# How Shall He Take Care of the Church of God?



## Parakaleo

Brethren, if a man does not know how to rule his own household (wife, children, dependents, etc.) Paul asks the question, "How shall he care for the church of God?" 1 Timothy 3:5.

This question is on the same plane as others would be for other qualifications. Would you approve setting apart a man to eldership in the church if he does not know how to rule his own spirit (i.e. not sober/grave)? What if he does not know how to communicate basic truths from Scripture to others (i.e. not apt to teach)? Sure, he may know more about these things five, ten, twenty years from now, but without demonstrating fundamental knowledge of these things, he must not be set apart.

When a man who has never been married nor had children is set apart or even placed under care as a student for the ministry, I have to wonder what is going on.

Does the presbytery think the question Paul asked, doesn't really need to be asked? Is the thought process something like, "If he had a wife and children, we would want him to demonstrate faithful leadership in his household, but since he doesn't, we can proceed past these qualifications,"?

Does the presbytery think academic knowledge of leading a wife and family can suffice? Paul's question specifically calls into consideration the man's own household. Does the presbytery think that's too restrictive?

My guess is many men reason that, if Paul could minister as an apostle in the church without currently having a wife, whatever rule he's giving here about a man's wife and family can't be all that ironclad. Yet, if this is truly the case, if Paul is really giving this particular set of qualifications along with an unspoken but safe-to-assume "if he hath a wife and children", why draw attention to the importance of this set of qualifications with his question? Why put it in such unyielding terms?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase

It is not the assumption that a 'mere academic knowledge' is sufficient. Ministers will be placed into all sorts of situations that they may not have experienced beforehand, but the presbytery can determine based off of seeing them in other circumstances that they would manage their household well.

Poole: "The apostle commanding ministers to be the husbands but of one wife, *doth not oblige them to marry*, if God hath given them the gift of continency, but it establisheth the lawfulness of their marrying, against the doctrine of devils in this particular, which the Church of Rome teacheth."

Were John Murray and William Young unqualified ministers? What if a man has a spouse die? What if he has one child instead of two or more? What if he had multiple children but they all died save one (John Owen)?

Scripture must be compared with Scripture, and I have an incredibly hard time believing Paul was disqualifying himself by writing what he wrote.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Jack K

In light of the affirmation of celibate singleness as a valid Christian way to live in 1 Corinthians 7, and Scripture's accounts of many fine ministers who appear not to have been married, I cannot see how the premise that an elder must have experience in being married can hold up. There are plenty of ways for a man to demonstrate faithful leadership in the home and community without having his own wife and children (and plenty of ways he might show himself to be unqualified even if his family looks upstanding).

The main thrust of the qualifications listed in passages describing elders is spiritual. Home life gets a prominent mention because that's where a man's true colors often show up first. But the qualifications are decidedly not about external positions held or worldly achievements. Given how the church today already tends to admire "family men" and hold them up for esteem simply because of the external fact that they have a family, we should be especially careful not to create that particular external requirement for office when it isn't scriptural. Sure, sometimes the fact that a man is unmarried might be a result of internal spiritual flaws, but sessions exist to sift these things and to nominate men based on much more than such externals.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jake

Jack K said:


> In light of the affirmation of celibate singleness as a valid Christian way to live in 1 Corinthians 7, and Scripture's accounts of many fine ministers who appear not to have been married, I cannot see how the premise that an elder must have experience in being married can hold up. There are plenty of ways for a man to demonstrate faithful leadership in the home and community without having his own wife and children (and plenty of ways he might show himself to be unqualified even if his family looks upstanding).
> 
> The main thrust of the qualifications listed in passages describing elders is spiritual. Home life gets a prominent mention because that's where a man's true colors often show up first. But the qualifications are decidedly not about external positions held or worldly achievements. Given how the church today already tends to admire "family men" and hold them up for esteem simply because of the external fact that they have a family, we should be especially careful not to create that particular external requirement for office when it isn't scriptural. Sure, sometimes the fact that a man is unmarried might be a result of internal spiritual flaws, but sessions exist to sift these things and to nominate men based on much more than such externals.


You said it better than I can. Certainly much care should be given in evaluating men for the offices of the church and ordinarily most that are called are married, but I can't help but think of this particular passage in I Corinthians 7:

32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

I serve on the diaconate at my church where there are three of us who do not have children, one of whom is unmarried. Especially the man who is unmarried is a great servant of the church, as he has less to concern himself with that the fathers and husbands so he is more often ready and available to serve the church where others have more constraints.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo

Gentlemen, deal with Paul's question/challenge to Timothy. "If he know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"



MChase said:


> Were John Murray and William Young unqualified ministers?



Whatever else you can say about these men and others like them, I think you would have to admit Paul's question hangs over their head. Is that any way to exercise the Gospel ministry?



Jack K said:


> In light of the affirmation of celibate singleness as a valid Christian way to live in 1 Corinthians 7...



1 Corinthians 7 is not instructing the church on the qualifications for holding church office. Those instructions are found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and they are quite clear.



Jack K said:


> ...we should be especially careful not to create that particular external requirement for office when it isn't scriptural.



This is very troubling. The requirement is right there. I realize godly men have found what they see as convincing reasons from other passages in Scripture to lessen the force the requirement somewhat, even while stating it is "normative" or "preferred" for the requirement to be met as written. Yet, for you to suggest I am in danger of _creating_ an unscriptural requirement, when it is right there, is frankly on the order of gaslighting.



MChase said:


> I have an incredibly hard time believing Paul was disqualifying himself by writing what he wrote.



Paul was called by God in an extraordinary manner to serve in an extraordinary office during a transitional time in the church of God. He absolutely had the authority to set down rules for the ordinary governance of the church, going forward. Which is exactly what he did.


----------



## iainduguid

Parakaleo said:


> Gentlemen, deal with Paul's question/challenge to Timothy. "If he know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever else you can say about these men and others like them, I think you would have to admit Paul's question hangs over their head. Is that any way to exercise the Gospel ministry?
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7 is not instructing the church on the qualifications for holding church office. Those instructions are found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and they are quite clear.
> 
> 
> 
> This is very troubling. The requirement is right there. I realize godly men have found what they see as convincing reasons from other passages in Scripture to lessen the force the requirement somewhat, even while stating it is "normative" or "preferred" for the requirement to be met as written. Yet, for you to suggest I am in danger of _creating_ an unscriptural requirement, when it is right there, is frankly on the order of gaslighting.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul was called by God in an extraordinary manner to serve in an extraordinary office during a transitional time in the church of God. He absolutely had the authority to set down rules for the ordinary governance of the church, going forward. Which is exactly what he did.


I'm not sure I hear a question in here; you sound already convinced of your position. So can I ask a question? Do you know of any denomination or church that has historically taken the same view that you are advocating here? If the exegesis is so obvious, it would be a little surprising if you are the only one to have discovered it. Have others gone down this pathway before you? If not, why do you think that is?

Reactions: Like 10


----------



## ZackF

I


Parakaleo said:


> Gentlemen, deal with Paul's question/challenge to Timothy. "If he know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"


Could this not serve as only a disqualifier rather than a qualifier?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Parakaleo

> I long for the day when elders, ordination councils, denominational ordination committees and presbyteries will think in a biblically balanced way so that they will not lay hands upon a man who does not have proven competence in the rule of his household any more than they would lay hands on a man who did not have a proven ability to exegete and apply the Word of God to God's people. According to the scriptures, both are disqualified, the man who is not "able to teach" as well as the man who does not "manage his own household. When I have insisted upon this necessity for domestic competence in various ministries around the world, I have actually had people say to me, "But Brother Martin, if we took that standard seriously we would empty half our pulpits and significantly reduce the number of our lay elders!" My answer to this objection has been, "If the Bible empties them, then let them be empty, and when word gets around that half the pulpits of the land are empty and someone asks why, the answer will be, 'It is because people are taking the Bible seriously'." It might be the beginning of a revival if we were determined to say, "No one is going to preach in our pulpit nor sit with our session or our board of elders who cannot come through the filter of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 with their dominant emphasis upon domestic competence.
> - Al Martin, _The Man of God_, 2018



The above is not to imply any brethren here do not take the Bible seriously. Pastor Martin uses the word "proven" which is the same word I like to use in connection with this (and really every) qualification. Can a man who has never been married nor had children possibly be proven in these critical domestic areas? That's audacious. Paul's instructions demand data be considered that simply isn't present in the case of a man who has never married. That's not to say it's any sin or fault on the man's part, only that there is insufficient data to proceed in a biblical manner.

I wish I knew why so many commentators in history have set their seal of approval to ordaining men to office who have never married nor had families, but it is telling that many out there have felt the need to basically add an "escape clause" to Paul's command. That's no way to do theology. Begin with clear doctrine found in the Bible's didactic passages. If it is thought that narratives or special cases found in Scripture are out of step with doctrine, our doctrine does not then become suspect. No, we are to reexamine the conclusions we had formed based upon narratives or special cases, looking for ways to vindicate biblical doctrine.



ZackF said:


> Could this not serve as only a disqualifier rather than a qualifier?



The clear expectation running beneath Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus is that they would be searching out married men who are fathers. This expectation is so clear that nearly every commentator out there feels the need to "help" Paul out of the knot he's gotten himself into with it. Even if you want to look at the question/challenge in v. 5 as a disqualifyer only, that would do nothing to remove the real expectation running throughout.


----------



## Polanus1561

Does the man need to have children also? Does the wife being unable to bear hinder such a call?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K

Parakaleo said:


> Gentlemen, deal with Paul's question/challenge to Timothy. "If he know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"


Blake, if I may...

Every response you've received here has addressed that passage. I for one suggested that (1) there are ways to demonstrate leadership in a home environment without having married, and (2) Paul mentions home life because that's a good first place to look to see a man's character rather than because the man absolutely must be married, and (3) the passage as a whole points to a man's character rather than to external qualifications which means "husband of one wife" ought to be read in that vein. And others have offered other thoughts that proceed from 1 Timothy 3. We've engaged in discussion of exactly the question you asked.

But instead of a thank you, I got scolded for thinking other parts of the Bible might add clarity, told my response was "very troubling," and accused of gaslighting. This does not encourage folks to chime in. It may be why we suspect your mind is already made up and you aren't really interested in hearing from us unless we echo what you want us to say. (And when the interpretation you're looking for goes against centuries of Reformed understanding, you really shouldn't be surprised if some of us don't go in that direction.)

