CHAPTER 8 PART 1: STANDARDS FOR CHURCH SERVICE

WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU

            At a minimum, this chapter deals with and attempts to answer the following questions and more:

(1) Do you believe that a bishop or deacon should be filled with the Holy Ghost?

(2) Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures?

(3)Do you believe that the so-called qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 also apply to men who seek to be teachers, missionaries, evangelists, church treasurers, missions program directors, and so forth?

(4)Do you believe that if a man gets a divorce after he is saved, that he is permanently disqualified from any position of leadership in the church including bishop and deacon?

(5)Do you believe that a man who was divorced “before” he was saved is qualified for positions of church leadership including bishop and deacon?

(6)Do you believe the timing of a man’s salvation has any effect on whether he is qualified for the offices of bishop or deacon?

(7)Do you believe that a man disqualifies himself from the offices of elder, bishop, and deacon if he marries a divorced woman?

(8)Do you believe that divorce ends a marriage in the eyes of God so that a former spouse is no longer scripturally a spouse in any sense of the word?

(9)Was polygamy a potential problem in the early New Testament church era?

(10)Is the context of the conflict in 1 Timothy and Titus Jewish or Gentile in nature? How does this context affect the doctrinal and historical interpretation of these passages?

(11)Do you believe you have the discernment to determine whether anyone is/was saved at a particular point in time?

(12)Would you leave a never divorced man in a bishop’s or deacon’s office when by his conduct he reveals that he is not filled with the Holy Ghost?

(13)Do you believe that an adulterous or fornicating pastor or deacon should be allowed to remain in the ministry?

(14)Would you kick a man out of the ministry whose sodomite wife left him for an abominable same sex relationship?

(15)Do you believe that the so-called qualifications for church office are absolute standards or are they intended to be a general standard by which the overall present character and conduct of a man may be judged to determine his suitability to serve in the offices of bishop and deacon?

(16)Was Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ qualified to pastor churches?

(17)How should and how does Paul’s marital status affect the interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2?

(18)Is a divorced and remarried man disqualified from being the pastor of his home?

            We have included an appendix to this chapter that deals with the interpretation of the phrase “husband of one wife” by numerous commentaries and by many preachers of the distant past and some more recent. If you do not read the comments in that appendix, you will lose some of the benefit you would otherwise have experienced. Many of the comments are very enlightening. In some cases, we give the comment and then add some of our own comments to it. Our comments will be preceded by the statement: Note from this author. We wished we had access to more free commentaries so we could further research this topic.

WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND PRACTICE

            The very first question that should be answered when dealing with those who might be qualified to hold the offices of bishop and deacon is: “Do you believe that a bishop or deacon should be filled with the Holy Ghost?”. While many will quickly say that they believe that a bishop or deacon should be filled with the Holy Ghost, they make no real effort to hold those in those positions accountable for their unholy conduct much less hold them to the general standards for bishops and deacons from 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Acts 6:1-7 says:

Acts 6:1-7
¹ And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. ² Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. ³ Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. ⁴ But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. ⁵ And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: ⁶ Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. ⁷ And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

            The laying on of hands was an Old Testament principle that carried over into both the appointing of members to the Jewish Sanhedrin and into the New Testament Church (Numbers 8:10, Numbers 27:18-23, Deuteronomy 34:9, Acts 13:1-3, 1 Timothy 4:14, Hebrews 6:2). The Bible says to lay hands on no man suddenly. That is what the modern apostate church is so guilty of. That is why we have so many wicked men in our pulpits in America. In Acts 6, we have the first seven deacons called by the church. The only “qualifications” given to the church was that these men had to be: (1) of honest report; (2) full of the Holy Ghost; (3) and full of wisdom. These three requirements alone would disqualify most men that occupy American pulpits. Gone would be most of those who hold positions of leadership by virtue of their educational, economic, and social status. The most important of these three would be that of being full of the Holy Ghost. Most men who hold the positions of bishop and deacon in American churches are not full of the Holy Ghost because they are lost, hell bound sinners. They are not even qualified to be members of Bible believing churches much less to be bishops and deacons. The proof of that is in the filthy, Satanic effluent that comes spewing forth from their mouths as they step behind their pulpits and lecterns. That is also true of many fundamentalist and Independent Baptist churches. If we used Acts 6 as our first stop when examining men for church office, we would not even have to go to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Even if we could get to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 there is a wide range of misinterpretation in fundamentalist and Baptist congregations.

