In Search of Truth

Are widowed elders still qualified since basically they are single now? Scriptures please!

Just for reference, we do have an article about the general topic of elders here:

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/elders.html

Thank you for the link! I had read it earlier.

What is confusing me is the phrase "the husband of one wife." Does that mean since he was the husband of one wife before she passed that he still is considered one after her passing? Or is he considered single like someone who has never been married before?

I believe the key here is the phrase that Paul uses to introduce the qualifications, quoted here for reference:

Paul, an inspired apostle, wrote: 1 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. (I Timothy 3:1-7 - NKJ)

Paul strictly says that an elder "must be" all of the above things. If he ceases to be any of these things, then he is no longer qualified. For example, if an appointed elder becomes "given to wine" after his appointment, can he stay an elder? What if all of sudden, he becomes "quarrelsome" or "covetous"? No, he may not continue in his appointment, because he no longer satisfies the requirement to "be" ... Sure, he once was qualified, but once he ceases to "be" all of the above things, then he must step down.

The word, "must", tells us that the requirements are not optional. They are absolutely required. And, the word, "be", tells us that he must continue to be all of these things for the duration of his appointment. Otherwise, he becomes a "was" qualified instead of someone who is qualified - always present tense.

Someone may cry, "But, that's not fair! He cannot help that his wife died, and now you are going to kick him while he's down by asking him to give up being an elder!? Being an elder is all he has left!!!"

I would hope serving the Lord still remains the primary goal. We must remember, the Lord's qualifications are not for an "equal-opportunity" position. Being an elder is hard work ("...desires a good work"). It's not an honor badge. Furthermore, the qualifications already rule out several classes of people, regardless of their desire or capability. For example, none of the following may ever serve:

• a woman
• a single man
• a childless man
• a man's whose children are unfaithful

All of these qualifications may lie outside of a person's control, and yet God's requirements do not permit these people to serve in this capacity, regardless of their other capabilities. Therefore, "fairness" has nothing to do with the matter.

A man, whose spiritual life is not able to handle "retiring" from being an elder, is a man who is most likely "puffed up with pride" and likely never understood the role of the work in the first place. We are all here for just a time, and each person's work lasts for just a moment, regardless of our station...

pjane3 wrote:What is confusing me is the phrase "the husband of one wife." Does that mean since he was the husband of one wife before she passed that he still is considered one after her passing? Or is he considered single like someone who has never been married before?

Sorry, I saw your follow-up after my first post. Yes, I believe your second answer is correct. Once a person's spouse dies, despite our sentiment, he or she is no longer considered "married" to the dead spouse.

Paul wrote: 1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. (Romans 7:1-3)

Also, Jesus explained that marriage is part of this temporal life. Once we die, our marriage bonds are left behind:

Matthew, quoting Jesus, wrote:"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Matthew 22:30)

Therefore, the widowed elder would no longer be the husband of one wife, because she is dead. Of course, if he remarries, then he is once again the husband of one wife, so he may potentially be reappointed as an elder.

Thank you for your clear and candid reply!

This is not an easy subject for me. We have two widowed elders, one just recently. As a woman, can I talk privately with the elders in question and express my concerns without usurping authority over them?

Yes, I think so. Generally, "entreating" an elder is always the best course, because of the honor due their position....

Paul wrote: 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.
18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."
19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.
20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.
21 I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.
22 Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure.
...
24 Some men's sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later.
(I Timothy 5:17-24)

For example... "What do you think about this verse...?" "How do you explain this passage...?" "I know this must be emotionally very difficult, but don't you think we need to put the Lord and His Word first, as it is revealed? Not, what we think He really meant?" etc...

Formal witnesses are not needed for this scenario, unless the actuality of the spouses' death is in question.

Public rebuke for an unrepentant elder would best be handled by a man, if at all possible, for the very reason you mentioned.

Elders who are worried about leaving the flock unprotected, etc., need to strengthen their faith. The qualifications - like everything else about the Lord's church, its organization, and its mission - were ordained by God. We have no more authority for making exceptions in this case than we do in making exceptions for organizing a missionary society to jumpstart evangelism; forming a central board for the universal church to fend off false-doctrine; using entertainment to bring in the crowd, etc. All of these things made sense at the moment the decision was made to introduce them. Hind sight has revealed the wisdom of God's guidance on these points. But, for now, true faith is what makes us do what is right as revealed in God's Word, even when it does not make sense to us. If it always made sense to us, it wouldn't be "faith", would it?