The "husband of one wife" line does not make me think Paul is saying the man must be married. I'm not ignoring or discounting the line; I'm just reading it in context (of the passage, of what we know of Paul's life, of the culture, of the rest of the Bible). Suppose I'm holding a party at my house, which is in a congested neighborhood where parking can be scarce. I want to be kind to my neighbors, so I tell my guests, "Bring one car." I don't mean they can't show up on a bicycle. I merely mean couples should not drive separately. But I said it the way I did because in my culture I expect most people to be arriving by car, and because cars are my specific concern. If one of my guests told a cyclist he could not come to my party, I'd be quick to correct that and explain it wasn't what I meant. I suspect it's similar with 1 Timothy 3.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

John Yap said:


> Does the man need to have children also? Does the wife being unable to bear hinder such a call?



Exactly. I think questions like this show why *no* denomination has enforced this passage in such a wooden way.


----------



## MChase

Parakaleo said:


> Whatever else you can say about these men and others like them, I think you would have to admit Paul's question hangs over their head. Is that any way to exercise the Gospel ministry?
> 
> Paul was called by God in an extraordinary manner to serve in an extraordinary office during a transitional time in the church of God. He absolutely had the authority to set down rules for the ordinary governance of the church, going forward. Which is exactly what he did.



No, in fact the question does not hang over their head. Your bad reading of the passage may, but the apostles injunctions do not, particularly when set in the broader new testament context.

Folks often make the point that commissioners of the Westminster Assembly would not be able to be ordained in American presbyterian churches. It is a good point. A far more serious concern would be excluding Paul and Jesus from ministry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake

If you read I Timothy 3 in its entirety, you see that the wife and children of both overseers and deacons are mentioned (I Timothy 3:2-4 for overseers and I Timothy 3:12 for deacons), yet you are only speaking of the office of minister having children.

I'm not sure that I Corinthians 7 has no relevance to the officers in the church. After all, in I Corinthians 7:35 of Paul's teaching about singleness is so that "ye may attend upon [serve, NKJV] the Lord without distraction." I have trouble seeing this is as wholly separate from the offices of the church, especially with Paul using himself as an example.

I Timothy 3:5 is clearly an argument from the lesser to the greater, and certainly the norm is that the household is a good place to see the lesser exemplified when trying to examine a man's leadership skills. Additionally, it's often possible to see this even in the case of someone who is not married with children. For example, thinking of officers at my church, it is easier to examine this directly in the case of a single man who was helping raise his much younger brother when a parent died than it is with an older man who came to the church after his children had moved out of the house.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parakaleo

Jack K said:


> But instead of a thank you, I got scolded for thinking other parts of the Bible might add clarity, told my response was "very troubling," and accused of gaslighting.



But brother, your initial comments went far beyond suggesting to me that other parts of the Bible might add clarity, to suggesting someone who would seek to hold others to nothing other than the black-and-white commands of the apostle in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are _creating _requirements. Stepping into your shoes for a moment, I could see you describing me or those like me as woodenly interpreting commands or being heavy handed with instructions, but _creating requirements_? Why did you frame it like that?



Jack K said:


> Suppose I'm holding a party at my house, which is in a congested neighborhood where parking can be scarce. I want to be kind to my neighbors, so I tell my guests, "Bring one car." I don't mean they can't show up on a bicycle. I merely mean couples should not drive separately. But I said it the way I did because in my culture I expect most people to be arriving by car, and because cars are my specific concern. If one of my guests told a cyclist he could not come to my party, I'd be quick to correct that and explain it wasn't what I meant. I suspect it's similar with 1 Timothy 3.



Right, but I think in order to tighten up the illustration, you would have said to the guests, "It is necessary to bring one car," which really does have a more official sound, doesn't it? And then, suppose you followed that up with a question to your guests, "For if a man know not how to keep his own car in good repair, how shall the great distance of my driveway be traversed?" With things stated in that way, I think anyone could be forgiven for "misunderstanding" you to mean coming on a bicycle is inadvisable to the extreme.

Now bring all that into the realm of church government (which functions under the same regulative rule as worship, under the 2nd Commandment), and you go from "inadvisable to the extreme" to "forbidden".


----------



## Jack K

Parakaleo said:


> But brother, your initial comments went far beyond suggesting to me that other parts of the Bible might add clarity, to suggesting someone who would seek to hold others to nothing other than the black-and-white commands of the apostle in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are _creating _requirements. Stepping into your shoes for a moment, I could see you describing me or those like me as woodenly interpreting commands or being heavy handed with instructions, but _creating requirements_? Why did you frame it like that?


I meant to include a line commenting on why it's important we rightly interpret Scripture in this matter. I do think those who would require office holders to be married are creating a requirement Scripture does not give us when we read it correctly and in context, though I did not mean to suggest they are doing so intentionally. And I did not mean to suggest _you_ were doing it at all, since at the time I mistakenly thought you had posed the question with honest curiosity. I should have read better between the lines of your opening post and seen that you wanted to argue instead, in which case I probably would not have commented at all. Carry on.


----------



## chothomas

MChase said:


> Were John Murray and William Young unqualified ministers? What if a man has a spouse die? What if he has one child instead of two or more? What if he had multiple children but they all died save one (John Owen)?


If you are using this argument, why not allow women pastors on the ground of God raising Debora as a Judge? We don't use exceptions to build doctrines.

I don't advocate for the OP's application on the qualification of elders as absolute since Paul had the gift of singleness. However, there is no doubt that the qualification identified in the scripture should be followed in 99% of cases whereas that 1% can be left up to each church without violating other scriptural restrictions (homosexual or pedophilic attractions) or unforeseeable circumstances (infertility, death of a spouse, etc)


----------



## Parakaleo

Parakaleo said:


> When a man who has never been married nor had children is set apart or even placed under care as a student for the ministry, I have to wonder what is going on.



I quote myself here because some have asked what I am doing with this post. Here it is. I continue to wonder "what is going on"? Brethren, listen to your own responses. Why are you seeking to extricate Paul from what you know him to be commanding? This is so unneeded. The church, the work of the ministry, the spread of the Gospel, the honor of Christ, none of it would be harmed by obeying the word Paul gives the churches by Timothy and Titus. It would only be to the advantage of all these things. This is why I persist.

_Dei _plus the infinitive means "it is necessary that". This word is at the head of all the requirements found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. The same construction is found in John 3:7 when Christ says, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must (_dei_) be born again." When Christ says _dei_, whatever follows is of absolute necessity. The same goes for Paul when giving his apostolic commands for the ordering of the church. As certain as it is that men must be born again to enter in to the kingdom of heaven, this is how certain it is that a man must (among other qualifications) rule his own house well in order to be considered for office in the church.

Many of you will stop me here and say you fully concur with the indispensable nature of Paul's requirement in 1 Timothy 3:4 ("ruleth well his own house"). Then, you will say it is of absolute necessity that a man... _show strong indicators he would do well ruling his own household, if he were to have one_! Brethren, that is not equal to Paul's stated expectation. Why will you not admit this? And then, as though anticipating the tendency of men to try and squirm out of this requirement, Paul adds his question/challenge in v. 5.

Will no one here admit to the slightest amount of discomfort with being on the side that takes Paul's straight words on this qualification and seeks to hypotheticalize them?


----------



## Taylor

Why does “house” mean “married with children”?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor said:


> Why does “house” mean “married with children”?



Exactly, in the ancient world it could as well mean servants and slaves.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mr. Great-Heart

Parakaleo said:


> I quote myself here because some have asked what I am doing with this post. Here it is. I continue to wonder "what is going on"? Brethren, listen to your own responses. Why are you seeking to extricate Paul from what you know him to be commanding? This is so unneeded. The church, the work of the ministry, the spread of the Gospel, the honor of Christ, none of it would be harmed by obeying the word Paul gives the churches by Timothy and Titus. It would only be to the advantage of all these things. This is why I persist.


I don't have much to add to what has already been said in reply to your assertion.

I would, however, caution you against thinking that the excerpt you provided from Al Martin's writings is an open and shut case in your favor. It could just as well mean that half the pulpits, etc. would be emptied because of domestic _in_competence by the men who occupied them. I didn't see anything in that quote that said a man must be married and have children. Just another perspective for you to consider.


----------



## Parakaleo

Taylor said:


> Why does “house” mean “married with children”?


Hey Taylor, before I answer, would you even affirm that _whatever_ the meaning of "house" is, this is something a man _must_ show he "ruleth well" in order to be considered qualified for office in the church?


----------



## Polanus1561

Parakaleo said:


> Hey Taylor, before I answer, would you even affirm that _whatever_ the meaning of "house" is, this is something a man _must_ show he "ruleth well" in order to be considered qualified for office in the church?


I don’t know if you did answer but what about the scenario of the wife being unable to bear?


----------



## Taylor

Parakaleo said:


> Hey Taylor, before I answer, would you even affirm that _whatever_ the meaning of "house" is, this is something a man _must_ show he "ruleth well" in order to be considered qualified for office in the church?


Yes, because that’s what the text says. But there’s also something else you must demonstrate—namely, that the command to rule one’s house well necessarily includes within it the command _to have a house_, whatever that may be. I think that’s where your argument logically is falling flat.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

We've already established that household can also mean slaves and servants.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo

Taylor, Jacob,

Excellent. I am comfortable with saying that Paul's expectation in these passages is met when a man shows he governs *his dependents* in a blameless manner. The Greek is _tekna_, which could easily include natural-born children, adopted children, servants, or his dependents whom he would guide in life and faith. Show me a man who has demonstrated faithful care for a wife and his dependents in his household and I will show you a man who has met this particular qualification. Show me a man who has never been married and/or never cared for dependents (plural), and I will show you a man who cannot proceed at the current time with pursuit of ordained office due to insufficient data.


----------



## Parakaleo

Knowing what Paul says to both Titus and Timothy, and hearing all the arguments presented above for why it would be perfectly acceptable to set apart a man with no wife or who has not guided a household of dependents, I wonder if anyone would actually put their foot down and say it would have been perfectly acceptable for Timothy or Titus themselves to have received Paul's words, then to turn around and ordain a never-married man to office in the churches in which they ministered?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Parakaleo said:


> Taylor, Jacob,
> 
> Excellent. I am comfortable with saying that Paul's expectation in these passages is met when a man shows he governs *his dependents* in a blameless manner. The Greek is _tekna_, which could easily include natural-born children, adopted children, servants, or his dependents whom he would guide in life and faith. Show me a man who has demonstrated faithful care for a wife and his dependents in his household and I will show you a man who has met this particular qualification. Show me a man who has never been married and/or never cared for dependents (plural), and I will show you a man who cannot proceed at the current time with pursuit of ordained office due to insufficient data.