            Many Baptist pastors will not allow divorced men to preach in their pulpits. Many Baptist pastors and evangelists will not preach in a pastor’s pulpit if that pastor allows divorced men to preach in his pulpit. Many Baptist pastors will break fellowship with and ostracize a man who will allow a divorced man into his pulpit. Some Baptist pastors, preachers, and evangelists do not believe that a divorced man can be anointed of the Holy Ghost in the pulpit. Some Baptist preachers and evangelists will break fellowship with a pastor who will not break fellowship with a pastor who allows divorced man to preach in his pulpit. Now, if that sounds confusing, it ought to. I guarantee you that God is not in it because God is not the author of confusion. Many Baptist pastors, evangelists, and preachers will take a pastor who allows a divorced man to preach in their pulpits to the Peter Ruckman Whipping Post as if he is the standard of judging the standards for the ministry. Some Baptist churches will allow divorced men to hold church offices and preach and teach provided their divorce took place before their salvation. Other Baptist churches will allow a divorced man to hold any office including pastor in their church and to preach and teach provided he maintains Biblical standards of holiness in his life. So you can see there is a wide variety of belief and practice in Baptist churches. Regardless of what you believe and practice, some of these beliefs and practices have to be scriptural and some of them have to be unscriptural. Some of these folks have to be scripturally wrong. They are wrong either in interpretation and/or application. If you exceed the standards of the scriptures in application, then you are guilty of setting yourself up as a self-righteous judge. If your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scriptures, then you are guilty of being a self righteous Pharisee. Many men parrot the positions of their pastor, or their favorite evangelist, or their favorite seminary/institute professor without having studied the scriptures and determined for themselves the whole counsel of God on the matter. Rather than being a workman that rightly divideth the word of truth, they are a lazy, mocking parrot. As a reminder to the parrots, it is not what thus saith the man, but instead what THUS SAITH THE LORD. Many men hold positions on the matter under discussion that are obviously contradictory to the clear teaching of the scriptures and the Spirit of the Holy Ghost of God. Regardless of motivation, to go beyond the clear teaching and standards of the scriptures is doctrinal error also. When we set the bar higher than the scriptures, we are putting ourselves in the role of the Holy Ghost of God. We have made that scripture which God never intended to be scripture. In other words, we have added our personal standards to the scriptures: our own private interpretation. Put bluntly, we have put man’s words into God’s mouth. We call that adding to the Scriptures!

            Do you believe that the so-called qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 also apply to men who seek to be teachers, missionaries, evangelists, church treasurers, missions program directors, and so forth? There are some Baptist churches that believe that the qualifications for bishop (pastor) and deacon also apply equally to preachers, evangelists, missionaries, teachers, song/music leaders, musicians, choir members, etc. That is not scriptural. There are but three New Testament church offices. Those are elders, bishops, and deacons. Preacher is not a New Testament church office. Evangelist is not a New Testament church office. Teacher is not a New Testament church office. Missionary is not a New Testament church office. Song leader is not a New Testament church office and so forth. For anyone to attempt to apply the standards for bishops and deacons to anyone other than bishops and deacons is to ADD to the Scriptures. It is nothing more than a self-righteous standard that exceeds the righteousness of the Scriptures. That makes it a manmade doctrine. Concerning the subject of this paragraph Ralph Woodrow had the following to say:

“A preacher who was ready to ‘clean house’, as he put it, declared that no person in his church who had a previous marriage could sing in the choir, hold any position in the church, or even serve as an usher! “I don’t believe in second marriages!” he said. A close friend of his (who had divorced and remarried) said to him in private, “I know you have only married once, but did you ever have a sexual relationship with another woman?” (Being close friends, neither considered this conversation too personal.) With some hesitation the pastor admitted there had been some involvement with...two women...long before he was married to his wife. “Well,” replied the other man, “you have been married to THREE women and never even divorced the first TWO. I have been married only TWICE, but I got a divorce!...Woodrow continues:

Some months ago I heard a man give his testimony about how God saved him from a very wicked life. Though raised in church, he had rebelled at an early age, became involved with gangs, got into drugs, cursed God, chased women, living with one then another, though he never legally married. Then he got saved, went to Bible School where he married a Christian girl, and is now an ordained minister. We can all rejoice in what God has done for him. But there is a serious INCONSISTENCY here. The denomination which ordained him does not allow divorce and remarriage (in the ministry or in deacons). Had he married even ONE of these women he lived with, any marriage after that would not be ‘first’ marriage and ordination would have been refused!

The inconsistency of this double standard says, in effect, “Don’t get married – just live with different ones. God will forgive this, and if you do finally get married it will be a first marriage. But if you marry and it doesn’t work out, you can never get married again...and certainly never be a deacon or minister!” [Divorce And Remarriage, pages 83-84 Ralph Woodrow, 1991]

Stanley A. Ellisen said this about the subject before us:

“How far should these restrictions be carried? If they cannot be deacon or pastor, can they serve as usher? Collect offering? Or would that be too close to the duties of a deacon? Would they be allowed to pray or read Scripture from the pulpit, or give their testimony from the pulpit? Would that be too close to ‘preaching’? To press it further, would the divorced person be allowed to sing in the choir or sing a solo? Or would such a performance border too closely to the concept of ministry? I have not heard of any such church who restricts divorced folks from being deacons or pastors from contributing to the offering plate, however.” [Divorce and Remarriage, Stanley A. Ellisen, page 83]

            Some Baptist churches take this hypocrisy a step further when they will even go so far as to prohibit divorced man from testifying of his salvation in church services. What does this do for the command of the LORD to “let the redeemed of the LORD says so”? There are even some Baptist churches that will not allow a divorced man or woman to be a member of THEIR church. We are also aware that some Baptist churches do not allow women to teach anyone at all. That does not line up with Titus 2:3-4 which states:

Titus 2:3-4
³ The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; ⁴ That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

            We have also heard many preachers and pastors attempt to selectively apply the rules that applied to the Old Testament priesthood to men in the ministry in the New Testament. It will not work and we will explain. If you are going to apply some of them, you will have to apply all of them to New Testament bishops and deacons. Here are those requirements from Leviticus chapter 21:

(1) The priests could not shave their heads or their beards. (There goes most of the pastors and preachers from American pulpits). There goes those of you who preach against beards. For those of you who preach against beards, you must have been among those who plucked out the beard of the Lord Jesus Christ before the crucifixion. (2) The priests could not have tattoos. (There goes many military men and drunks who visited tattoo parlors before they got saved) (3) The priests had to marry a virgin. (How about you preacher man? Did you marry a virgin?). Or, how many women’s virginity did you steal before you had a ceremony? (4) The priest’s wife could not have been a whore (How many different women have you engaged in sex with?) Did you have sex with your wife before you had a ceremony. You guessed it. You made her a whore when you done that. (5) The priests’s wife could not be profane; in other words unsaved. (How about you preacher man? Was your wife saved when you got married, or did she make a profession after you were married?). (6) The priests could not take divorced women for wives (more on this one later). (7) The priests could not have any physical defect such as being blind, lame, brokenfooted, brokenhanded, a eunuch, having a flat nose, a crooked back, or being a midget. Physical defects would disqualify many men from the ministry today. (8) We have bad news for every preacher and pastor who believes that New Testament bishops and deacons must meet the requirements for Old Testament priests. You have all missed the boat because you are not of the lineage of Aaron. Rats! Why didn’t we read that one first! Verse 1 in Leviticus 21 says this:

Leviticus 21:1
¹ And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:

            From the list above, the one that states that the priest cannot marry a divorced woman is the one that is most frequently regurgitated and unscripturally applied to the “qualifications” for potential bishops, elders and deacons in the New Testament. The one that most “once married” peacocks dare not bring up is the requirement that the priest had to marry a woman who was not a whore. The reason they dare not bring it up is that most of them have made their wives a whore when they stole their virginity before their redundant, hypocritical marriage ceremonies. Then there is also those promiscuous fornicators that bedded down every whore under the sun before their redundant, hypocritical marriage ceremonies. They are the Don Juans of our pulpits that brag about all their “pre-marital” affairs before they got saved. And, these are the men we set aside divorced pastors and preachers for!?? Many of these virgin stealers and Don Juans are also the ones that cannot wait to open up the wounds of a divorced man and pour salt in them while their conduct makes a divorced man a saint by comparison. While we agree that the conduct of bishop’s, elder’s, deacon’s wives should be above reproach, you cannot disqualify a man from the ministry because his wife has had a divorce. If you do that, you would again be guilty of reading divorce into a passage that neither directly states or insinuates that a [wife’s] divorce disqualifies a man from the ministry. If you look real close, you will see that the potential bishop’s wife’s conduct is not even mentioned in 1 Timothy 3 whereas the deacon’s wife’s conduct is mentioned in verse 11. Looking at Titus chapter 1, we see that deacons are not even mentioned. However, we do see the standards for elders and bishops mentioned without the conduct of their wives even being brought up.

            In the chapter before us, it will become clear to our readers why we spent so much time and effort in the chapter on “Marriage” in emphasizing the fact that God considers a sexual relationship to be a marriage. We are about to embark on one of the most controversial subjects in so-called fundamental Bible believing churches. It is a controversy that walks hand in hand with the controversy concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Those have also been the subject of three previous chapters in this book. The controversy of this chapter swirls around the interpretation and application of 1 Timothy 3:2. While many refer to the lists in 1 Timothy 3 as “qualifications” for church office, we prefer to call those lists “Standards For Church Service”. We have not always held to the position on this subject that we now hold to. We will admit that the decades long opinions and positions we once held on this subject prior to throughly studying this issue for ourselves were the opinions of our peers and mentors in the churches that we have served in. In short, they were what we had been taught and not what we have rightly divided. It was an issue that we had not sought the whole counsel of the Word Of God on. If you will consult the Introduction to this book, you will see how thorough our research and study has been. We have researched the commentaries of many respected preachers and the works of all the so-called church fathers in preparing for this book. We did not do the research to find out where we should stand on the subject before us. Our convictions are based upon an independent study of the entire subject from the Bible. We studied the works of others to find where they stood on this subject and what we have found is that many good men of God come down on opposite sides of the issue we are dealing with here. So, what is the problem here? Job 32:9 says that great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment. We realize that many will not even read what we have written here because they “know what the have been taught”. They will reject what we say here out of hand. Proverbs 18:13 says: “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him”. Proverbs 15:32 says: He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

A CHALLENGE AND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT

            If we are wrong on this issue, we have a very strong desire to be proved wrong and to be corrected. If you have a thoroughly researched counter argument against what we have said in this book and what we will say in this chapter, or if you have further supporting arguments, please feel free to contact us via email at: contact@earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com . Before you get outraged and start attacking us, we would encourage you to temporarily set aside everything you have been taught or preached on this subject. Then pick up a King James Bible and take every occurrence of the 62 words listed on page 3 of the Introduction to this book and read and study them in context and take notes before you pick up any commentaries. Then you can go back and pick up all that you have been taught and preached that lines up with the King James Bible. We have to many parrots today and not enough Biblical oracles. We do not wish to remove any old landmarks here. We just want to make sure that those old landmarks are set in their proper Biblical context.

