My reason for asking this, is to help myself determine if I want to pursue the office of bishop, though I may do so regardless of the answer - it will be profitable to know the requirements. Depending on the answer, I may start another thread on whether Children are required, how old they should be as proof, and if we need more than one (plural word used). Appreciated. 1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) I have heard a few arguments about this. Some say that this means to have been married to only one woman. If your wife died, and you remarried - you have had to wives and do not qualify. This seems weak at best. Another, that it only means 'not more' than one wife, polygamy being very prelevant at the time. I cannot recall the third at the moment. Now, I would say: Does not the verse it's self explain that the wife is "required," to prove that he can rule his house well? And yes, it would have to mean not more than one wife. But, does it mean only, not more? That is, would it permit having no wives at all? It seems not, since he would not know how to take care of the church of God. Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. The other, equal verse. 1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. The gift of pastor teacher being a single office, and Paul being a teacher yet unmarried (1Co 7), does this prove that one can be single? I might say it means that Paul "was" married and had already proved himself, yet I think it to be a fair Assumption that his family left him because of his faith, and therefore he did not have children in subjection to all authority. Maybe the issue is at a more base level: Was Paul "this" kind of teacher? I am certainly no bishop, yet I 'teach' often. Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. The apostle and elder working in close unity, what should be made of this? The same office? The apostle allowed to operate the same as a Bishop? 2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. If I understand this correctly, the false apostles were basically acting as the role of bishop - were they not? Then, are they the interchangable.. Or, does apostle have the rights to act as bishop? This seems to go against 1Co 12:28. My understanding of the section is probably wrong. 1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Referenced above.