Blake, Dr. Duguid asked this but I missed the answer if you gave it. What Presbyterian churches historically or current have absolutized this to preclude not yet married candidates for the ministry? I know the Scottish church didn't; and the American church at least the PCUSA didn't; witness George Gillespie, who seems to have married after ordination and settlement in his first call, and Samuel Miller who married about ten years or so after ordination and taking the call to the collegiate Presbyterian church in NYC. Gillespie was bursar of his presbytery which means they underwrote his studies at St. Andrews, when 16-17; taking MA at 17 when he would have studied theology. Miller addresses the issue of marriage of ministers in his clerical letters.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

The Geneva Bible notes on 1 Timothy 3 make the following observation: "The office of bishop, or the ministry of the word is not an idle dignity, but a work, and that an excellent work: and therefore *a bishop must be furnished with many virtues both at home and abroad. Therefore it is necessary before he is chosen to examine well his learning, his gifts, his abilities, and his life*." (Emphasis added.) The bold section should remind us that the chapter is not to be read in a woodenly literalistic manner. Instead, the apostle reminds us that an elder ought to be a man who exhibits godly virtue in his life. One of the most apparent ways of exhibiting such virtue is the manner in which he governs his own house _if _he has a wife and children. Hence, we should take "rule his own house" as a synecdoche for someone who exhibits order, self-restraint, and good sense in his daily affairs.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Parakaleo said:


> Show me a man who has never been married and/or never cared for dependents (plural), and I will show you a man who cannot proceed at the current time with pursuit


Athanasius, Ambrose, the Cappadocians, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D.

A few thoughts...

It's at least notable that among patristic writers, the first (and only one I've heard of) to ascribe a strict "must be married" interpretation to 1 Tim. 3:5 appears to have been an honorable presbyter in Barcelona, named Vigilantes (early 5th Century). He was definitely a reformer in many good ways.

Most (including some early councils) took it as prohibiting remarriage if a cleric had a wife who later happened to die. But given many church fathers' well-documented fondness for a quite un-Pauline asceticism, including clerical celibacy, this viewpoint may have been prejudiced.

Some, like Chrysostom, saw it as a simple prohibition against polygamy, although he admitted, without attribution, that the "must be married" view existed. So too Calvin.

Interestingly, while no early Greek-speaking writers indicate a view that the passage requires marriage, the post-Great Schism Greek churches have used it to support their position that priests must be married, contra the RCC. (More EO inconsistency in how they canonize their forebears...)

I haven't found any major Protestant commentators that take a "must be married" stand on the passage. The Cambridge Bible Commentary makes one of the more interesting exegetical points I've seen in this regard:

We may pass by the view ‘husband of a wife,’ i.e. ‘a married man,’ as ungrammatical; because the definite numeral has not lost its force ‘one’ in the N.T.; in all the 36 or 37 passages where it might be thought to approach the sense of the indefinite article there is something in the context which draws attention to the singleness, the individuality of the person or thing named in a way which is lost by simply rendering ‘an’ or ‘a.’​​It also notes that Mormons take the expression to its grammatical extreme and insist it really means "the husband of one wife if not more"!
​

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Parakaleo

Mr. Great-Heart said:


> I would, however, caution you against thinking that the excerpt you provided from Al Martin's writings is an open and shut case in your favor.



From the same work:



> We will approach this subject of the man of God in relationship to his domestic responsibilities as we have done before, by stating an axiom. The axiom is that _the man of God must manifest exemplary competence as a husband and a father_.
> 
> Note that I am not saying that we must manifest perfection as husbands and fathers. Nor am I saying that we must manifest the highest level of competence among the entire membership of the church. There may be better husbands and better fathers, and yet you still may fulfill your pastoral duties with a grip on the consciences of your people because, by the grace of God, you are displaying the measure of competence in these two areas which is required by the scriptures.


----------



## Romans922

@Parakaleo perhaps your question from the OP is best answered in an elders only section of the PB. I think there you will get to what you need to get to while having elders alone, those who are making the actual decisions of "is this man qualified or not," weigh in.


----------



## ZackF

RamistThomist said:


> Exactly, in the ancient world it could as well mean servants and slaves.


Or even extended family.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo

NaphtaliPress said:


> Blake, Dr. Duguid asked this but I missed the answer if you gave it. What Presbyterian churches historically or current have absolutized this to preclude not yet married candidates for the ministry?



Chris, I don't think I will have a satisfactory response as I am beginning to believe that this issue has been an area of compromise for much of the church over many centuries.

Furthermore, I would not say I that have absolutized the command in these passages, but rather cleared away the common ways of subverting a very plain, apostolic qualification for ordination in the church. I did this by asking, "What if the apostle's words here really are binding, as written? Are there other teachings or situations in Scripture that would _absolutely require_ a reframing of these commands?" The answers surprised me.


----------



## Parakaleo

Romans922 said:


> @Parakaleo perhaps your question from the OP is best answered in an elders only section of the PB. I think there you will get to what you need to get to while having elders alone, those who are making the actual decisions of "is this man qualified or not," weigh in.



Sure, brother. I think that's a good idea. Thanks.



Phil D. said:


> A few thoughts...



Phil, thanks for compiling all this information. Very helpful, but I continue to be controlled by the unmistakable expectation Paul sets forth in Scripture that a man must demonstrate faithful governance of his own house (wife plus dependents) in order to be considered qualified for ordained office in the church.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Parakaleo said:


> Chris, I don't think I will have a satisfactory response as I am beginning to believe that this issue has been an area of compromise for much of the church over many centuries.
> 
> Furthermore, I would not say I that have absolutized the command in these passages, but rather cleared away the common ways of subverting a very plain, apostolic qualification for ordination in the church. I did this by asking, "What if the apostle's words here really are binding, as written? Are there other teachings or situations in Scripture that would _absolutely require_ a reframing of these commands?" The answers surprised me.


I think the difficulty is you have a singular stand, whether it is right or wrong. Does you current denomination take this stand?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think the difficulty is you have a singular stand, whether it is right or wrong. Does you current denomination take this stand?



Yes. Full disclosure: There is a contingent that would wish us to revisit and fall back from this stand. It's an ongoing discussion. Your prayers would be appreciated.


----------



## RamistThomist

Parakaleo said:


> I did this by asking, "What if the apostle's words here really are binding, as written? Are there other teachings or situations in Scripture that would _absolutely require_ a reframing of these commands?" The answers surprised me.



Do you greet people with a holy kiss?


----------



## Taylor

I still just don’t see logically or exegetically how the _qualification_ that an elder rule his house well contains necessarily within it the _command_ to have a wife and children.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## ZackF

Taylor said:


> I still just don’t see logically or exegetically how the _qualification_ that an elder rule his house well contains necessarily within it the _command_ to have a wife and children.


And in some circumstances it can be beneficial not to. Though most will all say, on PB for sure, that the celibate case was overstated in antiquity and the middle ages.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## py3ak

I am a little bemused by this thread.

With regard to Albert Martin, for whom I have great appreciation, it seems a little odd for Presbyterians to appeal to a Reformed Baptist as the enunciator of an ecclesiological position. From which other portions of his ecclesiology would they nonetheless dissent? Also, I don't think that his own family troubles disqualified him from ministry; but I wonder how many who take this position would feel the same way?

The bigger issue, though, is that the rigor of this approach, if applied to other issues, would cut multiple ways. Is it not necessary that those who would rule the household of God must have wisdom and an ability to interpret Scripture contextually and holistically? I seem to remember Albert Martin himself calling for sanctified common sense. _Ruling your own household well_ does not specify what sort of household is to be ruled. 

One of the things that is often missing when people get into these sorts of controversies is the ability to step back, take a look at yourself, and ask if there could possibly be any factors other than historically exceptional faithfulness to Scripture that might be driving the concern or controversy. If one's own superior exegetical faithfulness requires indicting the bulk even of the confessing churches of the Reformation, it's possible there may be more going on. Romans 12:3 is also a clear passage.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 2


----------



## Parakaleo

Taylor said:


> I still just don’t see logically or exegetically how the _qualification_ that an elder rule his house well contains necessarily within it the _command_ to have a wife and children.



The command (I would rather use the word "expectation") only exists for the man presenting himself as one to be considered for ordained office. It's not like I am saying Paul commands all men to be married/care for a household.

When a man is set apart to ordained office, he is entrusted with the care of God's household on earth. That much is very clear (1 Tim. 3:15, Eph. 2:19). Why then would it be so surprising to see Paul insist that a man must have established a track record of care for his own family/house before being entrusted with the care of God's household? This brings us straight back to Paul's question/challenge I quote in the OP and also goes hand in hand with the prohibition of a novice. He is not to be a novice in the faith, nor a novice in the governance of a house. Once you clear away the cobwebs of the expedient interpretations which have been wedged into these passages over the centuries, Paul's true intention shines forth as the most sensible and natural of qualifications.


----------



## Taylor

Parakaleo said:


> The command (I would rather use the word "expectation") only exists for the man presenting himself as one to be considered for ordained office. It's not like I am saying Paul commands all men to be married/care for a household.


Obviously.



Parakaleo said:


> When a man is set apart to ordained office, he is entrusted with the care of God's household on earth. That much is very clear (1 Tim. 3:15, Eph. 2:19). Why then would it be so surprising to see Paul insist that a man must have established a track record of care for his own family/house before being entrusted with the care of God's household? This brings us straight back to Paul's question/challenge I quote in the OP and also goes hand in hand with the prohibition of a novice. He is not to be a novice in the faith, nor a novice in the governance of a house. Once you clear away the cobwebs of the expedient interpretations which have been wedged into these passages over the centuries, Paul's true intention shines forth as the most sensible and natural of qualifications.


I understand your position. I just don’t see it exegetically. And, frankly, your constant assumption/assertion that those who disagree with you are just doing so out of some sinful expediency is not a little maddening.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Taylor

Make this practical for me. My church is very likely about to issue me a call to the ministry. I have been married for eight years, but my wife is barren. We have no children. Should I tell the session to reconsider?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor said:


> Make this practical for me. My church is very likely about to issue me a call to the ministry. I have been married for eight years, but my wife is barren. We have no children. Should I tell the session to reconsider?



You are about to see a motte-and-bailey argument at work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Imputatio

I love your references to logical fallacies and argument faux pas every so often. I always learn from it. Thanks, brother.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Taylor said:


> Make this practical for me. My church is very likely about to issue me a call to the ministry. I have been married for eight years, but my wife is barren. We have no children. Should I tell the session to reconsider?


Not for a moment. You _are_ married and the presbytery can inquire of you and your wife (and other witnesses as it deems appropriate or needful) as to the sort of family governor that you are. You've tried to have children and have not. The presbytery can seek to gauge from you, your wife, and others the heart that you have to shepherd and guide the covenant youth and the sort of father in its estimate you'd be, from what they otherwise see of you. It would seem to me that your work in school administration and teaching, in addition to your congregational interactions with families, would go a long way here. 