            We have read many good articles and books on the subject before us, some of which we agree with and others we do not agree with. There is some really wild stuff out there on both sides of this issue! Before anybody points the Peter Ruckman finger at us and takes us to the Peter Ruckman whipping post, you need to know that our research was almost complete before we read his 29 page article titled “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage”. Though we agree with Peter Ruckman on this issue, you need to understand that neither Peter Ruckman or Peter Ruckman’s doctrine on marriage, divorce and remarriage is the standard by which we judge our doctrine. Peter Ruckman is the straw man for all those who hate the King James Bible and those putrid “double married” preachers. They cannot defend their positions on the Bible or marriage so they pull Peter Ruckman out and kick him around for a while hoping that you will not ask them for chapter a verse. This is an issue that we have had serious doubts about ever since we first heard the doctrine propounded that divorced men could not enter the ministry and to our shame and our hurt we did nothing to exhaustively study the issue scripturally. We heard and received that which men taught. The real question is what does the Bible say; not what we think. Our standard is the perfect, inspired King James Bible. Many of those “once married” preachers that we have heard expound their doctrine of exclusion of divorced men over the years accuse those of us who hold to the doctrine that we do that we are responding to the issue emotionally and not doctrinally. Really? When confronted with their doctrine, most of them will run and hide under the emotional coattails of their favorite evangelist, preacher, seminary professor, or Bible Institute teacher. Most of them will respond that they know what they have been taught, or they know what so and so says. Really? But what does the Bible say chapter and verse? Most of them will not even attempt to defend their doctrine from the Bible because they have never studied the issue through and through for themselves. We want to thank Brother Karl M. Baker for his excellent book “The Marriage & Divorce Controversy With A Rebuttal Of 1 Timothy 3:2”. It was his book that motivated us to do the most exhaustive study of any subject that we have ever completed other than our study on the King James Bible itself. For many years we were convicted that our doctrine on the subject before us was an affront to the Holy Ghost that dwelt in us, but we “felt like” surely we must be wrong because how can so many good men of God be wrong on this subject and us be right. Besides, we were but the water boy on the doctrine field with all the big players. We are not being sarcastic here, but like most young Christians we held, and should hold, our elders, deacons, pastors, and preachers in high esteem for their work’s sake. First Thessalonians 5:12-13 and 1 Timothy 5:17 tell us:

1 Thessalonians 5:12-13
¹² And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; ¹³ And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves.

1 Timothy 5:17
¹⁷ Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

            We are not making light of those who have been our elders in doctrine over the years. We love them. What we are saying is that our very strong respect for those elders led us te receive and believe some things that we should have checked out for ourselves. Our first mentor has changed his position on whether a divorced man can enter the ministry and no longer holds a position that bans all divorced men from the ministry. It is wrong for us to hold the elders we love responsible for the doctrines we hold to. What we should not do is receive a doctrine without having checked it out in the Scriptures. The charge to be a Berean and to rightly divide the word of truth is a charge given to every believer and not just church leaders. When we receive a doctrine without having checked it out in the Scriptures what we prove is that we love man more than we do God. That is especially true of those who are, and who would be, church leaders. Blindly following church leaders without the informed consent of the Scriptures is ungodly, sloppy, and lazy. If you will believe a man, especially in a controversial doctrine, without having checked his doctrine against the Scriptures, then you are NOT qualified to a hold a position of leadership in the church. That is especially true in this issue because much fundamentalist and Baptist doctrine as it relates to marriage, divorce, and remarriage has been corrupted by Roman Catholic theology. This same type of ungodly sloppiness and laziness is exactly why we have so many heretics and apostates in pulpits and behind lecterns trying to correct and overthrow the perfect King James Bible. What we are confronted with on the doctrine of the King James Bible is the very same thing we are confronted with on the doctrine of marriage, divorce, remarriage, and standards for church officers. That is, we have to many preachers, pastors, and teachers that are slothful sluggards that parrot the positions of their mentors without having studied the issue through for themselves. If you will not study the issue through for yourself, shame on you. For such a high profile and high impact issue as marriage, divorce, remarriage, and standards for church office, it is unconscionable that a God called pastor would be asleep at the spiritual wheel when at least 50% of the members of most fundamentalist and Baptist congregations have experienced a wreck on the highway of divorce. How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason. And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep.

BAD ATTITUDES, PRIDE, AND ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY

            If you want to start a stuttering convention all you have to do is ask the average group of assembled Independent Baptist preachers to give scriptural and historical reasons why they hold to the King James Bible; or why they are two, three, or four point Calvinists; or, God forbid, why they condemn “double married” preachers. Hello out there: “This is a recording from the Independent Baptist glory corner. We only use the King James Bible and we don’t want any double married preachers around here because Doctor So And So said so. And, by the way, divorced man where is the tithing dough bro?”. We do not know why we hold to the King James Bible or why we detest “double married” preachers. We just do. We just do what we are told to do.

            On this issue of marriage, divorce, remarriage, and standards for church office, the preachers are teaching and preaching the commandments and doctrines of men. The pastors are beating the bleating divorced sheep on the anvil of Roman Catholic theology. The teachers are fleecing the bleating sheep through bleeding ears that have been scratched raw with false doctrine. If you will corrupt the Word of God doctrinally because you are to lazy to study this issue through, then you are no better than the heretic who corrupts the Word of God by taking away from or adding to the words of our Bibles. Whether you corrupt it in word, doctrinally, or in application you are equally culpable before God.