Paul wrote:For we walk by faith, not by sight. (II Corinthians 5:7)

m273p15c,

You are making very valid points using Scriptures and for that I am very grateful. Your words are giving me the confidence I need to "breach" this subject with them. According to 1 Tim 5:19, I should have at least one other person with me, shouldn't I, as a witness?

A one women man, does the dead wife disqualify a man that has served as an elder? A man that faithly serves the church as an elder with a wife and that wife dies does this make the man a no women man? Or is he still a man that had one women. Have you ever considered that polygamy was a problem in the church and an elder would be required to be a husband of one wife and not many. The real qualification of this man is that he is a faith man to one wife, does the death of his wife disqaulify him as a faithful husband, or a one women man?

1 Tim 5:9-10
and not unless she has been the wife of one man,
NKJV
This literally means a "one man women"


Think of this, consider the women who seeks the support of the church as a widow, she is required to be a one man women. Is she still married now that she is a widow? No, yet she is to be a one man women. This is a qaulification that she has, a title after her husbands death!

The phrase that you find in the qualifications of an elder states that he is to be a one women man, now because his wife dies does this mean he is no longer a one women man? How can the widow be not married yet qaulified as a one man women and the elder who is no longer married not be qaulified as a one women man?

This topic is very slippery, I do not claim to have all the answers to this important topic. But we must understand that the women does not qualify the man the man is qaulified by his life. It is my understanding that if a man serves faithfully to the church and to his wife and children and his wife and children die, does this disqaulify him in his role. Has he now been deemed as a unfaithful husband and father?

Before you go to these elders you may want to better understand the situation, the scripture that you sighted 1 Tim. 5:19 does not mean that you need to bring two or three people to accuse an elder, yet it means do not accept accusation against an elder unless it comes from two or three people. What you have here is not an accusation against him, but a concern with what you beleive the scripture teaches about his situation as being a widow in alignment with what you think a specific scripture teaches. But I would beg you to concider what I have said. Not all will agree, but when so many are divided on this topic we must realize that there are men who meet these guide lines for eldership who are still not able to be elders. If these men were elders before their spouses died are they now no longer one women men? A man of one wife, is it possibly that we have been looking at this with the wrong impression of Pauls purpose of stateing that a man should be a man of one wife?

One last thing before I get accused of rambling, which would not be the first time, If the elder has beleiveing children and they die in a car accident does this now make him an unqualified man, because he no longer has beleiving children? No I do not beleive the bible teaches that. Just as I beleive the bible teaches that a faithful man of one wife who becomes an elder and that women dies he is still a one women man, just like the qualified widow.

pjane3 wrote:According to 1 Tim 5:19, I should have at least one other person with me, shouldn't I, as a witness?

JSM17 is correct on this point. My understanding is that the requirement for witnesses are for the benefit of validating the guilt of a charge, not the charge itself. In other words, these witnesses are supposed to attest to the fact that an elder has been quarrelsome, greedy, given to wine, etc. The charge is only to be received or considered "at the mouth of two or three witnesses". The witnesses are there to help "mouth" the charge, not just listen to it. If they did not witness the event under question, then they cannot help give the charge against the elder. ... As I said previously, witnesses would not be required in this case, because everyone already knows that the elders' wives are dead. Witnesses would only be necessary to vouch for the death, if an elder was trying to cover it up. Application of the passage under concern is very far-fetched in this particular case.

However, I must disagree with JSM17 on his comparison to the supported widow's qualifications. Please compare the texts:

Paul wrote:Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man, well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work. (I Timothy 5:9-10)

Yet, for the case of elders, Paul states that an elder "must be ... the husband of one wife" - present tense, while a widow is required to have "has been the wife of one man". The qualifications are not comparable on this point, because the duration or tense is not comparable. The elder's requirements qualify him for a work to be done ("desires a good work"), while the widow's requirements qualify her for financial support based on the good works she has done! No more work is required of her. In fact, she appears to possibly even be past the point of doing good works. Now, she needs good works done to her, not by her.