I have a friend who's been in the ministry for many years--he and his wife could not have children--and he's (with much help from her) had a most remarkable ministry, in addition to regular congregational hospitality--to other infertile couples, singles, students, etc. There are notable married men on this board that I will not embarrass by naming, who are biologically childless _and_ clearly qualified for ministry. There is much that a single man--J. Gresham Machen, a remarkable colleague of mine, and many others I've known--can do and also much that a married couple not blessed with children can do. 

Press on, good brother, with all encouragement!

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I love your references to logical fallacies and argument faux pas every so often. I always learn from it. Thanks, brother.



Most of them are a challenge to me in my own thinking.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ZackF

RamistThomist said:


> Most of them are a challenge to me in my own thinking.


I'll second that for myself.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parakaleo

Taylor said:


> I understand your position. I just don’t see it exegetically.



Do you understand the position, though? Because you say you can't see it *exegetically*, which is odd when all I am asking brethren to do is align their practice with Paul's words, exactly as they are written. I am asking brethren to look at two passages through exegetical glasses that are untinted by any theological/practical/historical assumptions, be brutally honest about what the passages require, and only then ask if reframing these instructions is made _absolutely necessary _in light of other revealed truths in Scripture. I would submit that even if other truths revealed in Scripture *strongly suggest *a reframing would be in order (such as 1 Corinthians 7), that we dare not reframe these clear instructions for anything less than open contradiction with other parts of Scripture.



Taylor said:


> Make this practical for me. My church is very likely about to issue me a call to the ministry. I have been married for eight years, but my wife is barren. We have no children. Should I tell the session to reconsider?



I don't know your entire history, brother. I would not be surprised to find out your marriage is exemplary. I would expect that you have cared for your wife through heartbreak after heartbreak and commend yourself by her good testimony in the face of such difficult providence. However, if you have not demonstrated a track record of governing a plurality of dependents, commonly and biblically called a "house", then you do not escape Paul's challenge unscathed. "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" As much as we might like "his own house" to be a fill-in-the-blank matter, it is predefined by the verses coming before it. A man's house is assumed to include his children/dependents.

Remember, as I said above, a man taking up ordained office in the church is taking responsibility for the family of God. Did you know that God loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob (Psalm 87:2)? This means he loves the church more than he loves the families of the church. This is why the Lord has ordained that the first time a man exercises this kind of governance is not in the household of God, but in his own family, and that this be done "well".

I'm sure some will balk at me for saying all this. I am reminded of something I heard about Al Martin. When one of his grown sons turned from the faith, Pastor Martin went directly to the elders. He essentially laid his whole ministry on the table and said, "If this means I am no longer qualified, then I have preached my last sermon," (or something to that effect). The elders did not feel the grown son's departure called into question Pastor Martin's fundamental qualification for ordained office, but the main point here is Al Martin's unflinching dedication to observing God's standards, wherever this might lead him.


----------



## RamistThomist

Who here literally obeys Paul's command to greet everyone with a holy kiss?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

RamistThomist said:


> Who here literally obeys Paul's command to greet everyone with a holy kiss?



Well, I try. 

I'm not very popular.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 4 | Praying 1


----------



## Imputatio

RamistThomist said:


> Who here literally obeys Paul's command to greet everyone with a holy kiss?


Never have seen it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Parakaleo said:


> When one of his grown sons turned from the faith, Pastor Martin went directly to the elders. He essentially laid his whole ministry on the table and said, "If this means I am no longer qualified, then I have preached my last sermon," (or something to that effect). The elders did not feel the grown son's departure called into question Pastor Martin's fundamental qualification for ordained office, but the main point here is Al Martin's unflinching dedication to observing God's standards, wherever this might lead him.


I've known men quite well who did a version of that in their own lives and ministries. Martin is to be commended for such submission to his brethren in the Lord as are my friends who have done the same in the same or like circumstances. 

I have no reason to believe that Taylor will not submit himself to his brethren in the Lord, those in the session and local congregation issuing the call, and those in the presbytery examining him for his fitness for the call. Martin's fellow elders did not show him the door. Were they not wrong, perhaps, given your reasoning? Or do you take a different position (I hope you do!) about adult children going their own way? 

In any case, Taylor would not be his own judge in the matter but would be submitting the record of his doctrinal commitment, life, and service to the examination of those duly authorized to assess him. Are they wrong if they think he meets the qualifications? You seem to commend Martin for his humility in the matter. Indeed. We have no reason to believe that Talyor is acting in any other fashion here than one of true submissiveness to his brethren in the Lord. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## RamistThomist

The bishops of Rome immediately after the fall of the Western empire didn't have kids, yet they managed not only the household of God, but the rest of Europe during its darkest days.


----------



## Parakaleo

RamistThomist said:


> Who here literally obeys Paul's command to greet everyone with a holy kiss?



If a brother with a true burden to align his practice with the exact words of Paul in this matter greeted another brother who looked at Paul's instructions as being more open-ended and culturally informed with a holy kiss, I would expect the second brother to be extremely circumspect in any challenge he might offer to the first brother. The second brother would be, I think, forced to acknowledge that the first brother's view enjoys the "high ground" of being in step with the very words of Paul, even if _thought_ to be too woodenly interpreted or lacking contextualization.


----------



## Parakaleo

Alan D. Strange said:


> I have no reason to believe that Taylor will not submit himself to his brethren in the Lord, those in the session and local congregation issuing the call, and those in the presbytery examining him for his fitness for the call. Martin's fellow elders did not show him the door. Were they not wrong, perhaps, given your reasoning? Or do you take a different position (I hope you do!) about adult children going their own way?



The problem is if these brethren are prepared to sustain Taylor as qualified for the ministry in opposition to the word of God, he should not submit to them in this. Again, I don't know the full details here so I am only speaking in terms of principles.

As for Al Martin's elders, I would say they have properly controlled the requirements in 1 Timothy 3:4 ("having his children in subjection with all gravity") and Titus 1:6 ('having faithful children") by Paul's question/challenge in 1 Timothy 3:5 ("for if a man know not how to rule his own house...") and concluded that Pastor Martin remains fundamentally qualified per Paul's challenge, having demonstrated upright and competent care for his household over many years. The grown son's rejection of the faith is therefore accounted to be a strange providence of God and not seen as evidence of defective family governance.

Despite what some may think, I have never taken the approach to these passages, "They must be interpreted as woodenly as possible." I tried to start this post off more on the level of, "Let's stop driving dump trucks of exceptions through the filter of these qualifications," but now it appears we are at the, "Let's see what gnats he lets through," stage.


----------



## MChase

Parakaleo said:


> _*The problem is if these brethren are prepared to sustain Taylor as qualified for the ministry in opposition to the word of God, he should not submit to them in this.*_ Again, I don't know the full details here so I am only speaking in terms of principles.
> 
> Despite what some may think, I have never taken the approach to these passages, "They must be interpreted as woodenly as possible." I tried to start this post off more on the level of, "Let's stop driving dump trucks of exceptions through the filter of these qualifications," but it has now inevitably descended into, "If you allow this gnat through, then leave us alone about this dump truck."



This first part is offensive. You are assuming what you are trying to prove and applying it to a particular situation which you admittedly have no insight into. 

For instance, my wife and I could not have kids for the first three years of our marriage. We fostered 3 girls for 6 months before they went back to be with their parents along with 2 other short term placements. Your reading would make such a man unqualified because he does not have multiple living children of his own. I don't really care about my own particular circumstances as I trust that my presbytery would not take me under care had I not demonstrated some sort of godly example albeit far from perfect. But it is offensive to categorically rule out a man because of his wife's barrenness. 

No one came into this discussion trying to drive a dump truck through the qualifications. It is not really a massive leap - rather it is no leap at all - to think that Paul would not have been disqualifying himself the very moment he wrote what he did. 

Every response you have given assumes that your detractors are arguing in bad faith. It is poor form.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## RamistThomist

Parakaleo said:


> If a brother with a true burden to align his practice with the exact words of Paul in this matter greeted another brother who looked at Paul's instructions as being more open-ended and culturally informed with a holy kiss, I would expect the second brother to be extremely circumspect in any challenge he might offer to the first brother. The second brother would be, I think, forced to acknowledge that the first brother's view enjoys the "high ground" of being in step with the very words of Paul, even if _thought_ to be too woodenly interpreted or lacking contextualization.



So do you kiss other people at church or not?


----------



## Zach

No kissing at church, please.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D.

Parakaleo said:


> The problem is if these brethren are prepared to sustain Taylor as qualified for the ministry in opposition to the word of God, he should not submit to them in this.



It's already been asked or at least alluded to, but essentially remains unanswered: You are convinced that your reading of the passage in question is very obviously the correct one, but how do you account for the fact that the vast, vast majority of Christian theologians and exegetes throughout history, including virtually all Reformed stalwarts, have concluded otherwise? Are they simply dull in understanding, or do they have less than honorable motivations/prejudices - or else what? Does the fact that you are virtually alone in your interpretation at least give you pause?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Parakaleo said:


> The problem is if these brethren are prepared to sustain Taylor as qualified for the ministry in opposition to the word of God, he should not submit to them in this.


This is quite remarkable, Blake. Taylor wishes to be ordained and installed in an OPC congregation. Presuming that the local congregation and the presbytery know all the facts on the ground, and they determine that he is otherwise qualified (in view of the other things I mentioned above), then Taylor must either tell them they're all wrong or, better, never allow the process to proceed because he knows that Paul forbids his entry into office. I take this to be your view of the matter. 

The bottom line for you here, then: Taylor should read Paul in the Pastorals, take him seriously, and know that he is not qualified for gospel ministry or special office in the church. No man but one who has a wife and a household (biological, adopted, or something along those lines) should ever consider serving in any special office, no matter how much the church might encourage, or even implore, him to do so. The church, in so doing, is being faithless, as is he in seeking and accepting such office. This is your view. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## fredtgreco

I have to say, I am shocked that no one has mentioned that the OP's misapplication of Paul's principle would make _our Lord Jesus Christ _unqualified for the pastoral office.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## MChase

fredtgreco said:


> I have to say, I am shocked that no one has mentioned that the OP's misapplication of Paul's principle would make _our Lord Jesus Christ _unqualified for the pastoral office.



I brought that up in post 12 and it remains unanswered.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## fredtgreco

MChase said:


> I brought that up in post 12 and it remains unanswered.