            Many divorced men show much more of the grace of God in their ministries than many of the “once married” peacocks do. We know many pastors that will not allow a divorced man to teach or preach in “their” church. We also now many pastors and preachers that will break fellowship with a man who will allow a divorced man to preach in their pulpits. We also know preachers that will rant and rave about the wickedness of “double married” preachers, but they will go and preach in a church that allows divorced men to preach in their pulpit. There is a spirit of ungodly pride that lashes out from the heart of this issue and it is not coming from the divorced men. The following has been well said by Agur:

Proverbs 30:12-14¹²

There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. ¹³ There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up. ¹⁴ There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

            While many will not receive what we are about to say, we do believe that it is an accurate portrayal of the attitude of many preachers that would like us to believe that they are the squeaky clean, anointed ones. Here it is (I can hear the outrage already): The “Once Married Preacher” stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this divorced man. (The divorced man was here substituted for the publican. The principle is the same.). Some “once married” preachers cannot even pray that because they are extortioners, unjust, and adulterous, but thank God they are not “double married” divorced preachers even though they have broken their covenant with the wife of their youth. They are as PROUD AS A PEACOCK in all its glory. How many of you self righteous preachers out there have been guilty of allowing a man to stay in the ministry who is an adulterer and has been guilty of violating most of the standards in 1 Timothy 3 for church officers? Our churches are chock full of “once married” preachers and pastors that do not meet the standards of 1 Timothy 3. We could take the rest of the standards in 1 Timothy 3 and disqualify at least 90% of the pastors in Independent Baptist pulpits if we used the same pharisaical, blood thirsty tactics that the “husband of one wife in a lifetime” use. We see nothing of the grace of God in their tactics. It is a voracious cancer that is consuming what were good Bible believing churches. It is one of the major reasons our churches are dead and dying because we will not deal with the sins of our leaders. We will throw holy, divorced men out of our pulpits while we allow fornicators and perverts to devour the sheep that are set before them.

THE ISSUE FROM DOCTRINAL AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

            We will now enter into a discussion of the issue before us from a historical perspective and use the King James Bible to interpret the issue doctrinally. As part of our discussion, we will talk about the practice of polygamy during the time New Testament churches were being formed. Then we will enter into a brief discussion on Jewish marriage customs as they could relate to the Sanhedrin and the apostle Paul. We will follow that by a discussion of what the Holy Ghost has recorded in the Scriptures concerning Paul and the discussion before us. Then we will get into an extended discussion on the standards for those who have been called and choose to serve as bishops and deacons in New Testament churches.

            Many of those who enter into this fray do so without trying to interpret the Bible doctrinally in the context of its historical reference. This drives to the question as to what possible circumstances and problems a first century pastor might have had to deal with. One of those problems was the existence of polygamy in the Jewish culture. We dealt quite extensively with this issue in the section called “Multiple Wives” in the chapter in this book titled “A Scriptural Definition and Description of Marriage”. We will deal with it again here. We have read many commentaries that deny that polygamy was a problem in the Jewish culture during the formation of the New Testament church, but that is not true. We will document that shortly. The early New Testament church was made up of mostly Jewish converts for two very good reasons. One of those is rooted in the command from the Lord Jesus Christ to the twelve apostles when he stated in Matthew 10:5-6:

Matthew 10:5-6
⁵ These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: ⁶ But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

            Another reason that most of the converts to the early church were Jews is that commandment to go first to the house of Israel continued to be the pattern for the early disciples and the apostles, including Paul. Wherever Paul went, his first stop was always the synagogues of the Jews. Twenty-three different times the synagogues are mentioned in the book of Acts. For these reasons, it is no small wonder that most of the early churches were made up mostly of Jewish converts.

POLYGAMY

            With the Jewish converts came their Jewish customs and the Mosaic Law that had to be dealt with by the Holy Ghost in several of the Pauline Epistles including Romans, Galatians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and the book of Hebrews. The passages that we are concerned with here are 1 Timothy 1:4-7 and Titus 1:10-14 which we quote here:

1 Timothy 1:4-7
⁴ Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. ⁵ Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: ⁶ From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; ⁷ Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Titus 1:10-14
¹⁰ For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: ¹¹ Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. ¹² One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. ¹³ This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; ¹⁴ Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

            Both of these passages state strongly that both Timothy and Titus were having trouble with their Jewish converts in the churches they were pastoring. In 1 Timothy chapter 1, the Holy Ghost rebukes those that take heed to fables and endless genealogies and those desiring to be teachers of the law. This is strictly in a Jewish context. In Titus chapter 1 the Holy Ghost rebukes those vain talkers especially those of the circumcision (Jews) and warns that church not to give heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men. This is strictly in a Jewish context. One further indication that these were churches dominated by Jewish converts is that when the Holy Ghost listed the standards required for bishops and deacons some of them mirrored the Jewish laws regulating membership in the Sanhedrin which we here quote:

There were ten basic qualifications for the eligibility of membership. Each member of the Sanhedrin must be a Hebrew, learned in the law, and possessing judicial experience at lower levels (there were minor Sanhedrins of twenty-three members which tried non-capital offenses in every town of 120 males or more). The member was required also to be learned in science, a linguist, modest, pious but strong and courageous, devoid of physical defects, a qualified tradesman, and, finally, he was required to be married and to be a father. [Liberty In The Balance, Russell and Colin Standish, Hartland Publishing, August 30, 1998]

