[Editor’s note: The following exchange took place between Brother Boyer and a Catholic enthusiast. The arguments belong to the Catholic; Brother Boyer simply responds to them. Some edits were made—GWS].
Does the Catholic Church contradict the Bible with its practice of celibacy for Catholic bishops?
Catholic enthusiast’s first argument: Paul was a bishop and not married. We know he was a bishop because the Apostolic office is described with the Greek word episkope (Acts 1:20).
Connor: Was Paul a bishop? There is no doubt that Paul was an apostle. In fact, he often introduced himself at the beginning of his epistles as an apostle. He would refer to himself as such to demonstrate his authority: “Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (Titus 1:1). We know that Peter was both an apostle and elder because he said so, “I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1). But is there evidence to say that Paul was a bishop? Broussard says that they are one and the same, but did Paul treat these offices as one and the same? Paul, when he writes to the church at Ephesus, makes a clear distinction between the office of a bishop and that of an apostle: “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). In the first century, the term pastor was used interchangeably with the office of bishop or elder (see 1 Peter 5:1-4 [shepherd is the verb form of the noun pastor]. If the term apostle and bishop referred to the same office, why would Paul separate them distinctly in his list? Wouldn’t it have made sense and been easier to just say apostles or bishops? But Paul didn’t.
Though the offices are clearly seen as separate in Scripture, Broussard’s claim must be answered. The word episkope is used in reference to the office of the apostle, but it must be translated based on the context. Just as elder refers to an older man or an office, so episkope has more than one meaning. In Acts 1:20, Young’s Literal Translation says, “And his oversight let another take.” The very literal American Standard Version has: “His office let another take.” The vast majority of respectable translations simply translate it as “office.” And that’s what the word means in this context. It is referring to the work of an apostle, not a bishop (for which Paul gives qualifications in 1 Timothy 3).
It might surprise you to know that Greek words in the New Testament are like ours: some have one usual meaning, but others can convey different ideas, depending on the context, the gender, and the prefix or the suffix attached to the root word. The root here is episkopos. The word episkope is translated in four ways in the NASB—twice as “visitation,” once as “bishop,” and once as “office.”
To help prevent any potential confusion, think of some English words that sound the same, but vary in meaning depending on the context. For example, I might say, “I’ve been running,” and you would take this to mean I’ve gone for a jog, likely to exercise. However, I might say my refrigerator is running; this does not mean my refrigerator likes to jog with me, but that it is functioning properly. I might also say that my nose is running, which does not mean my nose likes to jog or that it is functioning properly. It actually means the opposite and likely indicates that I am experiencing a cold or, at the very least, allergies. However, you know what I mean, based on the context. The same applies to Greek words; the context determines the meaning.
Another issue with this argument is that the Catholic church does not apply this logic across the board. For example, some translations erroneously call Phoebe a deaconess instead of a servant (Rom. 16:1). Even if an inferior version were right, would that mean she holds the office of a deacon because the same root is used in both Greek words? This is the same logic Broussard uses to prove that Paul was a bishop. However, both the churches of Christ and the Roman Catholic church would agree that no office of a deaconess existed in the first century. The churches of Christ appeal to Scripture as evidence while Roman Catholics appeal to records concerning early councils.
Paul gives clear instructions concerning the office of a deacon, and in those qualifications he states that they must be men and also have wives (1 Tim. 3:8, 12). The church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church both understand that everyone is required to be a servant (deacon) of God, but only certain individuals can hold the office of a deacon. Just because a similar word was used with Phoebe that is also used with deacons does not mean Phoebe held the office of a deacon. Likewise, just because a similar word is used in connection with apostles and bishops does not mean they are of the same office—especially since Paul lists them as separate offices (Eph. 4:11).
Catholic enthusiast’s second argument: Denying Paul’s bishopric also denies that Jesus is the guardian of our soul, because the Greek here for guardian is episkopos (1 Peter 2:25). Jesus was and is still celibate, and yet he is still the episkopos of our souls.
Connor: This argument has no merit. The word translated “bishop” has virtually lost its meaning in today’s world and is often only referred to men of high rank in certain “high churches” such as the Catholic, Anglican, and Episcopal church. Of course, there is the chess piece that can only move diagonally. The Greek word, episkopos, simply means “overseer.” One can be an
overseer in various respects. It is wonderful that Jesus is the overseer of my soul; as God, I expect Him to be. Just because He is an overseer in a heavenly sense, does that mean he is an overseer in an earthly sense? This is what is called in logic the false equivalence fallacy.