My apologies for missing that. It remains the most salient point for me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo

fredtgreco said:


> I have to say, I am shocked that no one has mentioned that the OP's misapplication of Paul's principle would make _our Lord Jesus Christ _unqualified for the pastoral office.



Christ occupied the unique and extraordinary office of Mediator/Redeemer. God set him apart in an extraordinary way and attested to his office with signs and wonders. Christ pointed to these signs when John's disciples came asking if he is "he that should come" (Matthew 11:1-6). As such, his calling and qualification are beyond question. You could say much the same about the apostle Paul regarding his calling and office.

Surely, you recognize two things:

1. “God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.” (WCF 5.3)
2. The fact God works without, above, against ordinary means in notable cases does not give a church court the authority to sidestep the means God has set down for their ordinary proceedings.

Brother, it is no slight or insult against Christ or Paul to say they are not qualified for lesser church offices_ in the ordinary sense_. All those who follow Christ as Head of the Church and heed Paul as Christ's apostle openly acknowledge these persons to be qualified in the extraordinary sense.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

fredtgreco said:


> I have to say, I am shocked that no one has mentioned that the OP's misapplication of Paul's principle would make _our Lord Jesus Christ _unqualified for the pastoral office.


As Mason noted he did, and in something I wrote years ago refuting FV's argument that a father's faithfulness ineluctably secures that of wife and children, I addressed it: if so, I argued, what did this mean about Judas's defection? Was Christ unfaithful? God forbid! Similarly here.

These sorts of arguments always argue too much, no? Paul addresses the situation of marriage and family as it's so common and prevalent among special officers in the church. He argues that their faithfulness in private things is a gauge of their faithfulness in public ecclesiastical matters. This prompts some then to inappropriately conclude that he's requiring that this particular situation must prevail in all cases, rather than instructing us how to assess the private (which may involve other estates; this is not exhaustive) as a clue to performance in church office.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## fredtgreco

Alan D. Strange said:


> As Mason noted he did, and in something I wrote years ago refuting FV's argument that a father's faithfulness ineluctably secures that of wife and children, I addressed it: if so, I argued, what did this mean about Judas's defection? Was Christ unfaithful? God forbid! Similarly here.
> 
> These sorts of arguments always argue too much, no? Paul addresses the situation of marriage and family as it's so common and prevalent among special officers in the church. He argues that their faithfulness in private things is a gauge of their faithfulness in public ecclesiastical matters. This prompts some then to inappropriately conclude that he's requiring that this particular situation must prevail in all cases, rather than instructing us how to assess the private (which may involve other estates; this is not exhaustive) as a clue to performance in church office.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan


Exactly. Is there no irony to believing Paul created a standard that he was unable to fulfill? If that is so, how is he qualified to set forth the standard?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Parakaleo

fredtgreco said:


> Exactly. Is there no irony to believing Paul created a standard that he was unable to fulfill? If that is so, how is he qualified to set forth the standard?



Brother, bear with me a little here.

If Paul were a man called to an ordinary office in an ordinary manner, the irony of him presuming to set standards for others to attain to that office which he himself did not meet would be thick.

Yet, if Paul were a man called to an ordinary office in an ordinary manner, who would he be to set authoritative standards in the church at all? I can't set authoritative standards in the church. You can't set authoritative standards in the church. We were set apart in an ordinary manner to an ordinary office.

God elevated Paul to an *extraordinary* office by means of an extraordinary calling. God confirmed this calling by signs, wonders, and power to minister authoritatively for Christ. You see, God qualified Paul in these extraordinary ways for extraordinary service in the church, apart from ordinary means, which God is entirely free to do.

As an apostle, fully qualified by God's extraordinary calling, Paul is guilty of no hypocrisy in carrying out his calling by revealing God's requirements for the *ordinary* qualification of a man for office in the church_._


----------



## MChase

Parakaleo said:


> Brother, bear with me a little here.
> 
> If Paul were a man called to an ordinary office in an ordinary manner, the irony of him presuming to set standards for others to attain to that office which he himself did not meet would be thick.
> 
> Yet, if Paul were a man called to an ordinary office in an ordinary manner, who would he be to set authoritative standards in the church at all? I can't set authoritative standards in the church. You can't set authoritative standards in the church. We were set apart in an ordinary manner to an ordinary office.
> 
> God elevated Paul to an *extraordinary* office by means of an extraordinary calling. God confirmed this calling by signs, wonders, and power to minister authoritatively for Christ. You see, God qualified Paul in these extraordinary ways for extraordinary service in the church, apart from ordinary means, which God is entirely free to do.
> 
> As an apostle, fully qualified by God's extraordinary calling, Paul is guilty of no hypocrisy in carrying out his calling by revealing God's requirements for the *ordinary* qualification of a man for office in the church_._



It is very strange for Paul to boast in the superiority of his celibate condition if it were not only extraordinary but ordinarily unlawful.

By this logic, a continually profane and greedy man could be an apostle or elder in the early church because of some ‘extraordinary’ calling.

Further, the apostles had extra requirements for office, not fewer. This is implicit in Peter’s confession that he is an elder. Yes, he is an elder and meets those qualifications but exceeds just those because he has seen the risen Lord.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## danekristjan

This discussion is not going anywhere really because it starts with the OP assuming his interpretation is the correct one.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Imputatio

danekristjan said:


> This discussion is not going anywhere really because it starts with a the OP assuming his interpretation is the correct one.


Much like TR threads, eh brother?


----------



## Taylor

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Much like TR threads, eh brother?


This is an unnecessary, cheap, and off-topic comment.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Parakaleo

MChase said:


> It is very strange for Paul to boast in the superiority of his celibate condition if it were not only extraordinary but ordinarily unlawful.
> 
> By this logic, a continually profane and greedy man could be an apostle or elder in the early church because of some ‘extraordinary’ calling.
> 
> Further, the apostles had extra requirements for office, not fewer. This is implicit in Peter’s confession that he is an elder. Yes, he is an elder and meets those qualifications but exceeds just those because he has seen the risen Lord.



Not meeting the qualification of "ruleth well his own house" by not having a house to speak of is not unlawful, anymore than being a novice is unlawful. I don't know where you are getting the idea I am saying it is immoral or unlawful to be unmarried? Or to be childless?

While God is free to work without, above, against his ordinary means, he is not free to approve of that which is at all times sinful. This implies that his ordinary means contain things that are positively added by God for good order and God "working around" these things in extraordinary situations is not sinful. This would not imply that church courts can sidestep God's stated means in their ordinary proceedings.

I am well aware that we speak of the lesser offices being subsumed in the higher offices, but typically we speak in terms of the functions being subsumed. It's not as if the lesser offices themselves are contained within the higher offices, like a Russian nesting doll situation. At least, that is not how I have heard men speak about it.


----------



## Jake

For me, I still have trouble not seeing I Corinthians 7 having any bearing on the question and Paul as only extraordinarily called to his office despite not being otherwise qualified. Paul recommends singleness in part "that you may serve the Lord without distraction" (NKJV v. 35). This may refer to only the type of service or attending upon the Lord (KJV) in un-ordained offices, but he also says "I wish that all men were even as I myself" (v. 7) and "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am" (v. 8) earlier in the same passage. I recognize the passage is largely for a particular season in the church, but why would Paul give reasons that singleness enables us to serve without distraction in the church and enjoin other men to be single as well if that would disqualify them from the offices of the church as he holds?

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 1


----------



## fredtgreco

Parakaleo said:


> Brother, bear with me a little here.
> 
> If Paul were a man called to an ordinary office in an ordinary manner, the irony of him presuming to set standards for others to attain to that office which he himself did not meet would be thick.
> 
> Yet, if Paul were a man called to an ordinary office in an ordinary manner, who would he be to set authoritative standards in the church at all? I can't set authoritative standards in the church. You can't set authoritative standards in the church. We were set apart in an ordinary manner to an ordinary office.
> 
> God elevated Paul to an *extraordinary* office by means of an extraordinary calling. God confirmed this calling by signs, wonders, and power to minister authoritatively for Christ. You see, God qualified Paul in these extraordinary ways for extraordinary service in the church, apart from ordinary means, which God is entirely free to do.
> 
> As an apostle, fully qualified by God's extraordinary calling, Paul is guilty of no hypocrisy in carrying out his calling by revealing God's requirements for the *ordinary* qualification of a man for office in the church_._


Except that the apostles did not see themselves as occupying a separate extraordinary caste from others - hence Peter's telling inspired remark in 1 Peter 5:1 "fellow elder," John's reference to himself as "elder" (2 John 1, 3 John 1) and Paul's reference to himself as "minister" (Romans 15:16).

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## MChase

Parakaleo said:


> Not meeting the qualification of "ruleth well his own house" by not having a house to speak of is not unlawful, anymore than being a novice is unlawful. I don't know where you are getting the idea I am saying it is immoral or unlawful to be unmarried? Or to be childless?
> 
> While God is free to work without, above, against his ordinary means, he is not free to approve of that which is at all times sinful. This implies that his ordinary means contain things that are positively added by God for good order and God "working around" these things in extraordinary situations is not sinful. This would not imply that church courts can sidestep God's stated means in their ordinary proceedings.
> 
> I am well aware that we speak of the lesser offices being subsumed in the higher offices, but typically we speak in terms of the functions being subsumed. It's not as if the lesser offices themselves are contained within the higher offices, like a Russian nesting doll situation. At least, that is not how I have heard men speak about it.



You seem convinced of your position against all logic from others on the board. That’s fine I guess, but I will be bowing out. 

I will note that the Regulative Principle not only includes those things that are commanded but approved example. I don’t know of any other New Testament minister save The Apostle and High Priest of our Confession who’s ministry is commended in the manner that Paul’s is. If Paul isn’t an example, who is?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange

fredtgreco said:


> Exactly. Is there no irony to believing Paul created a standard that he was unable to fulfill? If that is so, how is he qualified to set forth the standard?


Right, Fred!

Two who famously made a whole set of religious rules that neither kept were Mohammed and Joseph Smith, who also have many other similarities.

@Parakaleo. Blake, I am unconvinced that what you cite from the WCF (chapter 5) has anything to do with the case, and is certainly not dispositive. Quite simply put, marriage and family are not something inherently virtuous as are the other character qualities on the list. All the other negative and positive qualities stand on their own and must be in evidence for the man to be fit for office. In other words, one must be "sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable..., " whatever one's life circumstance. Similarly, he must be a "one woman man," faithful if married to his wife, not a skirt-chaser or randy if not married. Household management is, as Daniel Ritchie previously noted, something that's discernable in all, whether married with children or not. 

