Can an unmarried man be a deacon or elder?

312 An unmarried man might be a ruler, but he could not be an elder. A ruler is a gift, an elder an office; gifts are for the body; office is local. We have an example in Timothy of a young man who ruled elders. A ruler is a person who gets an ascendency over others morally, and keeps their wills from working by the power of the word in the Spirit.

The moral characteristics which are to mark the bishop are many, or such he may not be. "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife." This does not necessarily mean that he must be married, but, being married, he must only have one wife. Polygamy was the commonest thing possible among the heathen, and thus one delivered from paganism might find himself with several dependent on him, while one only of them would now, of course, be recognised as his wife. For a bishop or a deacon to be in this position would be a scandal to the Church of God, and would outrage the spiritual as well as the moral sense of that Church.

It was an evil day for Christendom when the idea took possession of men's minds that Christ's servants should remain unmarried. Not only has frail flesh been exposed thereby to the gravest moral peril, but apostolic precedent and the plain injunctions of Holy Scripture have alike been defied by the idea. In 1 Cor. 9:5, where Paul the apostle insists that he had the same right to a wife as to eat and drink, he cites the example of "the other apostles," and expressly names Cephas (Peter). In his first epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 3), which is occupied largely with ecclesiastical order, he lays it down authoritatively that both Bishops and Deacons should be married men. If the question be raised, "Why then did not Paul take a wife for himself?'' the answer must be that he was called to a life of incessant itineracy, and that over a very wide area. The devoted apostle felt that, under these circumstances, it would be better for him to be absolutely free. But this did not touch his right, upon which he insisted, while putting it aside in self-sacrifice for the furtherance of the work of the Gospel.

As with public ministry, we also understand that women did not have a place in the administration of a local assembly or in the order of things in the assembly. There were two types of local responsibilities: elders (or overseers) and deacons. Elders (or overseers) and deacons had to be married men, husbands of one wife. It explicitly and exclusively mentions men in this context.

The qualifications of an elder are outlined in 1 Timothy 3, and the character of those who were to be appointed to this function in Titus 1. In none of these passages is there any mention of their wives; however, when the qualifications of a deacon are listed in 1 Timothy 3, the appropriate behavior of their wives is described. Why this difference: this silence in one case and the mention of them in the other? Was it not because the wives of elders could not participate in the administration of the assembly (even indirectly), but concerning deacons, their wives could assist their husbands in their tasks related to the temporal needs of the saints?

As to his character, an overseer is simply to be thoroughly Christian: these same characteristics ought to be seen in all saints. But added to this, he must be an elder man, a man of some experience, the husband of one wife, and apt to teach.

The word for "vigilant" here is more correctly sober or circumspect, while that for "sober" in the Authorized Version has the force of "a sound mind." His behavior is to be orderly, and in his home he is to practice hospitality. Having one wife would evidently indicate that he must be proven in family life. Doubtless many were converted in those days who had more than one wife. This would disqualify them from the place of an overseer, even though the grace of God had wrought mightily in their souls. For there had been a basic character displayed of insensibility to God's order even in creation. This was not to be ignored even after conversion, as to governmental matters. In such cases problems would no doubt arise that would call for real exercise of soul, as to what must be done, but Scripture gives no instruction as to what a man must do who had already married two wives.

The moral character of the elder must be above reproach. He must be the husband of one wife, a qualification that would have special application to those emerging from heathenism with its polygamy. A converted man, though not to be rejected because he had more than one wife, would be unfitted for oversight. Moreover, such an one was to be sober in judgment, discreet in his words, decorous in behaviour, hospitable. He was to be apt to teach, not necessarily implying that he was gifted as a teacher, but that he had aptness to help others in their spiritual exercises. He was not to be a person given to excess in wine or violence in action; on the contrary he was to be mild, avoiding contentions and free from covetousness.

(Vv. 4, 5). Moreover, he was to be one who ruled his house well, having his children in subjection — exhortations that clearly indicate that the overseer was to be an elder, not only married and possessing a home, but having children.

The work of the overseer is learned from Paul's statement in Acts 20:28: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God , which He hath purchased with His own blood." The Holy Spirit called them into this work, for He is the great administrator in the church. Each local church had not one overseer or bishop, but a number of them, showing that the authority was not vested in one person only (Phil. 1:1). If anyone desired the office of an overseer, he desired a good work. It is a good work to exercise loving and patient care over souls which are beloved of God, and so dear to Him, who purchased them by His own blood. Such a desire would be the result of the Spirit of God, who laid the work of an overseer upon the heart. Paul then gives Timothy the qualities which a bishop or overseer must have. He must be blameless, that is as to his moral character irreproachable, with nothing whatever against him. "He must be the husband of one wife." This has been explained as excluding all who had been married twice. This is incorrect. It may refer to those who were as pagans married to more than one woman, for polygamy was practiced among the heathen in that day, as it is still. Converted to Christianity these pagans were in an unhappy condition, and on account of it could not exercise oversight in a local church.

It is a question of government in the assembly; and faithful is the saying: whoever is eager for oversight desires a good or honourable work. Moral qualities, not gifts, are the requisite; and also personal or relative circumstances of good report. Hence to be husband of one wife was sought as well as a character free from reproach. How many evangelists God has deigned to bless, who had once been shameless sinners in violence or in corruption! Not such could the overseer be. Again, if a man had more than one wife, he was (not to be then refused fellowship; for many a Jew or Gentile so situated might believe the gospel; but) ineligible to be a holy guardian of order according to God among the saints. Self-restraint and moderation and modesty or good order were sought in one set over the rest: else the appeal to others must be undermined by his own shortcomings. It was also of moment that active love should be proved in hospitality, as well as intelligence or aptitude to teach, if one were not necessarily a teacher. Yet sitting over wine, and the quarrelsome character it breeds, could not be tolerated for this work, but a gentle uncontentious spirit, free from the love of money, and used to rule well his household, with children subject in all gravity. For there too practical inconsistency would be fatal; and so much the more, as God's assembly needs far more care than one's own house.

Nor was it only that the bishop must be husband of one wife, deacons must be the same. Polygamy was thus being dealt a death-wound. No matter what might be the qualities and competency of a Christian, he could not even be a deacon if he had, like many in those days, more than one wife. This was strictly ruled for all who held office in the assembly, whatever might be the forbearance of grace whilst "the powers that be" tolerated things otherwise.

Further, like the bishops, deacons must rule their children and their houses well. It was not allowable in those that served even in outward things that disorder should reign among their children or in their households. The assembly of God is set in this world, till the Lord come, to manifest His will and to please Him.

The first thing to do is to confess the ruin of things and wait on the Lord; surely not to set about appointing deacons without qualification as set forth in the word, and without authority to appoint them. This would be to make the confusion worse, and to hide from the gathered saints the existing ruin. The great thing now for the saints to do is to abide strictly by the word, and to mark in their brethren the qualifications necessary for that place, and if there thankfully to own it. For instance, a deacon must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience; and such were first to be proved. So their wives must be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. The deacons were to be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their houses well. If the gathered brethren discover such qualifications in their brethren, they should cheerfully and thankfully commit the money affairs of the assembly to such; and they would become responsible for the special need of the poor saints in that locality.