Furthermore, if I understand JSM17 correctly, he might be arguing that the marriage bond continues after death. Even if he is not, for the benefit of a reader wrestling with this viewpoint, please allow me to beg answer to the previous passages, especially Romans 7:1-3. If marriage continues after death, then the surviving spouse who remarries is guilty of adultery. However, according to Romans 7:1-3 that is clearly not the case; therefore, the marriage is over at death. ... About polygamy, certainly it is ruled out by this qualification, but other cases, such as the single man, divorced-man, and other cases are also eliminated. Of course, I understand the widowed man to also be ruled out.

In regards to the children's death, I believe such a man would no longer be qualified for the very same reason. He must be ... If he ceases to be any of the things listed in God's qualifications, then he is no longer qualified. If he becomes a drunkard, lover of money, or not capable of teaching, is he still qualified? No! Consistency demands he steps down, unless we are willing to permit drunk, thieving, proud, quarrelsome, incompetent elders. I believe the "consistency" argument is in my favor here.

Finally, please allow me to preach a little again. It amazes me that brethren, who are so opposed to rationalizing the Scriptures, and who demand "walking by faith" on so many other points of doctrine, drop the ball on the qualifications of elders. What does the text say? What people think, and what seems best to them, is of no consequence or relevance here. What does the text say?

Now finally, Please keep in mind that there is much more going on than the ability to do a job. Many of these qualifications are much more for the benefit of increasing credibility and minimizing "excuse" liability than for the benefit of ascertaining competency. I think some of the qualifications are there just to eliminate excuses like, "Who does he think he is, telling me what to do?! He doesn't even have kids/a wife/faithful kids/etc.!" God's wisdom should not be questioned, and if I start explaining it, I run the risk of someone rationalizing it. However, I would venture that God's qualifications are intended to take care of much more than just prove competency to do the job. Just because our explanation does not negatively impact an elder's ability to do the job, we should not think that we have covered all the bases that God covered in His original outlining and establishment of elders and their qualifications.

Oh, and one last thing - I meant to include this verse in the last email and forgot:

Paul wrote:Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger as sisters, with all purity. (I Timothy 5:1-2)

JSM17's advice to be cautious is good advice. May I suggest letting this thread run its course before you approach the elders? Something may be said in this thread, or based on study spurred by it, that changes your mind (or my mind). Even if this thread only strengthens your current convictions, it will provide you with opportunity to deal with many questions that the elders may raise, before they raise them. It's always better to do your homework before hand, if at all possible. ... Also, my grandfather was an elder, who survived his wife, and it took him a couple of weeks before he stepped down, if memory serves me well. Certainly, I would be sympathetic to a man who has lost someone so dear. I know I would want a couple of weeks myself.

I believe you are right m273p15c, if it says it we should follow it, I just want to make sure that we are seeing it the way Paul wrote it. If he is talking about polygamy Pauls point would be that God wants a man that only takes one women not two or three. If the women dies does this make him not a one women man. That is the phrase that Paul speaks of. I also see that the version say that he "MUST" be aman of one wife, if she dies then he is no longer her husband, but he was still a man of one women, which leads me to the polygamy question. This is just another area that I am trying to gain more information about. I have learned amny things just today about it.

And just one more thought about an elder, if this man's heart is true to God and the church, he will not wish to cause controvery over this issue and he should step down if he finds that there are people who feel a certain way. Churches have split over this in the past. The Elder should do what it takes to keep the church together as long as it is within God's plan.

JSM17 wrote:... I just want to make sure that we are seeing it the way Paul wrote it. If he is talking about polygamy Pauls point would be that God wants a man that only takes one women not two or three. If the women dies does this make him not a one women man. That is the phrase that Paul speaks of. I also see that the version say that he "MUST" be aman of one wife, if she dies then he is no longer her husband, but he was still a man of one women, which leads me to the polygamy question. ...

I do not want to beat a dead horse, because I think we have covered many good and important points in this thread; however, I would like to spend a minute on the "one woman man" phrase. I have heard this many times in sermons and lectures, and often the point is made that this phrase indicates the potential elder is to be a faithful husband, because he is the kind of person that sticks to "one woman". Therefore, it could be said that he is a "one-woman man", implying that there is not room in his life for any other woman but his one. Well, certainly that would be included in this language, but it is dramatically oversimplifying the Greek and putting misplaced emphasis on this inaccurate translation. For purposes of our discussion, here's the Greek for our phrase, "husband of one wife" (please forgive the font limitations):

μιασ γυναικοσ ανδρα

Or, in the English alphabet:

mias gunaikos avdra

In this context, "mias" is the word for "one" and it is an adjective, genitive feminine singular, no degree. The next word, "gunaikos", means "woman", and it's a noun, genitive feminine singular. The last word, "avdra", means "man", and it is a noun, accusative masculine singular. So, yes the words are "one woman man", but there is much more to it than that. Such a simple translation ignores the additional information embedded in the forms of the words.