The concern, then, is not that one be married and have a family, as such, but if one is, that should be taken into account in assessing fitness, as should one's life situation (single, married without children, etc.), whatever it may be. Life situations do not bestow virtue, including the circumstance of marriage/family. The character qualities necessary for ministry are gifts and graces of God, extending to the whole of one's life, including his marriage and family (if he has such), the customary estate of most office-bearers. This has been the view of the church and you've brought nothing to us in this discussion to prompt revision. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## Imputatio

Taylor said:


> This is an unnecessary, cheap, and off-topic comment.


It was said with the lightest of hearts, brother. 

The tone, redundancy, and overall ridiculousness of this thread (at this point) could use some lightening up. Don’t take it so seriously. 

That said, my apologies if you were personally offended, brother.


----------



## Taylor

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> It was said with the lightest of hearts, brother.
> 
> The tone, redundancy, and overall ridiculousness of this thread (at this point) could use some lightening up. Don’t take it so seriously.
> 
> That said, my apologies if you were personally offended, brother.


Fair enough. My apologies for misunderstanding.


----------



## Imputatio

Taylor said:


> Fair enough. My apologies for misunderstanding.


I should have been more sensitive to the seriousness of this thread for you personally. Sorry brother. Have a blessed day!


----------



## Parakaleo

Alan D. Strange said:


> Quite simply put, marriage and family are not something inherently virtuous



The reason men who have never governed their own families are not qualified is because they lack the track-record of good family governance that Paul says is a prerequisite for holding ordinary offices in the church. Not having a track-record of able family governance simply means there is insufficient data on which to proceed. It's not like I have said having a wife and family conveys some kind of qualification completely on its own!

I think some here feel it is a slap in the face to tell a man he is not currently qualified for church office, but this is exactly what you would tell a novice.

Riddle me this. A novice presents himself as someone desiring office in the church. You give him the biblical counsel, which is to allow for time to pass so that he can continue to learn and be tested over an extended period before proceeding. He asks why. You give him Paul's reasoning straight from 1 Timothy 3:6, "...lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." He asks what else, other than a solid track-record over an extended period of time, could satisfy your mind that the danger of him being lifted up with pride is sufficiently mitigated. You answer as you did before, because you know that* nothing in the world is capable of removing the label "novice" from a man other than observation of growth in grace in him over an extended period of time*. Accepting anything less than this would subvert Paul's requirement that the man not be a novice.

I come forward to you men, saying the same type of conversation as the one above should take place with a man who has never governed his own house. Why? Knowing that *nothing in the world is capable of satisfying the requirement that a man rule his own house well other than a man having his own house and ruling it well*, I dare not subvert Paul's requirement that the man knows how to rule his house well. I know many claim that a variety of indicators or comparable life experiences are valid substitutes for meeting this requirement, but they tacitly transform a concrete requirement into more of a suggestion.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Parakaleo said:


> I think some here feel it is a slap in the face to tell a man he is not currently qualified for church office, but this is exactly what you would tell a novice.


I've no hesitancy to do so, Blake. A man is not to be a novice to enter special office means that he is not to be a newbie without any sort of demonstrated graces and gifts. It's pretty plain that a new man is a new man and you're not to put someone new to the faith and untested altogether in office. 

Paul never says that a man must be married and must have children (or a household in some fashion). If a man does have a wife and kids, assess his governance there; if he doesn't, assess other things in his private life to see how he orders his private world. What would be the equivalent of this for the newbie? This is not to say that we might not disagree on this board as to what constitutes a newbie in every case, but we'd _all_ agree that such a novice _should not_ enter upon office. The same cannot be said of the other case, where few are agreeing with you that no men except those married and with a family (of some sort) should apply. 

I am not reluctant, and I have no reason to suspect others are, to tell a man that he is not, or not yet, qualified for office. I've done it many times!

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Parakaleo

RamistThomist said:


> So do you kiss other people at church or not?



I have been giving some additional thought to this. A couple things.

First, I don't presently kiss brethren at church. I greet brethren warmly, "kissing" them after a manner with words, facial expressions, handshakes, etc. It is not to my credit, nor is it to the church's credit, that Paul's instructions are not followed word-for-word. In fact, I suspect we will see a return to this practice in the church during future periods of Gospel prosperity. Maybe your position is that it doesn't really matter, because it's borderline silly to worry too much about a quaint or colloquial expression given by Paul that never carried his expectation that it would be received as a permanent command?

Whatever a person wants to argue about the "holy kiss" injunction, the case bears little resemblance to Paul's injunctions in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Paul's expectation for how the "holy kiss" instruction would be received by the churches is one question; Paul's expectation for how the "one that ruleth his own house well" requirement would be received by Timothy and Titus is another question entirely. These are different injunctions given in different contexts to different audiences and for different reasons.

What about Timothy and Titus? Will no one raise their hand and say, with all confidence, that Timothy and/or Titus could have been perfectly at ease in receiving these instructions from the apostle, then turning around and ordaining reputable men in the churches who had never been married, never governed their own houses, etc.? Anyone?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Parakaleo said:


> Will no one raise their hand and say, with all confidence, that Timothy and/or Titus could have been perfectly at ease in receiving these instructions from the apostle, then turning around and ordaining reputable men in the churches who had never been married, never governed their own houses, etc.? Anyone?


✋

Yes, they could have been perfectly at ease in doing what you describe. 

The Greek μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα means "one woman man," not requiring marriage but faithfulness and honorability in dealing with the opposite sex. And everyone--married or not, family or not--has a household that they govern, i.e., they have private affairs that they handle. 

The apostle wants the domestic, private situation to be in order and well-managed, whatever the estate of the person. That is what these qualifications mean.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Parakaleo

Alan D. Strange said:


> The Greek μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα means "one woman man," not requiring marriage but faithfulness and honorability in dealing with the opposite sex.



I conclude the very opposite. There is no confusion as to the number of wives the man is to have; the number is one.*

You have also claimed a man who has received special gifting from the Lord to remain a single man his entire life is not necessarily disqualified from church office. How would such a man pass through the filter of the requirement he be a "one woman man"?

*Earlier, I granted that a man who had proven himself a reputable governor of a wife and family in times past but, in God's providence, no longer has a wife or family in his life, may be considered qualified under Paul's question/challenge in v. 5, which could be seen to control the present-tense of vv. 2 and 4.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Parakaleo said:


> You have also claimed a man who has received special gifting from the Lord to remain a single man his entire life is not necessarily disqualified from church office. How would such a man pass through the filter of the requirement he be a "one woman man"?


A married man would show faithfulness in regards to this requirement by having and holding only the woman to whom he's married. Certainly, this would, as many have noted, forbid polygamy. 

As I've said before, and some of this may have been in our private correspondence, an unmarried man would manifest this quality by not being a skirt-chaser, a randy, a gadabout, someone unfaithful and dishonorable in his dealing with the opposite sex. This is not hard to gauge. 

Paul was not married at the time of I Corinthians and following (certainly he was not when he wrote the Pastorals). Since he, as an apostle, held the fullness of all church office(s)--the apostolate never being less in any respect than the ministerium, having the extraordinary gifts that the ministerium ultimately will not and yet lacking none of the ordinary graces and gifts required for the ministerium, and by extension, the other offices--it's inconceivable that any quality for merely ordinary office was not fully present in Paul, as a paragon of extraordinary _and_ ordinary office(s). 

Paul was not married. Thus ordinary office-bearers do not have this requirement, because it pertains to the ordinary office aspect of Paul's ministry, as one who holds, as do all extraordinary office holders, both the extraordinary and the ordinary office(s); hence Peter can style himself as a presbuteros, but I can't style myself as an apostolos: Peter and Paul are all that I am but I am not all that they are. The notion that you or I would have some ordinary office qualifications that the apostles lacked is manifestly absurd. 

Paul did not lack the quality of being a "one woman man," but he need not have ever been married to have been qualified in this way. Or to govern his household well. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## fredtgreco

"One woman man" means more than the number of wives. It is indicative of a man's view of sexuality. But again, if you are comfortable excluding Jesus, Paul, and countless other Church Fathers who never married for office, it is clear no one here is going to dissuade you. Your view also makes a mockery of Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 7:8.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist

Parakaleo said:


> I have been giving some additional thought to this. A couple things.
> 
> First, I don't presently kiss brethren at church. I greet brethren warmly, "kissing" them after a manner with words, facial expressions, handshakes, etc. It is not to my credit, nor is it to the church's credit, that Paul's instructions are not followed word-for-word. In fact, I suspect we will see a return to this practice in the church during future periods of Gospel prosperity. Maybe your position is that it doesn't really matter, because it's borderline silly to worry too much about a quaint or colloquial expression given by Paul that never carried his expectation that it would be received as a permanent command?
> 
> Whatever a person wants to argue about the "holy kiss" injunction, the case bears little resemblance to Paul's injunctions in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Paul's expectation for how the "holy kiss" instruction would be received by the churches is one question; Paul's expectation for how the "one that ruleth his own house well" requirement would be received by Timothy and Titus is another question entirely. These are different injunctions given in different contexts to different audiences and for different reasons.
> 
> What about Timothy and Titus? Will no one raise their hand and say, with all confidence, that Timothy and/or Titus could have been perfectly at ease in receiving these instructions from the apostle, then turning around and ordaining reputable men in the churches who had never been married, never governed their own houses, etc.? Anyone?



My point was this: you don't (nor do I) give a holy kiss because you are contextualizing that passage. You aren't interpreting it woodenly. You are, however, interpreting the other passage woodenly because your view excludes most of the church throughout history (including some apostles).


----------



## Parakaleo

fredtgreco said:


> Your view also makes a mockery of Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 7:8.



Brother, this is offensive and without charity. I fully subscribe to all of Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 7. No damage is done to Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 7 for me to say ordained office in the church is limited to those who have demonstrated upright governance of their own households, per 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, because Paul does not conclude or even infer that single-for-life-men, with all their gifts and strengths, are therefore prime candidates for _ordained service_ in the church. He simply says they are favored differently than married men in that they may abundantly concentrate their hearts and efforts upon the Lord's things _in general_. Which is excellent and praiseworthy. However, you can't take what Paul says about single-for-life men being favored for their ability to serve the Lord in general and conclude this means they are also favored or qualified for serving the Lord _in ordained office_. Again, a glowing recommendation for serving the Lord _in general_, even from the apostle Paul, does not equal a recommendation for serving the Lord in ordained office.

I say it is without charity because I think if you had spent two minutes in my shoes and looking at the relevant passages through the lens of, "Okay, what if Paul really is being literal about the requirement a man rule his own household well?" you might have arrived at the explanation I offered above as _a remote possibility_ to account for 1 Corinthians 7 and not have called my view "a mockery".