The special qualifications for the office of Sanhedrist, mentioned in the Rabbinical writings, are such as remind of us of the directions of Paul to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:1-10). A member of the Sanhedrim must be wise, modest, God-fearing, truthful, not greedy of filthy lucre, given to hospitality, kindly, not a gambler, nor a usurer, nor one who traded in the produce of Sabbatical years, nor yet one who indulged in unlawful games (Sanh. iii. 3). They were called “Sekenim,”“elders”, “Memunim,” “rulers”, “Parnasin,” “feeders, overseers, shepherds of the flock”, and “Manhigei,” “guides”. They were under the presidency and supreme rule of an “Archisynagogos,” or”Rosh-ha-Cheneseth,” “head of the synagogue” (Yom. vii. 1; Sot. vii. 7),who sometimes seems to have even exercised sole authority. [From Alfred Edersheim’s work “Sketches Of Jewish Social Life”, Chapter 18, page 257 of the printed edition]

We should not appoint to a Sanhedrin a man of very old age or one who does not possess male physical attributes, for they possess the trait of cruelty, nor a man who is childless, so that the judges should be merciful. [Cited from: Halacha 3: Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem, Mishneh Torah]

We are not careful to demand that a judge for a court of three possess all these qualities. He must, however, possess seven attributes: wisdom, humility, the fear of God, a loathing for money, a love for truth; he must be a person who is beloved by people at large, and must have a good reputation. [Cited from: Halacha 7: Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem, Mishneh Torah]

            Notice the parallels between these qualifications and the standards given in 1 Timothy 3. Not given to filthy lucre and given to hospitality are identical. Look also at the requirement to be married and a father which run parallel to being a “husband of one wife” and having their children in subjection. Someone who is “learned in the law” would be “apt to teach”. The Sanhedrin requirement to be modest walks hand in hand with First Timothy chapter three’s being sober. The Sanhedrin requirement to be kindly is a parallel to First Timothy chapter three’s charge to not be a brawler. The Sanhedrin requirement to be pious is equivalent to the requirement to be blameless in 1 Timothy 3. The Sanhedrin requirement to be wise is the product of not being a novice as listed in 1 Timothy chapter 3. So, why was the requirement to be “husband of one wife” included in 1 Timothy 3:2 by the Holy Ghost? Could it be that there were already problem in the churches pastored by Timothy and Titus with men who had multiple wives wanting to serve as bishops and deacons? As we have already said, We have read many commentaries that deny that polygamy was a problem in the Jewish culture during the formation of the New Testament church, but that just is not true. We have already quoted much of what follows in the previous chapter on Scriptural Marriage, but we again quote it here to refute the idea and the statements that polygamy was not a problem during the formation of the New Testament church. We quote from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, the Works Of Flavius Josephus, and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Here are the quotes:

            Josephus and the Talmud.

That polygamy survived into the Christian era is, however, asserted by Josephus (“Ant.” xvii. 1, § 2); and he himself (“Vita,” § 75) seems to have had one wife in Palestine and another in Egypt (comp. Löw, “Gesammelte Schriften,” iii. 47). Such a practise is forbidden by a baraita in Yeb. 37a; and this prohibition is (with certain limitations) introduced into the Shulh.an ‘Aruk (Eben ha-‘Ezer, ii. 11). The Talmud certainly does not enact monogamy (see Bigamy); and as far as the Law is, concerned, Justin Martyr (“Dial. cum Tryph.” § 134) is not wrong in asserting that in his time (2d cent. C.E.) Jews were permitted to have four or five wives. (Cited from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article on Monogamy: Internet Edition located at: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10949-monogamy )

Nevertheless, having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy fell into disuse in Hebrew society. Herod had nine wives at one time (Josephus, Ant, XVII, I, 2). Justin Martyr (Dial., 134, 141) reproaches Jews of his day with having “four or even five wives,” and for “marrying as many as they wish” (compare Talm). It was not definitely and formally forbidden among Jews until circa 1000 AD. It exists still among Jews in Moslem lands. [Cited from page 634 of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) from the article “Marriage”; James Orr, General Editor]

He also allotted one of Aristobulus’s daughters to Antipater’s son, and Aristobulus’s other daughter to Herod, a son of his own, who was born to him by the high priest’s daughter; for it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time. [Josephus, Book 17, Chapter 1, Section 2 (14)]

Now Herod the king had at this time nine wives; one of them, Antipater’s mother, and another the high priest’s daughter, by whom he had a son of his own name. He had also one who was his brother’s daughter, and another his sister’s daughter; which two had no children. [The Works Of Flavius Josephus, Book 17, chapter 1, section 3(19), page 452]

She also frequently reproached Herod’s sister and wives with the ignobility of their descent; and that they were every one chosen by him for their beauty, but not for their family. Now those wives of his were not a few; it being of old permitted to the Jews to marry many wives, — and this king delighting in many; all whom hated Alexander, on account of Glaphyria’s boasting and reproaches. [Josephus, War Of The Jews, Chapter 24, page 1351]