When we say in English that someone is a "one-woman man", we use the words "one-woman" as a compound adjective, describing what kind of man that he is. This is a somewhat ambiguous expression, because we do not know if he actually has a wife, but from this expression, we do know that if he was ever married, it would be to a woman, and that he only has one woman. At least, that is his policy, according to this translation. Whether or not he actually has a wife at present cannot be determined by this English expression, which is the proposed translation in essence. However, this is not what the Greek says it all!

"mias" is an adjective for "gunaikos" (woman); however, both are in the genitive form, indicating possession, and gunaikos is a noun in this form - not an adjective. In other words, he is not a man described by one woman -- He is man possessing one woman! The "one woman" is a noun possessed by him - not just a policy describing him.

Keep in mind that the Greeks did not have a word for "husband" or "wife". They used the common words "man" and "woman". The reader had to determine from the context, whether a husband or generic man was under discussion, and likewise for the woman or wife. Based on the context, it seems clear Paul is considering a husband of one wife.

Just to amplify a bit, most translations render the phrase as "husband of one wife": ASV, BBE, ERV/ESV, KJV, NAS/NAU, NKJ, RSV, WEB/RWB. The NIV translate it as "the husband of but one wife". NAB and NRS use "married only once". So, the vast majority of translations support "the husband of one wife" as the best translation. The NIV, NAB, and NRS seem to be the only ones stepping out on a limb, inserting thoughts not found in the original.

Getting back to the worries regarding the possible intentions of limited applicability to polygamy, I fear this may be second-guessing the intent of the text instead of just taking the text at face value. What does the text say? Yes, it might be dealing with polygamy only, and then again, it might not. "Maybe" does not prove anything. What does the text actually say? ... How will we ever know if Paul was only eliminating polygamy, since that is not what he says, and no contextual or grammatical clues point to that fact? What does the text say? I believe that is the answer to the questions we seek.

Paul did say that he "must be ... husband of one wife". This would rule out polygamy, but it would also rule out single men who are not married yet, homosexual men, widowed men, and men who are in hopelessly tangled marriage, divorce, and remarriage cases. The phrase has general application, as written, beyond just polygamy. so limiting application to just polygamy seems to be restricting the text beyond what is written. We should leave generic expressions as general. It is always a mistake to limit a generality, unless something in the immediate context or sum of Scriptures requires it.

Being concerned and cautious is fine; however, caution should eventually give way to reason, when the facts are not present to sustain the concern. Certainly, I respect the request for time and peace to consider any topic in thoroughness. No one should ever rush to judgment, and certainly I would not want to pressure some one to change a conviction. That change should only occur when someone is "convicted" by the reasons - hopefully, the truth - and not before.

Here's an excerpt I received in correspondence with a friend that I consider to be a Greek scholar of sorts. It makes similar points, but in different ways, so it may prove more useful:

Bob wrote:The phrase under consideration is mias gunaikos andra. The term andra is masculine accusative singular of anēr. The word is accusative because it is used as the subject of the infinitive einai. The phrase mias gunaikos has both words in the genitive singular, therefore "of one wife". Therefore the best translation is “the husband of one wife.” If one does not know beans about Greek he could look at the Greek phrase and think that it is mias [one] gunaikos [woman] andra [man], but he has to ignore the cases, and the accepted meanings of these Greek words, and the context which speaks of his having children, and of his ruling his house well. The phrase could be rendered “of one woman man,” but the Greeks would not have understood this phrase as the English idiom “a one-woman man.” They would have understood it as “the man of one wife.” When I refer to “the accepted meanings of these Greek words,” I do not mean that the word does not mean “woman,” but that if one meant to be saying wife, there is no better Greek word that he could use. It is the context as well as the construction that shows us that the word here means “wife.” In the letter to Titus, Paul uses the same Greek phrase as here, but it is immediately followed by the phrase, “having children that believe,” tekna [children] exchōn [having] pista [faithful]. ...