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It's the Lord's Day; let's focus on other things and if folks still think this thread can go anywhere further, take it up on Monday.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Another key requirement for the Office of Elder is that he be able to rightly teach the word of God. It's been alluded to repeatedly, but this is one of the most wooden interpretations of the notion of oikos that I've read. I'm rather shocked at the way this idea is being interpreted without any grammatico-historical reference to the context in which Paul was writing. 

This is a very good book for any who wish to take the topic up: https://mwc.warhornmedia.com/

I would not normally recommend something that Warhorn Media produced but, in this case, they republished a work by (of all things) a Roman Catholic. I was initially skeptical of the work when someone else recommended it but is (surprisingly) one of the most comprehensive looks at the social roles of men and women not only in the Scriptures but in ancient and modern contexts.

Toward that end, there are multiple chapters on the context of households prior to the advent of our technological age.

The notion that, when Paul refers to oikos as measuring how a man would deal with with wife and his kids is a modern concept of oikos. It's so much more comprehensive than that. In fact, due to the changes in the way households and work are, if the OP's insistence that one would have to rule his "oikos" well meant that we all had to do what a man would need to do to meet that requirement in the context of an ancient household then no modern person (or very few) could meet that requirement.

In other words, there are things that were so symbiotic with work and the home and the economy that the social structures do not exist for a man to meet the "exact" sense that would be required at the time Paul peened the words.

Thus, the person making the post is, himself, not qualified if he insists on a wooden understanding that ruling one's "oikos" in the precise sense of what everyone would understand at the time of Paul's writing would entail.

What is required of stable and learned Pastors of the word (not unstable and unlearned as evidenced by the inability to apply an appropriate grammatico-historical exegesis) is to apply the principle that Paul is aiming at to the context in which any Church finds itself. Since there will be no men in a technological age that are ruling an "oikos" in exactly the same manner at the time of Paul's writing, it requires us to look at how a man serves as an exemplar to the spiritual community he will govern. He no longer works in a trade that exists as an extension to his home training his sons in that trade. His wife no longer helps in the same way to sustain the other elements of the household economy or the extended community that is an extension of other households involved in common commerce and social interactions. She would be absorbed not in simply sustaining a small home with a plot of land and making dinner or changing diapers but, with her daughters or servants, in a variety of activities. She, along with other women, will have very limited contact with other men due to the divisions of labor. Likewise, many of the modern notions that men spend a lot of time with their kids and wife doesn't deal with the realities of ancient households in how they trained their sons in the work of the household once they were old enough.

There is so much discontinuity in the way households operate that it is breathtakingly idiosyncratic and anachronistic to conceive of "oikos" as the author of this thread avers. The reason why ancient commentators (and even Calvin) don't struggle with this notion as much as the author does is because they still lived in a time when the "oikos" concept was intact and it's shocking to me that someone would try to force a modern concept and miss this obvious characteristic difference in the character of the household concept.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## Parakaleo

@Semper Fidelis
Brother, I am not getting my notion of _oikos _from modern or ancient culture, but from the words Paul uses in his instructions. There are enough clues in the verses themselves to catch on to Paul's working definition of _oikos._



> A bishop then *must be* blameless, *the husband of one wife* [...] one that *ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection* with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule *his own house*, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1 Timothy 3



My insistence that men be examined on the upright governance of their actual wives and dependents is my best to adhere to what I see as Paul's obvious expectation in these verses. You and others can call it overly wooden, but don't say I am shoehorning a modern conception of _oikos _where it doesn't belong. That has nothing to do with it.



Semper Fidelis said:


> What is required of stable and learned Pastors of the word [...] is to apply the principle that Paul is aiming at to the context in which any Church finds itself.



We agree completely, on everything except for the actual principle in question. If I'm understanding you correctly, you see Paul aiming at a "not a novice" principle in regard to governance _in general_. I see Paul quite clearly aiming at a "not a novice" principle in regard to governance _of family._ Again, you and others can say I am being overly wooden, but please do not treat me as if I am being contemptably wooden or incorrigibly wooden; as if I am seeing something that I wish was in the text but isn't, or as if I am deliberately shutting my ears to irrefutable proofs against my interpretation from other parts of Scripture. I am not.


----------



## RamistThomist

Parakaleo said:


> Brother, I am not getting my notion of _oikos _from modern or ancient culture, but from the words Paul uses in his instructions. There are enough clues in the verses themselves to catch on to Paul's working definition of _oikos._



Paul got his understanding of oikos from his culture. If he didn't, his use of the word would have been meaningless to his audience.


----------



## Parakaleo

RamistThomist said:


> Paul got his understanding of oikos from his culture. If he didn't, his use of the word would have been meaningless to his audience.



So, if Paul were to be transported through time to 21st century America, he would come to a church, be invited to some homes, learn a little bit about how the families operate and, maybe after a few weeks, someone would ask him what he thought about this or that _oikos_, Paul would look at him with a deeply puzzled expression and say, "_Oikos_? You mean Mr. Donaldson and his family? They are a nice family and everything, but I never would have thought of them as an _oikos_. That's crazy!"


----------



## RamistThomist

Parakaleo said:


> So, if Paul were to be transported through time to 21st century America, he would come to a church, be invited to some homes, learn a little bit about how the families operate and, maybe after a few weeks, someone would ask him what he thought about this or that _oikos_, Paul would look at him with a deeply puzzled expression and say, "_Oikos_? You mean Mr. Donaldson and his family? They are a nice family and everything, but I never would have thought of them as an _oikos_. That's crazy!"



No one here said that a natural family isn't an oikos. Rather, as we have noted many times, oikos is much larger than that.


----------



## Parakaleo

RamistThomist said:


> No one here said that a natural family isn't an oikos. Rather, as we have noted many times, oikos is much larger than that.



Is it because the ancient understanding of _oikos _is much larger than the modern conception of _household _that it would be a somewhat paltry measure of a man to examine his care of his household for evidence of his competence in governance, today?


----------



## RamistThomist

Parakaleo said:


> Is it because the ancient understanding of _oikos _is much larger than the modern conception of _household _that it would be a somewhat paltry measure of a man to examine his household for evidence of his competence in governance?



Don't fully understand what you are asking. I am simply saying that the ancient semantic range of oikos didn't necessarily limit itself to married with children.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Parakaleo said:


> We agree completely, on everything except for the actual principle in question. If I'm understanding you correctly, you see Paul aiming at a "not a novice" principle in regard to governance _in general_. I see Paul quite clearly aiming at a "not a novice" principle in regard to governance _of family._ Again, you and others can say I am being overly wooden, but please do not treat me as if I am being contemptably wooden or incorrigibly wooden; as if I am seeing something that I wish was in the text but isn't, or as if I am deliberately shutting my ears to irrefutable proofs against my interpretation from other parts of Scripture. I am not.


I'm stating that you are unlearned in your handling of the text. Just so we're clear.

Your handling of the grammatico-historical use of the word "oikos" is embarrassing. If you were a member of my Presbytery I would consider you unfit for ordination as you don't know how to handle the Greek and understand words in their historical context.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Parakaleo

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm stating that you are unlearned in your handling of the text. Just so we're clear.
> 
> Your handling of the grammatico-historical use of the word "oikos" is embarrassing. If you were a member of my Presbytery I would consider you unfit for ordination as you don't know how to handle the Greek and understand words in their historical context.



It's embarrassing to think that there is enough correlation between what Paul described as _oikos _and the households of today, that a presbytery examining a man's care of his wife and children are holding to Paul's requirement regarding the examination of a man's _oikos_?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Parakaleo said:


> It's embarrassing to think that there is enough correlation between what Paul described as _oikos _and the households of today, that a presbytery examining a man's care of his wife and children are holding to Paul's requirement regarding the examination of a man's _oikos_?


You seem to be incapable of exegeting what others are writing in plain English. I'll say this once as a warning to you, but you either acknowledge what others have stated or you will receive infraction and suspension if you refuse to note what has already been acknowledged.

You have misrepresented me as averring that a man's wife and children are not to be taken into consideration Your considerable error is that you have not established what an "oikos" is. You will not receive further warnings so tread carefully.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Parakaleo

Semper Fidelis said:


> You have misrepresented me as averring that a man's wife and children are not to be taken into consideration



Where have I done this?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I think that we can all agree that _oikos _had a different signification in the time of Paul than it later came to assume in Western history, especially in and after the Industrial Revolution. If one had a wife and children, as was quite common then and now (perhaps with extended family as well then: think of the Roman family and the _paterfamilias_), whatever family one had would ordinarily be part of the _oikos_. Additionally, one's whole way of life and livelihood was included in that word/concept _oikos _(see Kittel).

The point here is that, then and now, a wife and children may or may not be part of any given man's _oikos_. He had one, and governed it well or not, with or without wife and family. Again, most men have a wife and family and they are to be taken into account as part of his _oikos_ in presbyterial assessment. There is, however, for all the reasons adduced in this thread, *no apostolic requirement that a candidate for office must be married and have children.* He must be a "one woman man," however, in any case, and successfully manage his _oikos_. Many of us have sought to explain how that may be done without a wife and family.

You, Blake, @Parakaleo, do not think that any proper positive assessment can be rendered without a wife and family. I still don't think that you've answered these considerations:

Paul was not married in the Pastorals and an apostle would not list consideration for office that he himself could not meet.
As an apostle he was everything an overseer and presbyter were; they were not everything that he was. An apostle lacks no qualification.
Paul also commends in I Cor. 7 an unmarried state: it is inconceivable that he would be advising men otherwise qualified to disqualify themselves from office.
Our Lord himself was not married, though he lacked no virtues whatsoever in either nature or in the integrity of his theanthropic person.
This is because marriage is not a state possessing any inherent virtue(s).
You mention "not a novice." The reason one cannot be a novice is that no graces or gifts are ascertainable in one untested. Soon enough that will give way to discernable experience.
But not for you: if a man never marries, no matter how qualified he may otherwise seem in terms of gifts and graces, he is not qualified to be a minister, ever. Even if he gets married, that's not enough. If he can't have children or somehow come up with them (is he required to adopt?!), he is not qualified, according to you--_all of which seems like an exercise in reading something out of the text that something has led you to read into the text._
Blake, you've also cited a few, and I've added others, both publicly and privately, who speak about the minister's wife and family and the importance of assessing his effectiveness as a minister by gauging his household management. *I do not believe, however, that one of those you've quoted asserts that Paul in the Pastorals required a man to be married and to have a family in order to be considered for the ministry*. I agree that some few might hold this, but no authority that has been cited in this thread requires such, to the best of my knowledge.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Parakaleo

@Semper Fidelis 
Brother, after some time thinking through everything and carefully re-reading what was said above, I think I see what has happened. I wrongly took your comments (and Jacob's comments) regarding the ancient _oikos _to mean something to the effect of:

A man's _oikos _in ancient times was so *different *from what we would call a man's household today, that it's quaint to think evaluating a man's care of his wife and family today would satisfy what Paul required as far as examining a man's _oikos_.
This is why I was pushing back against the idea that it would be some kind of a fool's errand to try and evaluate a man's _oikos _in the year 2022 and that we examine a man's care of his wife and family under a different principle than examining his governance of his _oikos_. Upon further reflection, I am now understanding your comments (and Jacob's comments) regarding the ancient _oikos _to mean something to the effect of:

A man's _oikos _in ancient times was so *expansive and varied *compared to what we would call a man's household today, Paul's requirement to examine a man's governance of his _oikos _need not be limited to how he cares for a wife and children.
I apologize for my misunderstanding and can see how it would have been somewhat annoying. However, I did *not* misrepresent you as averring it is unnecessary to examine a man's wife and children. I was pushing back against what I saw was the terminus of an argument as I (wrongly) understood it, without ever saying I was pushing back against your actual position; much less your *stated* position! Maybe that's a distinction with a difference you won't appreciate, but all I can say is that it never entered my mind that you really see examining a man's care of his wife and children as unneeded. It certainly never "proceeded from my fingers" that you are, in fact, someone in that boat. As such, I can't help but feel that you have misrepresented me.


