Posted on 02/01/2015 10:20:56 PM PST by Morgana
Must Bishops Be the Husband of One Wife? Tim Staples May 5, 2013 | 0 comments Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on email Share on print Share on gmail More Sharing Services
As both a guest and, at times, a host on our radio broadcast, Catholic Answers Live, I have spoken on many different topics over the years. Mostly, I do the “Open Forum Q&A” on Tuesdays, but my favorite hours have been our “Open Forum for Non-Catholics,” when we take calls only from non-Catholics or from people who are in the process of coming into full communion with the Church but who are not yet formally Catholic.
After a recent hour of “Open Forum for Non-Catholics,” I stayed late to take a call we couldn’t get to on the air for lack of time. In short order it became an adventure.
It was not just one caller but several who were sharing the phone, and it quickly became obvious they were calling on a lark. The laughing in the background was a dead giveaway. In a nutshell, they posed as Catholics but obviously weren’t, and they asked the question of how to deal with “crazy Fundamentalists” who “take God’s word literally and actually believe what St. Paul wrote in I Tim. 3:2":
Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.
“Notice,” they said, “it says a bishop must be the husband of one wife. And in verse 12, St. Paul will say the same about deacons. How does that square with the Catholic Church that says bishops can’t be married at all? I’m not saying I agree with it, but how do you answer these crazy people who actually believe the Bible?”
This conversation reminded me of my second formal debate I had as a Catholic in 1995 with an Evangelical pastor. He brought up this same text and made a similar argument. When it was my turn to respond, I said, “Man, I’ve got to give this guy credit for one thing. He’s tough! He wouldn’t allow either Jesus or St. Paul to be a bishop in his church! But I want you all to know that the Catholic Church welcomes Jesus not just as a bishop but as the bishop, as I Peter 2:25 says:
For you had gone astray like sheep, but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls (NAB).
The word translated guardian here in the NAB is actually not just a bishop; rather, the bishop (Greek, ton episkopon) of your souls. Jesus is the bishop of the Catholic Church. And he was and is celibate.”
Neither my opponent in that debate almost 20 years ago nor our friends who called into the broadcast two weeks ago really ever recovered from the obvious implications of that text. But there are a few more points we should consider when answering this point that I did not get to in either of these cases.
1. Even the Evangelical scripture scholar Dr. Ralph Earle, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, says that St. Paul in 1 Timothy 3 is not requiring bishops to be married. In stating his reasons, he first offers the most ancient position—which we know as Catholics to be apostolic in origin and found in written form in the late second century—that would say this text is placing a limitation on the number of marriages a bishop could have in his lifetime. He could only have been married once. This is the position of the Catholic Church today. If a man has been married more than once, even if licitly, he cannot be admitted to the episcopacy.
2. Earle writes, “[M]ost commentators agree that [the text] means monogamy—only one wife at one time.” This interpretation is unlikely for reasons we’ll mention below, but we should first take note that both Catholic and Protestant scholars generally agree St. Paul is not making marriage a requirement for the bishopric.
3. In that same Bible commentary, this time commenting on Titus 1:6, which makes to both elders and bishops the same prohibition against multiple marriages, another Evangelical scholar, Dr. D. Edmond Hiebert, adds, “If Paul had meant that the elder must be married, the reading would have been ‘a’ not ‘one’ wife.” I would go further and say it would most likely simply say, “The bishop must be married.” The term one indicates that he is limiting the number, not mandating marriage.
For those who would be inclined to argue the position that St. Paul is simply prohibiting polygamy to the clergy, I would add these five points:
1. The lists of disqualifications to the ministry in both Timothy and Titus were not consisting of things that would exclude a person from being a Christian at all, like polygamy would. They were things that would ensure the candidate in question was living an exemplary Christian life. Illicit “marital” situations were condemned at the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49 and declared to be deal-breakers for one to be a Christian at all (see Acts 15:1-3; 24-28). Though polygamy is not mentioned there verbatim, it would certainly be condemned implicitly in the condemnation of illicit conjugal situations.
2. There was not a single place in the Greco-Roman world where polygamy was being practiced in the first century A.D. It is unlikely St. Paul would speak of something directly like this that was simply not a problem at the time.
3. In the case of St. Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he would go on to declare that a widow who was “enrolled,” or consecrated, as a celibate and married again to have sinned gravely. There is nothing wrong with a widow remarrying. That is licit and clearly so elsewhere in Scripture, specifically in St. Paul’s own writings (see Romans 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:27-28, 39-40). But it is wrong for the one who has been consecrated for service in the Church. It is interesting that St. Paul uses the same language of limiting the widow to having been the wife “of one husband.” Obviously this was not meant to say “one husband at a time”:
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband. . . . But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge (I Tim. 5:9-12).
It is more than fitting that those consecrated as bishops, elders, and deacons would make a similar commitment.
4. St. Paul’s repeated recommendations to all to remain celibate, remain single after having lost a spouse (I Cor. 7:1; 7-8; 25-28; 32-35; 38; 39-40), or even to live a celibate life within marriage (I Cor. 7:29), are consistent with his prohibition to remarriage to those called to holy orders. St. Paul seems to speak a great deal about second marriages but never about polygamy.