Now Herod the king had at this time nine wives; one of them, Antipater’s mother, and another the high priest’s daughter, by whom he had a son of his own name. He had also one who was his brother’s daughter, and another his sister’s daughter; which two had no children. [The Works Of Flavius Josephus, Book 17, chapter 1, section 3(19), page 452]

            We would remind our readers that the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia and the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus are independent witnesses that have no stake in the subject before us. They were not Christians. That being the case, they do not have a New Testament agenda to promote that would put them on one side or the other of this argument. Flavius Josephus was born in 37 A. D. into a family of Jewish priests and was alive to witness the development of the New Testament church first hand though he was not a part of it. From the resources just quoted, we would have to conclude that polygamy was being practiced by the Jews at the time 1 Timothy and Titus were written somewhere between 63-66 A. D and that it was a problem in the churches that Timothy and Titus pastored. If you scream that “you are reading into the Scriptures that which is not there”, then you are being hypocritical because you read “divorce” into 1 Timothy 3:2 when it is not there. Your insertion of the word “divorce” in 1 Timothy 3:2 comes with a whole lot less plausible support than what we have provided here. At least we have proven from the secular historical record that polygamy was commonly practiced by the Jews both during and after the time when New Testament churches were being established. We have also proved from the Old Testament that polygamy was an accepted practice among the Jewish people. We have also proven that Epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus were written to churches that had a problem with Judaizers. Some would complain, “but what about those countries were polygamy is practiced and is allowed under the laws of the land and the men already have multiple wives when they get saved”. We already have scriptural precedent for that when Ezra forced the priests to put away their unscriptural wives requiring them to provide the necessary support for those that had been put away. We will deal with the phrase “the husband of one wife” in a lot more detail later. In closing this section on polygamy, our readers should know that all but two of the following believed that 1 Timothy 3:2 was to be interpreted of polygamy and had no reference to divorce: Harry Ironside, M.R. Dehaan, J Vernon McGee, John R. Rice, Dwight L. Moody, C. I. Scofield, Charles Hodge, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Daniel Whedon, Charles Spurgeon, John Trapp, A. T. Robertson, Frederick B. Meyer , Matthew Poole, Jerome, W. B. Godby, Arno C. Gaebelein, John Gill (polygamy and unscriptural divorce), Thomas Coke (polygamy and causeless divorce), Adam Clarke, Joseph Benson, John Calvin, and Albert Barnes.

THE MARITAL STATUS OF THE APOSTLE PAUL

            Was Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ qualified to pastor churches? How should, and how does, Paul’s marital status affect the interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2? While we do not believe the marital status of Paul makes one bit of difference as to how 1 Timothy 3:2 should be interpreted, we realize that because of the way many fundamentalists and Baptists interpret the phrase “husband of one wife” from 1 Timothy 3:2 that it is an issue that must be dealt with if for no other reason than building a foundation to destroy the heresy that says that a divorced man is permanently disqualified from entering the ministry.

            Reading “divorced” and “double married” into 1 Timothy 3:2 is the seed bed of much endless speculation and confusion in the interpretation of the standards for church office. Here, we will do some “speculation”. If the same hermeneutical standard that is applied to the interpretation of the phrase “husband of one wife” by those who advocate “one living wife for one lifetime” is applied to the rest of the standards listed in 1 Timothy 3, then we have ourselves a huge doctrinal mess that butchers the English language leaving no one qualified for church office. Not only does it butcher the English language, it breaks the rules of English grammar in an in your face manner. If many so-called conservative commentators and preachers would just interpret 1 Timothy 3:2 in the normal, literal, grammatical sense, we would not have all the hurt and confusion caused by their breaking every hermeneutical standard for interpreting the English Bible. But the “once married” stallions with their blinders on can only see the “once married” preachers that are dead ahead. The rest of the standards in the passage are but hurdles they must jump to get past those “double married” preachers. They cannot interpret properly in context because their doctrinal blinders will not let them see the plain English that is on all sides of them. “Must be” is a present tense phrase. “Must be” is a present tense phrase. For the third time, “must be” is a present tense phrase. Furthermore, all of the standards for church service in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are given in the present tense. In other words they are looking at present conduct: at the present qualifications for the man being considered for the office of bishop or deacon. For you Greek scholars, you will smother to death if your breath of life is one of the Greek words for divorce (apostasion and apoluo) because they are found no where in the context of 1 Timothy 3:2 or Titus 1. Do you think that the Holy Ghost did not know what the Greek word for divorce was? He used them in Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:7, and Mark 10:4. If the Greek words for divorce were in 1 Timothy 3:2 do you not think the King James translators would have supplied it as they did in Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:7, and Mark 10:4.