----------



## Parakaleo

Parakaleo said:


> My insistence that men be examined on the upright governance of their actual wives and dependents is my best to adhere to what I see as Paul's obvious expectation in these verses. You and others can call it overly wooden, but don't say I am shoehorning a modern conception of _oikos _where it doesn't belong. That has nothing to do with it.



The "you and others" portion and following was not said to imply you see no reason to ever examine a man's governance of his wife and children, but that you disagree with my reading that _all men _presenting themselves for office in the church must be examined on how they care for their own wives and dependents. Surely you see that?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Parakaleo said:


> Where have I done this?





Parakaleo said:


> The "you and others" portion and following was not said to imply you see no reason to ever examine a man's governance of his wife and children, but that you disagree with my reading that _all men _presenting themselves for office in the church must be examined on how they care for their own wives and dependents. Surely you see that?


One would have to be completely incapable of wisdom and knowledge to *exclude* how a man manages his wife and children when considering his fitness for the office. It goes without saying that a man's wife and children need to be considered. This thread wasn't started by the "equal and opposite" silliness of some Pastor arguing that we shouldn't examine such. You started a thread making the notion of "oikos" co-extensive with the idea that the only way to judge a man as meeting the qualification is to have a wife and children with which to judge him.

One of the problems with idiosyncratic views is that idiosyncratic views have to multiply in order to sustain them. The fact that, in Church history your take is absent is no hindrance to you. In order to sustain it, then, when the fact that Paul is unmarried is brought up you actually undermine another basic Reformed tenet that Paul was an Elder. As Alan points out (and is well-known), an Apostle is a special class of Elder but the office of Elder is still inherent in the office even as Diaconal work is inherent in the office of Elder in the absence of the same. In order to sustain your idiosyncratic view, you need to aver that Paul's qualifications don't apply to himself because his class is sui generis. By your own reasoning, Paul (having never ruled an oikos) is not qualified to rule over the house of God.
Again, returning to the point that was sharpened above by Alan, the "oikos" concept is all-encompassing in terms of how a man manages all the affairs surrounding his household. As everyone understands, Paul is not providing an exhaustive list of qualifiers/disqualifiers. When he is giving instructions to men in an ancient context he is arguing from the lesser to the greater. Everyone understand the pattern of life he will need to have lived in order to re responsible for the household of God. He points at the man's oikos and states that it is one of the things that needs to be examined. 
The wise application of this is to see Paul giving some examples of the kinds of things that would naturally be considered. He excludes, for instance, that even if his oikos is sound (successfully managed), if he is not a "one-woman" man or his children are not under subjection then he's not qualified. 
The aiming point is not some simple formula to say that if a man is faithful to his wife and has children under subjection that he is managing his oikos well. It is much broader than that. Furthermore, in the case of the man with the gift of singleness, there are no wife and children to consider (whether they support the notion that he manages his household well or they disqualify him). There are other factors.
The bottom line is that everyone agrees that a novice should not be ordained to the office and the strongest statement in the whole is that he manages his oikos well given how expansive that term is.
The very frustrating thing for me is your simultaneous certainty that you are just following what Paul is commanding while simultaneously failing to show any regard for establishing the oikos concept. The other thing I would find disqualifying in your view if you sought ordination in my Presbytery is your further idiosyncratic idea that an Apostle didn't have to meet the qualifications of an Elder and that Paul could not be one to be imitated by other Elders but would positively not be imiatatable because he never met the qualifications of that office.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Afterthought

From observing this thread, the argument that men must have wife and children to be qualified for eldership is made on one of two grounds, and there does seem to be some shifting between the two grounds as arguments have been both made and responded to.

Either,

1) It is being argued that a person cannot be fit to govern God's house unless a person has first governed their wife and children. This argument is about something akin to ontology: a person simply cannot be fit to govern without having governed wife and children. If this is the case though, then the Apostle Paul and Jesus would be disqualified from office: it doesn't matter if there was an extraordinary call, they simply did not learn what they needed to learn to govern well. There is also the counter-argument mentioned by Strange and others that the Apostles lacked no ordinary qualification and other counter-arguments, which would also answer a separate, distinct objection that Paul was given extraordinary gifts (and another problem arises that these alleged extraordinary gifts are actually just natural gifts of goverance, so we again have a single man Paul having ordinary qualifications for office; and also, that being the case, although objections could be raised to the following, a person could pray for and receive these natural gifts without being granted them in an extraordinary manner, since we can always pray for increase of natural gifts and do receive them as the Lord sees fit).

Or

2) It is being argued that a session cannot know if a person is fit to govern God's house unless a person has first governed their wife and children. This argument is about epistemology. In this case, a person could in fact be fit to govern God's house without having first governed wife and children, but a session and congregation would not be able to judge whether that is the case. In this case, the argument would be that Paul's extraordinary call cleared the problem of epistemology: God knew that Paul was fit and so his extraordinary call was made.

However, in this case, one is going further than the exact words of the text (the claim that is being made in favor of the view that the church officer must have wife/children) and instead going with a principle that is claimed to be taught by the text, and this position must also admit that a person _could _be qualified without having wife and children. In this case then it needs to be shown that there is no other way to know (beyond an extraordinary call) that a person could be qualified without having wife and children and that the proposed solutions for finding this out do not work: governing a wife and children (or even servants) is dissimilar to governing a congregation in a great many ways (no physical coercion, no one-flesh union with a promise of submission and provision in all things, more limited authority than one has as a parent or husband or master, dealing with those who have other authorities over them--such as their husbands and parents, no family worship and teaching them all day every day, no promise of financial or other material reward for obedience, no physical/material dependence on you and no physical/material obligation to them, governing by means of a church court, and so on), so it is not immediately obvious that the session's knowledge of a person's fitness to govern God's house must and can only arise from how they govern their wife and children. Furthermore, once a person admits this is a principle--rather than a qualification of nature/ontology given by the text's exact wording--and that a person could be fit without a wife and children, other considerations (such as have been mentioned in this thread by officebearers) have bearing on whether a single person could be admitted to office.



It is also interesting that, as has been pointed out in this thread and by standard commentators, the text nowhere says the officebearer must have a wife and children but instead states how wife and children/house must be governed. Surely that must be a significant point for arguments that claim to be dealing with the text's wording in a straightforward manner, in addition with other points the officebearers in this thread have mentioned about the text concerning the meaning of oikos and spiritual qualifications.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Parakaleo

@Alan D. Strange, @Afterthought, and @Semper Fidelis

Thanks, all of you, for the thoughtful responses. Much here to think about. Ramon, you have actually come closest to something that challenged me when discussing this same issue with a friend last week. His line of questioning was similar to yours in that he pressed me to explain the _telos _of Paul's "one wife..." and "having his children..." requirements in the relevant passages. My answers then were leaning more toward the epistemology side. My friend remarked that it's fine if I want to say that the requirement is arbitrary, but I'm not sure I am prepared to say that much. However, I told him there would be nothing wrong in principle with us aligning our practice with a requirement set down by Paul in the word of God, even if we suspected it was totally arbitrary.

If Paul, for example, had said it is necessary that a man have type O blood in order to take up office in the church, and left it at that with no further explanation, would we hear commentators and preachers throughout the centuries mounting defenses for why this requirement _can't really _mean offices in the church are only open to men with type O blood? Would we hear men say Paul was aiming at a principle that _doesn't really_ rule out men with type A or B blood? Would we hear that men who have type A or B blood by birth, but show themselves to be exemplary in every other area for ordained service in the church, are to be _accounted_ as men with type O blood for some reason? I would expect, in the world of my completely hypothetical example, that the men here would confidently stand upon Paul's requirement and test every man's blood before admitting him to any church office.

Bringing it back into the real world, what do we have? Paul issuing instructions to Titus, "Ordain elders in every city [...] if any be [...] the husband of one wife, having faithful children..." Titus 1:5-6. Paul issuing instructions to Timothy, "A bishop must be [...] the husband of one wife [...] having his children in subjection..." 1 Timothy 3:2-4. Furthermore, we have v. 5, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Paul's fairly practical challenge would seem to clinch the whole argument, yet it's like men read that and say within themselves, "Ah, a principle." They then begin to assume they can deduce the true _telos _of Paul's earlier requirements, understanding them to be _situational_. What's really ironic (if you're me) is that the very challenge Paul used to _put an end to the question _is the springboard from which all the exceptions leap. Could it really be that Paul intended his challenge in v. 5 to serve as a way to _open the question _for the possibility of exceptions?


----------



## Taylor

Parakaleo said:


> If Paul, for example, had said it is necessary that a man have type O blood in order to take up office in the church...


This is not an appropriate analogy since Paul does not say that a minister must _have_ a wife and children. He says he must be a one-woman man, and that his household must be in order. You still have not logically demonstrated that these qualifications entail the command to have a wife and children. You just keep asserting such as "the plain words of the Apostle Paul." Apparently, the words are either not all that plain, or they are that plain and you are the only man on Puritan Board who is intelligent and pious enough to understand and obey them.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Parakaleo said:


> If Paul, for example, had said it is necessary that a man have type O blood in order to take up office in the church


I think this absurd question underlines how you handle issues of wisdom so I'll close the thread at this point to memorialize how *not* to handle issues of the application of wisdom in the Scriptures.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------

