The Narrow Path Ministries

The issue of qualifications for elders is a controversial one. Having given it much thought, I am leaning toward the view that the requirement "the husband of one wife" is more practical than legal. If it is a legal requirement, such as the law that forbade Uzzah to touch the Ark, the violation of which cost his life, then we should ensure that no unmarried man, nor any man who has been married more than once should be allowed to be an elder. Is this what Paul meant?

Looking at the text:

1 Timothy 3:1-7
New King James Version (NKJV)

3. This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3. not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4. one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5. (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6. not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Listing the requirements:
1. blameless
2. husband of one wife
3. temperate
4. sober-minded
5. good behavior
6. hospitable
7. able to teach
8. not given to wine
9. not violent
10. not greedy for money
11. gentle
12. not quarelsome
13. not covetous
12. rules his home well
13. not a novice
14. good reputation among outsiders

Looking at Paul's requirements as a list, I noticed that they all require subjective judgement except the second item, marriage status, which is based on fact. That one appears to be a legal stipulation. But did Paul mean it this way? Was it a legal stipulation or did Paul mean it as a test of character?

I have recently taken a different view of Paul's instructions regarding this matter. I am thinking that the key requirement is that of item #1 on the list, and that all that follows is a description of what this blameless person's character is to be. The husband of one wife, as I understand it, can be legitimately translated as "one woman man". This has been argued in various ways. Some say it means one woman at a time. Others say it means "not a womanizer". I reject both views. But could it mean a man who does everything he can to be faithful (and is in fact faithful) and hold his marriage together? Even though there was a divorce in his distant past?

I tried applying the legal requirement view to a few cases based on real situations I am aware of. Consider that the requirement is that an elder must be currently married to the only wife he has had, and how it would work in each case.

Case #1:
This elder was married faithfully for almost sixty years. He and his wife were faithful Christians throughout their marriage. His wife has died. He is now no longer married and thus must step down as an elder, even though he is above reproach and widely respected as a wise and godly man.

Case #2:
This elder and his wife have been faithfully married for over forty years. They are both victims of adulterous spouses whom they divorced in their twenties. Both are respected, godly people. He should not be an elder due to his previous divorce.

Case #3:
This elder and his wife have been faithfully married for twenty years. They have both been divorced in the past. The man and his previous wife were both Christians, but the man committed adultery. He repented and tried to make the marriage work, but his first wife then became unfaithful. They could not reconcile and were divorced. The man made a public confession before the church of his sin, and after fifteen years of faithful marriage to his second wife and faithfulness to the church became an elder. This man too would not meet the legal requirement.

Case #4:
This elder has been divorced three times and now is married to his fourth wife for four years. He appears to be genuinely repentant of his past and a devoted Christian. To me this man decidedly fails to meet the requirement.

It seems to me the guiding principle in Paul's instructions are that the position of elder requires a "blameless" man, even extending (v.7) to those outside the church in the local community. The requirement is subjective, not legal. The elder in case #1 would meet this requirement. I do not believe the elder in case #2 could be deemed unfit in character, and would be considered "blameless" by those both inside and outside the church. Case #3 could go either way. There might be those who recall the messy divorce in the past. How long does it take to restore one's reputation to blamelessness? Certainly we are blameless in God's sight when we confess and repent, and this man confessed publically his public sin. But yet those in the community do not forget so easily. Case #4 to me is a no-brainer. He is not qualified.

This is a very important matter; I solicit your opinions and criticism.

Hi Homer,

I think you have thought this through very well. I have no inclination to criticize anything you've said in this post. I agree that case #3 is the questionable one.

I do have a question, because I've heard this argued before. Some have suggested that "having his children in submission with all reverence" also means that, if the candidate for position of elder is part of a childless couple, then that's a deal breaker. If someone was going to be utterly literal I suppose they might further argue that he would have to be the father of more than one child (it says "children"). To me that last seems a bit of a stretch. "How can he appropriately empathize with the problems of dealing children if he has none of his own?" I can see a sort of logic to that. Have you heard of that consideration?

