Single Pastors

More than that: It was common for men to have a wife and a mistress. In commnities where mistress were not en vogue, men often got together at bathhouses to fornicate. In several places in the NT, Paul addresses married men and covers these topics accordingly.

 

Dr. Bob (or anyone for that matter), can you give any documentation for this? My past searches have not shown polygamy of much consequence to the Romans.

 

1Timothy 3
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

seems pretty clear to me.

i trust the holy spirit was capable of inspiring different words if a different meaning was required!

[ July 24, 2003, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1769 ]

 

It does seem really clear, but you missed it. The phrase translated 'husband of one wife" means "one woman man." It means a man characterized by faithfulness to one woman. The qualification is blameless. He must be blameless. The other characteristics are a partial list of qualities that make one blameless. Your failure to understand what "husband of one wife means" caused the problem, not the inspiration of hte Spirit. If the Holy Spirit wanted to say "one woman man," this is exactly what he would have said. In fact, it is what he did say.

 

i trust the KJV translation over yours, and i'm afraid you wont be able to convince me otherwise.

most modern translations seem to agree with KJV here as well, though the NLT supports your view somewhat, at least in the main text.

 NKJV
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

NLT
For an elder must be a man whose life cannot be spoken against. He must be faithful to his wife. He must exhibit self-control, live wisely, and have a good reputation. He must enjoy having guests in his home and must be able to teach.
Footnote:
 Greek be the husband of one wife; also in 3:12.

 
NASB
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

 RSV
Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
 
Webster's
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

 Young's
it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,

 Darby's
The overseer then must be irreproachable, husband of one wife, sober, discreet, decorous, hospitable, apt to teach;

 ASV
The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

 HNV
The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;

 

I am not trying to convince you otherwise. The KJV is not the final test. It is a translation. However, the KJV does not contradict what I have said. You have simply misunderstood what Paul is teaching.

 

i and all the translators of pratically every english language version i could find i can read english perfectly fine, and none of them are saying what you are saying, though i grant the NLT allows some room for your position. should i ignore what all the english translations above clearly say and follow you instead? are we all wrong?

 

If you want to look at it in that kind of (false) dichotomy, then yes. What you must accept however is that English translations, no matter how well you read them, are not the final test. The fact is taht the text is prescribing a "one woman man." Let me ask you this: If a man commits adultery but remains married to his wife, is he still qualified?? The obvious answer is "No." I think we agree on that?? That is the kind of thing that "mias gunaikas andres" is talking about. The requirement is not marriage per se, but rather faithfulness and purity. I have preached that text before and have had no problem explaining what "husband of one wife" means. The bottom line is that it does not require a man be married to be a pastor.

 

my old pastor actually agrees with you.

but it still seems a little strange to me that all of the translation comittees of all the above english versions, with phd's coming out their ears, would have all flubbed the translation of this verse in exactly the same way.

 

It clearly states that pastors and deacons should be married in 1 Tim 3. Can't really judge the house thing unless you at least have a wife and it doesn't hurt to have children. When you can handle all that goes with that situation you will have a taste of what it will be like with a church except multiply your household by the number of families in the church and you can see the multiplication of sorrows and joys. If a married man can say, "Give me more, Drill Sgt!!!" after seeing that then he just might be called to ministry. If single guys would look at the church and see how marriage could be there would be far more single lads. It goes the other way as well, but since we were talking male roles and offices I came from that perspective. All femi-nazis kindly put the gun down.

 

Maverick, "husband of one wife" is not "a husband". I don't have a problem with an unmarried youth pastor, minister of music, minister of ed. However, I think a Pastor needs a wife or he'll be spending half his time fighting rumors and women off with a stick!

I am NO femi-nazi but Colorado says I can't use Hitler in a discussion or somebody named Godwin is going to knock me in the head or some such thing.