Deacon Qualifications

Hello ktn.

Yes. The prohibition is against polygamy not singleness.

Paul regards singleness as the ideal pattern for ministry but Jesus says it only applies to those who can accept it, MT 19:12.

1CO 7:27 Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.

1CO 7:32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife

Any good?

john.

 

I believe the deacon and bishop both should be married. I believe Paul taught this in the letter to Timothy.

Paul consistantly uses the phrase 'Let them be'.

If he did not mean the deacon must be married, then in the same context he could not have meant the deacon must be blameless, grave, or any of the other qualifications. He must not be able to rule his own house would also apply.

No, when Paul said let the deacon be the 'husband of one wife', he was setting a standard that deacons must be married.

 

Hello ktn.

As you say, being married or not is not the defining thing. A married man has responsibilities towards his wife and this will influence his ability to give his undivided attention to the Lord's business. Not that the married man is wrong in having this responsibility.

For instance, a single man might be free to bring into his house a person in need of shelter whereas a married man must consider his wife. I would not be willing to bring a stranger into the house and leave him there since my wife would be put into danger.

1CO 7:30 those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; But in a house with a wife the property is hers as well as his. I cannot improverish myself if I have another to care for. My interests are divided. Caring for my wife will limit my ability to care for the stranger.

There is no law against marriage or singleness but there is with polygamy. I think Paul was being pragmatic not laying down a rule but prohibiting polygamists from Church office.

1TI 3:12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

If 'His Blood' is right Paul consistantly uses the phrase 'Let them be'. then being married is not enough, one must have children as well. Let them be ruling their children would be a condition.

1TI 3:10 They must first be tested...
1TI 3:12 They must be the husband of but one wife.

The NIV have it translated with a 'but'.

john.

 

Let us look at the passages in 1 Timothy 3 that speak of 'letting the deacons'

1 Timothy 3:10 (KJV) And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being [found] blameless.

1 Timothy 3:12 (KJV) Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

If verse 12 does not mean the deacons should be married, then verse 10 would mean that the deacon would not have to be proved, they would not have to even fill the office of the deacon blameless.

I submit that in order for the word 'let' in verse 10 to mean they must be, then 'let' in verse 12 would also have to mean they must be married; and yes, with children

 

Was the Apostle Paul not qualified to be a bishop?

If a bishop's or deacon's wife passes away, are they required to step away from their office since they are no longer married?

Why would he make it a specific point to say "one wife", rather than "a wife", if he meant that a bishop/deacon has to be married? The reason for the qualifier "one" is so men will know that having multiple wives, whether through polygamy or through numerous divorces/remarriages, is wrong. He could have also said the bishops/deacons "must not be the husband of multiple wives".

 

Paul was not a Bishop, nor was he a Deacon. He was an Apostle. Paul received his teaching from the Lord Himself. He relayed that which the Lord taught him to others. I believe when he penned the Epistle to Timothy in regards to Bishops and Deacons and their wives, he received instruction from the Lord as to who should be in the offices of the local assemblies.

 

First, the Scripture in 1 Corinthians is not dealing with the office of Deacon that 1 Timothy is, so that is comparing apples to oranges. There is much more to the "Lords affairs" than just the office of deacon or overseer.

Second, HBSMN states correctly, IMO, the fact the wording in the text confirming that deacons and overseers are to be married. The wording doesn't allow an open interpretation. If the argument is made that they do not have to be married, then the same argument also has to apply that they don't have to be above reproach, they don't have to be sober minded, they can be a new convert, dishonest, greedy, an alcoholic, etc. The very fact that Paul is requiring them to manage their own households well, and relates that to managing the Church "family" speaks volumes for the need to have a household to manage in the first place....something a single man does not have. The argument can even be made that they have to have children, but a "household" can be a husband and wife only.

1Ti 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.
1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1Ti 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
1Ti 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
1Ti 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
1Ti 3:9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.

 

Are you sure Paul was not married? What if National Geographic comes up with his wife? :laugh:

 

Paul was married at one time, we know this because he was a Pharisee. Marriage was a requirement for one to be a Pharisee.

Paul apparently went through a divorce, or his wife died at some point, for the said 'I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.' Paul had to be single at this point in life.

It is commonly believed that Paul's wife divorced him after he was knocked off of his high horse on Damascus Road and converted to Christianity.

 

HBSMN, I don't believe women were allowed to seek divorce. Paul either would have been widowed, divorced her, or even could have had her put to death if she became a follower of Christ prior to him becoming one.

 

The same ones who reported on finding Jesus' REAL tomb?

 

Webdog,

That is possible.

I look at a possible divorce on the behalf of the wife because of Paul's statement:

A brother or sister is not in bondage in such implies that even an unbelieving wife can divorce.

 

Zackticklly! :thumbs:

 

Paul did refer to himself as a deacon, but not as an elder/bishop;

Peter referred to himself as an elder/bishop but not as a deacon.

FWIW.

I agree that Paul and the Holy Spirit meant "the husband of one wife". A widower would still fit that description, IMO. The prohibition would be and is against "the husband of no wives", "the husband of two wives", "the husband of three wives", etc. There were and are Greek words that could have been used to say "married no more than one time", on "not married more than once", but that is not what was said.

And interesting speculation that Paul's wife may have left him. I had never heard that offered before, but have often heard that he may well have been a widower.

Ed

 

The problem is that Paul didn't say, "...husband of one wife."

he said: "....one woman man."

Now what does that do to the discussion?

 

Not too much. How would that affect someone with "no woman"?