The other thing I wonder about is, whether different organizations have different duties associated with this particular office, and what role those particulars play in coming to a right decision.

Just to repeat though, you're thinking seems reasonable me.

Perry wrote:The other thing I wonder about is, whether different organizations have different duties associated with this particular office, and what role those particulars play in coming to a right decision.

I think this is an important consideration. Some churches seem to use their staff ministers in what I consider to be the only elder role (though also performing many of the duties I would have deacons perform) and they use their elders as glorified deacons or merely ushers or the like. Calling the role an elder may just mean "older person with a suit" who are in a time of life where they either have free time as retirees or are in prime earning years for committed tithing and special projects funding (or well connected to those who they can tap for same).

I only have a moment now to add an interesting tidbit. One church we were visiting that relatives attend had a display in the entry with pictures on the elders. Most appeared to be women. When I asked our relatives what was up with that I discovered these "elders" were not elders at all but filled a sort of administrative role. They did not teach, preach, etc.

Homer wrote:The issue of qualifications for elders is a controversial one. Having given it much thought, I am leaning toward the view that the requirement "the husband of one wife" is more practical than legal. If it is a legal requirement, such as the law that forbade Uzzah to touch the Ark, the violation of which cost his life, then we should ensure that no unmarried man, nor any man who has been married more than once should be allowed to be an elder. Is this what Paul meant?

Looking at the text:

1 Timothy 3:1-7
New King James Version (NKJV)

3. This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3. not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4. one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5. (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6. not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Listing the requirements:
1. blameless
2. husband of one wife
3. temperate
4. sober-minded
5. good behavior
6. hospitable
7. able to teach
8. not given to wine
9. not violent
10. not greedy for money
11. gentle
12. not quarelsome
13. not covetous
12. rules his home well
13. not a novice
14. good reputation among outsiders

Looking at Paul's requirements as a list, I noticed that they all require subjective judgement except the second item, marriage status, which is based on fact. That one appears to be a legal stipulation. But did Paul mean it this way? Was it a legal stipulation or did Paul mean it as a test of character?

I have recently taken a different view of Paul's instructions regarding this matter. I am thinking that the key requirement is that of item #1 on the list, and that all that follows is a description of what this blameless person's character is to be. The husband of one wife, as I understand it, can be legitimately translated as "one woman man". This has been argued in various ways. Some say it means one woman at a time. Others say it means "not a womanizer". I reject both views. But could it mean a man who does everything he can to be faithful (and is in fact faithful) and hold his marriage together? Even though there was a divorce in his distant past?

I tried applying the legal requirement view to a few cases based on real situations I am aware of. Consider that the requirement is that an elder must be currently married to the only wife he has had, and how it would work in each case.

Case #1:
This elder was married faithfully for almost sixty years. He and his wife were faithful Christians throughout their marriage. His wife has died. He is now no longer married and thus must step down as an elder, even though he is above reproach and widely respected as a wise and godly man.

Case #2:
This elder and his wife have been faithfully married for over forty years. They are both victims of adulterous spouses whom they divorced in their twenties. Both are respected, godly people. He should not be an elder due to his previous divorce.

Case #3:
This elder and his wife have been faithfully married for twenty years. They have both been divorced in the past. The man and his previous wife were both Christians, but the man committed adultery. He repented and tried to make the marriage work, but his first wife then became unfaithful. They could not reconcile and were divorced. The man made a public confession before the church of his sin, and after fifteen years of faithful marriage to his second wife and faithfulness to the church became an elder. This man too would not meet the legal requirement.

Case #4:
This elder has been divorced three times and now is married to his fourth wife for four years. He appears to be genuinely repentant of his past and a devoted Christian. To me this man decidedly fails to meet the requirement.