Catholic enthusiast’s third argument: The husband of one wife does not mean the husband of a wife. This is simply a limit of how many marriages a bishop can have in his lifetime.
Connor: So, if a man is widowed, then he cannot marry again and be qualified to be a bishop? Marriage is for life, but death terminates a marriage. If he marries again, he is still the husband of one wife. Also, a divorce of one’s spouse is allowed if she commits fornication (Matt. 19:9). If a man had an unscriptural divorce and remarried (which is unscriptural), he cannot even be in fellowship with the church, let alone be a bishop. But he can be a bishop with a Scriptural divorce. His first marriage was terminated, and he now is the husband of one wife.
Broussard says that, if Paul was trying to say that a bishop must be married, he would have written “the husband of ‘a’ wife.” This is an odd argument; Paul wrote precisely what he meant. He never indicated that this is a suggestion and not a requirement. In fact, nothing else in this list is a suggestion. As Paul begins the list, he says, A bishop must be…” (1 Timothy 3:2). The Greek word for must is dei, meaning, “it is necessary.” Paul makes it clear that these qualifications are necessary.
If a bishop could or could not have a wife, how do we account for the fact that his children must be “in subjection in all reverence”—and that this is a test to see how he will manage the church of God (1 Tim. 3:4-5)? It should be obvious that a bishop must be married.
Catholic enthusiast’s fourth argument: Paul’s strong encouragement of celibacy equates to making the marriage of a bishop optional.
Connor: Paul does encourage celibacy—because of a present distress (1 Cor. 7:25-38). But at the same time he makes it clear that no one sins in marrying. He writes: “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2, ESV). Marriage is a healthy outlet for sexual desires; in fact, most men and women need this outlet. Marriage is the institution, designed by God, to express this aspect of our humanity (Gen. 2:24). Paul even condemns those in a marital relationship who deprive their spouses—except by consent—for a short time, in order to guard against temptation (1 Cor. 7:5).
Paul does say that if one has the gift (of not having a strong need for sexual fulfillment), he would experience certain spiritual benefits by remaining unmarried. They include surviving the “present distress,” in which things were going to be very difficult for married couples. This could be a warning against upcoming persecution or perhaps refer simply to the hostile environment at Corinth. We know that the Jews in Corinth were hostile to the Christians, attempting to use the government to interfere in their spiritual walk (Acts 18:12-17). Whatever the distress was, Paul said at that time it would be better to remain unmarried because one’s attention can be wholly given to God (1 Cor. 7:32-34). A Christian could suffer much when distress comes upon him; however, when it came upon his wife or kids, it could be truly difficult to endure. For this reason, Paul says it would be best that they remain single for the current time, but he makes it clear that this is not a command but a suggestion (1 Cor. 7:38).
But are there benefits to not being married at all—even if one is not in a distressing situation? Yes. Jesus also seems to indicate that remaining unmarried is difficult and rare. But He mentions that some “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God,” though not literally, but in the sense that they abstained from marriage (Matt. 19:11-12). This seems to have been something that Paul chose to do as a missionary. Paul moved from place to place all over the Roman empire in order to preach and teach; having a wife tag along would have been difficult, considering all the opposition he endured (stoning, imprisonment, et al.).
But does this have anything to do with bishops of the local church? No. Paul made it clear that not marrying was optional for single people. In reference to being a bishop, however, he chose the word dei (“it is necessary”) in reference to the qualifications for the office.
Can a Christian make a great missionary, preacher, or evangelist being celibate? Yes, of course. He can make himself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of God! But that is not the role of a bishop. One thing to consider is that in the first century bishops worked in cooperation with other bishops in that congregation. In fact, they were selected from the same congregation they oversaw (Acts 14:21-23). These bishops would not be traveling from place to place or have the same difficulties a missionary would.
The second and main thing to consider involves the benefits of having a wife and children. In 1 Timothy 3:1-7, three of these seven verses are concerned with him being married or having children, which seems to (1) demonstrate to the church he is eligible to be a bishop. As Paul writes, “but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?”
(2) Peter says that bishops must rule as examples (1 Peter 5:2). Would it not be important for bishops to lead the families in the church as to the way to be a proper husband and father?
Finally (3), would not the bishop be able to teach better, if he had the experience of being husband and father who had to raise children and be faithful to God? Why else would Paul emphasize bishops being married men with children in both letters to Titus and Timothy? Why else would Paul make it a necessary qualification?