The Role of Elder - The Highway

Recently, I learned that there are quite a few Reformed believers who believe that 1 Timothy chapter 3, makes it clear an elder needs to be married.

Quote

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. ESV

They do not believe there is an alternative if we are to read the text as written. Also, they go onto say that if the person was single, there would be no indication of whether they can manage their own household well.
Personally speaking, I believe the text is more concerned about “if” the person is married; rather than the meaning that he must be married…
I have been reading commentaries on this and so far I have not read any that deal directly with this particular issue. Other than one saying, Paul assumes he will be married, because in that society it was generally the case.
My pastor was not married until into his 40s and although I believe getting married made him a better and more understanding and patient pastor. Never the less, I believe as long as I have known him, he has been a pastor with a high view of Scripture that took his role as pastor seriously.

I would be interested in your understanding of the text.

Tom

A while back, my pastor and I had this discussion, to which he said that "husband of one wife" means, not having more than one wife, which in those days was much more common than today. If the passage were to be read literally in the way that those you mention use it, then by the same reading, a man without children would not qualify.

I agree with you and with Meta4's response. IF one wants to be allegedly 'literal', then let's take ALL that has been written about the qualifications for the Eldership, e.g.:

Quote

Titus 1:5-9 (ASV) 5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge; 6 if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For the bishop must be blameless, as God's steward; not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; 8 but given to hospitality, as lover of good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled; 9 holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.

Sooooooo, not only are Elders to be married, but have children AND those children are to be saved [believers]. I dare say, that this additional requirement is nearly impossible to own; think of those children who are infants or too young to even comprehend the Gospel, those who are mentally incapable, etc. Are those men unqualified for the office of Elder?

Of course, to get around this particular requirement I have known two major 'escapes': 1) Baptismal or Presumptive regeneration, and 2) Easy Believism where a 4 year old is coached to say, "I love Jesus", or some other such tripe. Neither, or course, has any merit whatsoever in circumventing, never mind meeting that requirement. The more one twists the Word, the more entangled one gets in defending the knot tied.

Pilgrim

Just to let you know, the Reformed people whom I have been conversing with although they do not make this
an absolute requirement for fellowship. They never the less believe that not only
must an elder need to be married, they must also have obedient children.
Is this a common belief on the Reformed community?

So, how do they justify Paul, Peter and John being elders, of whom there is no mention of children?

FYI, the phrase, "the husband of one wife" in the original Greek reads, "one wife's husband", which is a prohibition against polygamy. Also, what about widowers? Are they automatically disallowed from being considered? And what about an elder whose wife dies while he is in office? Must he be removed?

Pilgrim
Actually I brought up Peter, Paul and the rest of the Apostles being elders and they told me that they are not elders. I also brought up Timothy being an elder and they also disagreed with that as well.
I have basically given up on that conversation.

Tom