It seems to me the guiding principle in Paul's instructions are that the position of elder requires a "blameless" man, even extending (v.7) to those outside the church in the local community. The requirement is subjective, not legal. The elder in case #1 would meet this requirement. I do not believe the elder in case #2 could be deemed unfit in character, and would be considered "blameless" by those both inside and outside the church. Case #3 could go either way. There might be those who recall the messy divorce in the past. How long does it take to restore one's reputation to blamelessness? Certainly we are blameless in God's sight when we confess and repent, and this man confessed publically his public sin. But yet those in the community do not forget so easily. Case #4 to me is a no-brainer. He is not qualified.

This is a very important matter; I solicit your opinions and criticism.

I can’t say I disagree with your idea about this list of requirements for qualification to be an elder. It does seem that a blameless man would have all the character traits listed thereafter. And marital status does seem to be more of a factual status. However, as you will see further down this post, even a man’s marital status requires some subjective judgement. Also, in many if not most cases, a person’s marital status may very well be an indicator of poor character and by that very fact, the person may well have failed to meet other requirements on this list. Obviously there are situations where a spouse may be unfaithful or just unwilling to dwell with his/her spouse.

I was challenged to study this passage in a little more detail. The first thing I did is look up some of the words in a Lexicon. I must admit, it helped to an extent and yet, still didn’t answer the questions sufficiently for me. In the passage from 1 Tim. 3:1-7, the word used is “bishop”, not elder.

The first word I looked up was bishop. The Greek word is episcope which comes from the word episkopos. The idea is one of being an overseer. To beware, look diligently, take the oversight, superintendence. The next word I looked up was elder. It comes from the word presbuteros. It means elderly, older, a senior.

I then found a reference to elders in 1 Pet. 5:1-5. In this passage Peter is exhorting “the elders who are among you”. He refers to himself as a “fellow elder”. He exhorts them to “feed the flock of God….serving as overseers…” He further commands that their oversight is not to be done “as lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock”. In verse 5, he commands the younger people to submit to the elders, presumably because they are older and wiser. Yet, he goes on to say that all men were to be submissive to one another.

It seems to me that the bishop was in a position of oversight over the flock, looking out for them. Yet, elders, as older ones, were expected to have certain wisdom, born of experience, which allowed them to also “oversee” the flock.
The question is, in what sense were bishops to oversee the church, and in what sense were elders to oversee the church? And who decided if a person met the criteria set out for these positions? Were they elected? Were they appointed and if so, who appointed them? What authority did a bishop have? What authority did the elders have? If an elder was to serve as an overseer, not as lording it over them, but as being an example, what was he supposed to be an example of? Is there even a difference between a bishop and an elder? Clearly a different word is used, but their functions within the church seem to be much the same.

As Steve pointed out in a previous thread, Paul could have allowed that there might be exceptions to the requirement to be married and have children. However, from a practical point of view, it would obviously be desirable. I would agree with this. Since most of us understand that Jesus didn’t come to establish a new religion but rather, to establish a family, it makes sense that a man who desires to take care of the church, must first know how to take care of his own family.

Yet if a man, as in Homer’s first case, is beyond those years (his children are no longer of an age where he has authority over them or his wife has passed away) is he no longer fit to be an elder? It probably has less to do with his fitness to do the job, and more to do with the practicality of doing it. There is no shame in no longer meeting the marital qualifications set out for this position, whether it is due to the death of a spouse or that spouse being unfaithful. Not all have been given the same gifts or the same jobs within the church. Whatever circumstances life finds us in, there is a job we can do in the church. It doesn’t take away our importance to the body. It just redefines our job. If a person isn’t apt to teach, does this make him less important to the body? No, but he probably shouldn’t be trying to teach and thereby doing something he is not given by God to do. Iif we understand that elders are to serve and be an example, do we need the office of elder in order to do much of the work of an elder? I think that we can all serve and we can all be an example to those who are younger.

