is permitting Elders to have a consort were their wife to have died. 😎

      My point only is that I am going to stick with “husband of one wife” as the translation of this idiom (noting that this figure of speech only shows up here in Titus and in 1 Timothy.

      As to divorce, here is where it gets sticky as I have heard both sides of the debate. Were I to take a position, I would say that those men who have been the “innocent” party, ought to be permitted to retain their office, though that should be joined with faithful shepherding. Those men who have been the guilty party while yet unbelievers, ought also be permitted to serve as Elders so long as they have sought reconciliation were possible.

      The other aspect is the pastoral aspect, and that is what of the believer who has committed gross sin, destroying a marriage? Certainly they fall short on “managing their household well” also, but does there come a point where forgiveness permits reinstatement?

      One could make the argument that sometimes our sin carries with it permanent consequences, just as sometimes, due to sin, people find them contracting various diseases or conditions that they will carry with them for the rest of their earthly lives. This, of course, does not bar them from the church, only from leadership in the church.

      Yet, this raises the question as to these standards. Are the evaluations of the standard retroactive in nature or are they conditional as to the moment one would become an Elder? In other words, if, even after one becomes a Christian, one still lives a messy life as they wrestle to put to death major areas of sin that disqualify one from being an Elder, can there come a time when, having put these sins to death one might now become qualified? I think so. In fact, I don’t know too many people who can honestly say that these qualifications were ones which they have held faithfully (or striven for faithfully) all the days of their believing life. I haven’t.

      So, if as a Christian, one might not be permanently disqualified from being an Elder because they haven’t always been irreproachable, then this ought, as well, to apply to those who would eventually serve as Elder once that man has demonstrated that said sins are put to death (which may very well take some time). Thus, Peter was reinstated to his office by Jesus and did not lose his office again when rebuked by Paul.

      Serial divorcees or those who have had no desire to reconcile, that is a different matter.

      Thoughts?

      Great question,

      win

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s