5. I find it interesting that the Protestant New International Version of the Bible translates I Tim. 3:2, “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife.” While I do not necessarily agree with translating the text with the “but” in there, there is no doubt where the Protestant translators of the NIV stand on the question. St. Paul is limiting the candidate for the bishopric to "but" one wife.
I have no doubt that those three or so callers who called in to Catholic Answers were sincere. Maybe not in their masquerading as Catholics, but I am sure they sincerely believed the Catholic position of having celibate bishops to be just plain wrong. However, hopefully now they will re-think who it is that really takes St. Paul at his word; that is, his word taken in its proper context.
Matthew 19:11-12
“But he said to them, Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
No where in this passage do I read into a requirement of celibacy as a prerequisite for service in the priesthood.
1 Corinthians 7
“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do NOT (emphasis added)deprive one another, except perhaps by an agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer, but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of control. Now as a concession, NOT (emphasis added)a command I say this. I wish that all were as I am. But each has his own gift from God, one kind and one of another.”
No where in the above passage does Paul insist that celibacy must be a requirement for service in the priesthood. Quite the contrary, if you read Paul’s letter to Timothy, he HAS NO ISSUE WHATSOEVER with a married clergy.
” A bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE (emphasis added), vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
1 Timothy 3:2
Then explain away 1 Timothy 3:4 where it says the have had to prove themselves capable by managing a household and children prior to being considered for leadership positions.
No, celibacy is NOT the ideal.
It is not God’s plan. That’s why God created Adam AND Eve. Why God commands us to be fruitful and multiply. Why God created man and woman. The ideal Christian life is husband and wife and their children. That is also what Jesus teaches. The traditional family unit is ideal.
No where in the Bible does Paul state that celibacy is a requirement for service in the priesthood. Fact is no one in the Bible does.
Paul’s letter to Timothy specifically states it’s OK for a bishop to be the husband of one wife.
Paul clearly has no issues with a married clergy. I have no issues with a married clergy. The Bible has no issues with a married clergy. The early Church had no issues with a married clergy. Why do you have issues with a priest or bishop being married? I see no prohibitions on this in the Bible. Paul certainly did not prohibit it.
The verse also says a bishop must have his children under submission. So you are saying someone must be married AND must have children to be considered to be a bishop? Someone married but without children cannot be a bishop?
So in your opinion, Paul was saying that he himself was not qualified to be a bishop?
Paul SPECIFICALLY mentions in his letter to Timothy it is OK for a bishop to be married. Read that passage again.
1 Timothy 3:2 It’s there. Unless you have some sort of spin on it that I’m not getting.
Jesus NEVER says ANYWHERE in the gospels that celibacy is a requirement for service in the priesthood. NO ONE does. In fact Jesus had married men among his disciples including Peter.
You are reading into the Bible. I am reading it as it is written and not making up these conclusions. Priests were in fact married men in the Bible, they were expected to be married.
Paul NEVER states celibacy as a requirement for service in the priesthood. No one in the Bible does require such a mandate. This is a Church requirement, not a Biblical requirement.
I think you and I are talking over each other, unfortunately.
I think you seem to agree with me that there is no mandatory celibacy requirement for service in the priesthood. Right?
The fact that Paul is unmarried at the time he wrote the passage is neither here nor there. He is an older man at the time he wrote it. We know nothing about Paul’s personal or family life. He could have been a widower. He could have been divorced. We don’t know. So I won’t speculate. Nearly all men in the Jewish priestly class were expected to be married. In fact all Jewish men in that era were expected to be married and have families. You were considered an outcast if you weren’t. Or maybe you had a contagious disease like leprosy.
Paul never suggests his way is the only way and he has no trouble with married men serving in the clergy.
No, I don't think it is the "ideal", meaning the goal that one should strive for. I think there are some whom God gifts with both the desire and ability to remain single and devote themselves to ministry. But even as Jesus says, it is a hard thing. And to say that singleness is the "ideal" would make God a liar when He said "It is NOT GOOD for man to be alone."
OK. Good. We agree on at least one point: Clerical celibacy is not mandated in the Bible. We agree. This is therefore a Church requirement.
Celibacy is only an ideal condition for those unable to limit physical intimacy to the confines of Holy Matrimony.
Jesus and Paul have no issues with physical intimacy between a husband and a wife. No one in the Bible does. Physical intimacy between husband and wife is God’s gift and God’s plan for humanity. Celibacy is desirable only for those who cannot keep physical intimacy limited within Holy Matrimony. It is not an end to itself. If it were, mankind would have died out long ago and you and I would not be having this conversation.
Yup. The whole marriage and one flesh thing was GOD's idea, not man's.
And that was before the Fall.
It would turn God into a cruel prankster to give men and women the strong desire for sexual intimacy and then tell them they're better off and it pleases Him more if they try to suppress it and not obey His command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.
Um,,,,,,that was Paul writing that, not me.
>>So in your opinion, Paul was saying that he himself was not qualified to be a bishop?<<
Prove that Paul was never married and didn't have children. Let me help a little there. All indications say that Paul was part of the Sanhedrin. To be a member of the Sanhedrin you had to be married and at least 30 years of age.
Precisely. In those days you were considered an outcast or a weirdo if you weren’t married. In Paul’s station in life-—being a member of the Sanhedrin class, it is virtually a given that he must have been married at one point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.