In terms of the other three cases Homer mentions, they all question whether a divorced man may be an elder. And they require that we judge a person’s qualification based on the circumstances of their divorces – number of former wives, length of new marriage, what wrong was committed by which person. This area is admittedly difficult. Jesus and Paul both teach that divorce is acceptable, though not preferable, in certain situations. So if a divorced man is justifiably divorced and then remarried, is he not the husband of one wife? But if an elder is to be an example in his marital status of the concept of the churches’ marriage to Christ, it seems that he can’t do so effectively if he has divorced his wife since Jesus doesn’t divorce His bride. If a man marries and his wife dies shortly after their marriage and he subsequently remarries, would he also be disqualified from being an elder on the basis of needing to be a one woman man? I wouldn’t think that Paul would have advocated this. As you can see, I have more questions than answers in this area.

In many ways I am reminded of David. He was anointed by God to be king over Israel. He didn’t seize authority however, because he believed that true authority was given by God. Then, after he had done what the Lord had called him to do, namely to war against nations and establish the kingdom of Israel, he wanted to build God a permanent house. God didn’t want a permanent house but said that He would build David a house. But when David wouldn’t let the idea go, God conceded. But He said to David, “You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight.”
I wonder if sometimes we have desires to do great thing for the kingdom of God or to have positions in the church but we simply are not suitable for those things we desire to do. God will use us for His purposes as He sees fit.

Finally, when we find ourselves in a place where the circumstances of our lives may technically disqualify us from a position we desire or that we may have held in the past, is it worth causing strife for the sake of the position? I have never understood how one’s desire for a position could be satiated by taking that position against the will of those you would serve. An example on a worldly level would be that of the rulers of various Middle Eastern nations in the past year. If it seems obvious that people don’t want you to rule over them, why would you want to force your rule over them? If you are otherwise happy with the general state of the assembly you attend, is it worth it to cause potential division? Is it worth it to break fellowship with them? The over-arching principle should be that we love our brothers and sisters.

Grace and peace.

How would Paul himself fare under this matrix of requirements?

kaufmannphillips wrote:How would Paul himself fare under this matrix of requirements?

I could rewrite in my own words, but it's easier to copy and paste from another forum where I asked much the same question.

God Bless.

John6809 said, "I have always understood Paul to be saying that a man who desired to be an overseer should not have more than one wife. No wife was OK, but not more than one.

Steve responded, "You could be right, but my point was that Paul recommended married church leaders, while the RCC forbids them. I am of the opinion, though, that Paul did want all the overseers to be married men. He gives his reason: The management of their wives and children are the proving ground for their qualification as managers of the assemblies (1 Tim.3:4-5). How can this qualification be determined in the case of a single man? Perhaps it can be, and Paul might make exceptions where there are special circumstances (Paul was not a legalist). However, Paul states it as desirable that an overseer be married."



John6809 also said, "In addition, Paul would have himself been disqualified from being an overseer on this point alone. Yet he, as an apostle..."

Steve responded, "Right. Paul was not giving the qualifications for an apostle, but for an elder in the assembly. There are different types of leaders in the church. Not all have the same task, and not all have the same qualifications. I do not think that Paul ever served, or wished to serve, as an elder in the local assemblies. He had a role much more like that of Jesus Himself, who also was unmarried. I believe that Paul knew what he was writing, and what the words would mean to Timothy. While Paul may have been flexible enough to recognize exceptions, the rule he laid down is not unclear."

Not entirely surprising.

So take heart, O disqualified: if you're unmarried and confuse people with your teaching and sometimes are harsh and quarrelsome and have no home to rule and have a poor reputation amongst outsiders - you could be an apostle!

kaufmannphillips wrote:Not entirely surprising.

So take heart, O disqualified: if you're unmarried and confuse people with your teaching and sometimes are harsh and quarrelsome and have no home to rule and have a poor reputation amongst outsiders - you could be an apostle!

Also not entirely surprising.