Unmarried Husbands
Since English authorities define the word "husband" to be "a married man," the heading of this article may seem strange and ridiculous. And I have no doubt that it is all that it appears to be. It is a strict parallel with a statement Ben M. Bogard made in his last debate with me. He took the position that the church is not now married to Christ and will not be till Jesus comes again. His attention was called to one of his printed debates in which he claimed that the church became a widow when Jesus died.
I demanded that he tell us how the church could become a widow two thousand years before the ceremony was said. He replied that she was a "virgin widow." So "unmarried husbands" and "virgin widows" might well go hand in hand.
As absurd as the idea of "unmarried husbands" may be, it is just the idea that we must accept if we adopt the arguments and conclusions of some of our leading preachers today. This is evident in the positions taken relative to the qualifications of elders in the church of the Lord.
In 1 Tim. 3:2, while setting forth the qualification of elders or bishops, Paul said, "A bishop must be the husband of one wife." This definitely sets forth the marriage relationship as a qualification of the man who would be put into the "office of a bishop." But we are told that this forbids polygamy on the part of the bishop but it does not forbid celibacy. In other words, it teaches, according to this, that the elder must not have a plurality of wives but it does not teach that he must have one. And we are informed that while the Bible says "a bishop must be the husband of one wife," it does not say "a bishop must be married." Since the latter expression does not occur in the record, it is concluded that the former expression does not mean that. But be reminded of the fact that neither does the Bible say "a bishop must not be the husband of fifty wives." You can no more find this expression than you can find "a bishop must be married." Yet we are told that the Biblical expression means that. Well, that is not what it says, and if you rule one of the expressions out because it is not the exact wording of the passage, on the same basis the other must be ruled out. Of course, the expression, "the husband of one wife," teaches that he must not have a plurality of wives, but it just as definitely teaches that he must have one. It plainly says he must be a "husband." If any one can show me how a man can be a "husband" without being married, then I can begin to understand Mr. Bogard's contention that a woman can be a "widow" before the ceremony is said. I would just as soon contend for a "virgin widow" as to contend for an "unmarried husband."
The statements are sometimes put like this:
1. "A bishop must be the husband of one wife."
2. A bishop must be married.
Then it is claimed that the two statements are not parallel — that Paul did not mean that a bishop must be married. Hence, unmarried men may be appointed as overseers of the church of the Lord, according to this. And to give some support to the idea the statement of Paul in 1 Cor. 7:2 is often given. Here Paul said: "Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." This does not mean, we are told, "let everyman be married, and let every woman be married." Marriage is not a requirement of Christianity — one may be married or he may not be. So the statement is made to prove that they must not practice polygamy, but it does not mean they must be married. So the statement's are put this way:
1. Let every man have his own wife.
2. Let every man be married.
Or for the women it would be like this:
1. Let every woman have her own husband.
2. Let every woman be married.
Or since both men and women are mentioned we might group them like this:
1. Let every one have his own spouse.
2. Let every one be married.
It will be contended that the first sentence in each of these groups is true — that such is what the Bible says. But it is claimed that the second sentence of each group is not true — that Paul did not say any such thing. The fact is, however, that Paul did say it, and he said it in the same chapter that contains the first statement. Let us look at them by placing them together:
1 Cor. 7:2: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
1 Cor. 7:9: "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
Verse 2 refers to "avoiding fornication." Verse 9 mentions "containing" themselves, or exercising continence or self-control. Thus the same point is mentioned in both verses — they are talking about the same thing. Verse 2 says, "Let every man have his own Wife, and let every woman have her own husband." And verse 9 says, "Let them marry." So these are parallel in spite of all arguments to the contrary. To "avoid fornication" and to "contain" oneself are parallel statements — they have under consideration the same thing. And "Let every man have his own wife" and "Let every woman have her own husband" are identical with "Let them marry." The contention, therefore, that Paul tells them to "have their own wives" or to "have their own husbands" but does not tell them "to marry" is altogether false. Paul does not tell them to do the very thing that is denied by some preachers when he said, "Let them marry."
And the commandment to marry is bound upon every one to whom the language is applicable. Some men cannot "contain" themselves; they cannot exercise self-control so that they can "avoid fornication." To these the statement is addressed. Under such circumstances Paul tells every one of such to "have his own wife" — "let them marry." The language does not apply to those who can "contain" themselves and "avoid fornication." Just so is it with the statement in 1 Tim. 3:2. Every man who would become an elder is told to "be the husband of one wife" — he is told to be a married man. The language does not apply to others who are not to occupy "the office of a bishop." So the statements are parallel and the command "to marry" is contained in both 1 Cor. 7 and in 1 Tim. 8. I have definitely shown that the command in 1 Cor. 7 to "let every man have his own wife" and to "let every woman have her own husband" means to "let them marry." I have shown it by the language of the apostle Paul himself. Then why does not the commandment of 1 Tim. 3:2 to "be the husband of one wife" also mean to "be married"? There is no way around the conclusion. The fact still remains that an "unmarried man" cannot be a "husband."
Certainly men should not legislate where God has not legislated, but neither should men abolish the legislation that God has given.
It has been contended that: "1. The New Testament does not teach that an elder must be a married man. 2. The New Testament does not teach that an elder must have children. 3. The New Testament does not teach that the children of an elder must be faithful. 4. The New Testament does not teach that a recently baptized person cannot be an elder." We would just as well go on and abolish the rest of the qualifications. I would just as soon say: 1. The New Testament does not teach that an elder must be sober. 2. The New Testament does not teach that an elder must be given to hospitality. 3. The New Testament does not teach that an elder should be apt to teach. 4. The New Testament does not teach that an elder must be penitent. 5. The New Testament does not teach that an elder must not be given to much wine. And why stop anywhere? By the same bold assertions we could eliminate all the qualifications from the New Testament. The fact remains that the New Testament both says and teaches what is denied in the preceding statements. It would be a good idea for men to be content with New Testament requirements rather than to try to figure some way to eliminate them. I have never seen stronger efforts on the part of denominational preachers to get rid of baptism as a requirement necessary to salvation than brethren have made to get rid of the statement of Paul relative to elders. And the efforts on the part of one group is as scriptural as those on the part of the other. If you want me to believe that an elder is not to be a married man, then show me how an "unmarried man" can be a "husband." When that is done I can then show you that Bogard was right when he talked about "virgin widows."