Titus 1:6?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
One of the objections I am sure everyone here is familar with is Titus 1:6 “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” (KJV). In my bible, which is the New American Bible, it says that a bishop can be married only once. I think that it would make things a bit clearer to use my translation but, he is a “the King James Version is the absolute best English Trasnlation and should take precident over the lesser trasnlations”. Does anyone know of any commentaries or something that discusses the proper translation of this passage? Thanks and God bless.
 
Objections to bishops marrying? Is this a segment from another issue?

Just checking,
k
 
Catholic Answers:
Another Fundamentalist argument, related to the last, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders. For Paul says a bishop must be “the husband of one wife,” and “must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven.

This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.

The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!

The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise “self-control” (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of “managing his household well,” even if his “household” is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.

Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).

The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be “soldiers” of Christ must avoid “civilian pursuits”: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these “civilian pursuits.”

An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’” (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.
catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp
 
One of the objections I am sure everyone here is familar with is Titus 1:6 “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” (KJV). In my bible, which is the New American Bible, it says that a bishop can be married only once. I think that it would make things a bit clearer to use my translation but, he is a “the King James Version is the absolute best English Trasnlation and should take precident over the lesser trasnlations”. Does anyone know of any commentaries or something that discusses the proper translation of this passage? Thanks and God bless.
Read literally, this not only means that the bishop must be married, but must have children, and those children must be faithful. So, does the bishop stops being bishop if his wife dies? What if one of his children is not faithful, or stops being faithful?

Oh yeah, and what adult man is “blameless” anyway? So literally understood, this passage prevents any bishops at all!
 
blameless refers to repetation in the community at large or city, not sinless perfection.

According to strongs the word translated Bishop means,

Greek for 1985

Pronunciation Guide
episkopos {ep-is’-kop-os}

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 2:608,244 from 1909 and 4649 (in the sense of 1983)
Part of Speech
n m
Outline of Biblical Usage
  1. an overseer
a) a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or superintendent

b) the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian church

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 7
AV - bishop 6, overseer 1; 7

blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1159995860-9784.html
 
Montie, when are you gonna learn to search the CA library before opening a thread? :rolleyes: About 90% of your threads can be answered from there anyway.
Blackie
 
I, for one, enjoy answering Montie’s questions. It’s a good challenge, sometimes, and I like the discussion (and sometimes debate) that results. I’ve learned new things from Montie’s threads, even though I’ve often read the CA library essays already.

Jeremy
 
blameless refers to repetation in the community at large or city, not sinless perfection.
Again, you are demonstrating that some parts of the bible are read more literally than others. Which of course raises the question "why do you (Mr. generic Protestant) take “husband of one wife” more literally than “blameless”? How would you go about proving your assertion regarding the meaning of “blameless” in this passage? And even in the more lax meaning, who has a “blameless” reputation? Even many of the Apostles didn’t.

Besides, this still doesn’t deal with the question of wives who have died, and children who have become unfaithful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top