            What about the phrase “must be...husband of one wife” used in 1 Timothy 3:2? Remember, we are “speculating” here just as those who speculate that Paul meant divorced in this passage. The big difference is that our “speculation” has much support from the context, both doctrinal and historical as we will prove in the following pages. If we assume that Paul was a virgin, a widower, or divorced, then what the Holy Ghost said about “the husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2 does not make sense if we apply it in an absolute sense to Paul since Paul had to be put into a position where he temporarily assumed the role of a pastor in the churches he established on the mission field. If being the husband of one wife was a “must be” qualification for a church leader, then Paul was not “qualified” to pastor the churches he started on the mission field. If your doctrine interprets “husband of one wife” as “not ever having been divorced”, then if Paul was divorced, then he was not qualified to temporarily assume the position of pastor in the churches he established on the mission field. The Scriptures do not specifically state that Paul was not a widower or was not divorced. However, the Bible does plainly state that Paul was unmarried. That the term “unmarried” applies to both virgins and the divorced is proven in 1 Corinthians 7:11 which reads:

1 Corinthians 7:11
¹¹ But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

            So, was Paul’s state of being unmarried that of being widowed, or divorced, or virgin. We believe that Paul was married at one time. Are we to assume that since the only apostle who was identified as having a wife was Peter that none of the others were married? That is highly unlikely since it was an affront and even unlawful in most instances for Jewish men not to be married. That some of the other apostles were married in addition to Peter is indicated in 1 Corinthians 9:5 which states:

1 Corinthians 9:5
⁵ Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Note that the word “apostles” is plural. The point being that though there were other apostles who were married, their marital status is not specifically identified in the Scriptures. This passage of Scripture also puts the Roman Catholic doctrine of celibacy back into the theological crypt that it came slithering forth from. There is also proof from Matthew 19:27-29 that some of the apostles had forsaken their wives and yet the continued in the ministry. These verses state:

Matthew 19:27-29
²⁷ Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? ²⁸ And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ²⁹ And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Note that the Holy Ghost is quoting the Lord Jesus Christ as having said that those who had forsaken their wives for his name sake would receive an hundredfold and eternal life. Yet all the apostles continued in the ministry until well after the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. These are they that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Now what of the possible marital status of the apostle Paul. Let’s look at some documents to ascertain whether Paul could have been married. From the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia we read:

The first positive commandment of the Bible, according to rabbinic interpretation (Maimonides, “Minyan ha-Miz.wot,” 212), is that concerning the propagation of the human species (Gen. I. 28). It is thus considered the duty of every Israelite to marry as early in life as possible. Eighteen years is the age set by the Rabbis (Ab. v. 24); and any one remaining unmarried after his twentieth year is said to be cursed by God Himself (K.id. 29b). Some urge that children should marry as soon as they reach the age of puberty, i.e., the fourteenth year (Sanh. 76b); and R. H.isda attributed his mental superiority to the fact that he was married when he was but sixteen years old (K.id. l.c.). It was, however, strictly forbidden for parents to give their children in marriage before they had reached the age of puberty (Sanh. 76b). A man who, without any reason, refused to marry after he had passed his twentieth year was frequently compelled to do so by the court. To be occupied with the study of the Torah was regarded as a plausible reason for delaying marriage; but only in very rare instances was a man permitted to remain in celibacy all his life (Yeb. 63b; Maimonides, “Yad,” Ishut, xv. 2, 3; Shulh.an ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 1, 1-4; see Celibacy)....

(Cited from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article “Marriage Laws” located at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10435-marriage-laws )

We should not appoint to a Sanhedrin a man of very old age or one who does not possess male physical attributes, for they possess the trait of cruelty, nor a man who is childless, so that the judges should be merciful. [Cited from: Halacha 3: Sanhedrin veha`Onashin haMesurin lahem, Mishneh Torah]

There were ten basic qualifications for the eligibility of membership. Each member of the Sanhedrin must be a Hebrew, learned in the law, and possessing judicial experience at lower levels (there were minor Sanhedrins of twenty-three members which tried non-capital offenses in every town of 120 males or more). The member was required also to be learned in science, a linguist, modest, pious but strong and courageous, devoid of physical defects, a qualified tradesman, and, finally, he was required to be married and to be a father. [Liberty In The Balance, Russell and Colin Standish, Hartland Publishing, August 30, 1998]

            If Paul was never married, he was in a very difficult position in a Jewish culture that would force a man to get married by court order if he had not married before the age of 20. It must also be noted that the Talmud specifically stated: “Any Jew who has not a wife is no man” [Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 63a]. There is also a very strong possibility that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin because he consented unto the stoning death of Stephen (Acts 7:58-8:1). Only the Sanhedrin could authorize the death penalty for religious offenses; in this case, the false accusation of blasphemy. We have already proven that members of the Sanhedrin had to be married. Many ASSUME that Paul was never married because he says in 1 Corinthians 7:8 that he is unmarried. We have already proven in the chapter “Adultery, Fornication, Desertion, Divorce And Remarriage” that the term unmarried applies to widows/widowers, virgins, and those who are divorced. It is no more a stretch for us to believe that Paul was once married, but now unmarried through divorce or death, than it is for you to believe that he was never married because he is unmarried. It could well be that Paul was one of the men that was made a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (Matthew 19:12) or one of those who had forsaken their wives for the sake of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:29). In closing this topic, we go back to the statement that we introduced this topic with. How should, and how does, Paul’s marital status affect the interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2? We do not believe the marital status of Paul makes one bit of difference as to how 1 Timothy 3:2 should be interpreted, but it must be dealt with because of the way some preachers and pastors interpret the phrase “husband of one wife”. Furthermore, if we take the interpretation by some preachers and pastors of the phrase “husband of one wife” to its logical conclusion, then Paul could not be a missionary or pastor because he was not the husband of one wife, the Lord Jesus Christ could not be the pastor of His church because He was not the husband of one wife, and neither could God of the Old Testament qualify because He was divorced and unmarried and therefore not the husband of one wife. Now let’s take a look at the scriptural standards for church service.