“He still could have married her after becoming an apostle of Jesus. Not at all the celibacy requirement that the RCC has in place today.”
Is there any evidence of your contention that the Apostles were married after their ministries? I’ve heard this assertion before and the evidence just isn’t there.
It doesn’t matter. The qualifications do not specify as to when a person is married, it simply is IF the person is married, ie his house needs to be in good order, the children under control, etc. You are trying to make a condition that is not there. There is no explicit specification that they cannot marry after being recognized as a church leader. Given the context, that church leaders can be married, and there is no further clarification following as to WHEN it is permitted and when they no longer can marry, except to say “husband of one wife” - which God’s Word does choose to elaborate on - it’s clear from the context there is no “only before, not after” clause pertaining to when a church leader can get married. Scripture is clear they should be the husband of one wife and makes a point to say that. It does not take the extra step and say they only can marry before being a church leader.
Ambiguity is not God’s way, if there was such a prohibition of church leaders marrying AFTER, but NOT BEFORE, I believe that would have been made explicit, to avoid such confusion altogether.
The reason there are no clear examples of someone married after being a church leader is that for the SCripture as it is written, it doesn’t need such an example. It’s clear from teh Scripture itself you are reading in something that it doesn’t say.
“The reason there are no clear examples of someone married after being a church leader is that for the SCripture as it is written, it doesn’t need such an example.”
So, your assertion rests on the fact that there is NO evidence that any of the Apostles were married after they took up their ministry with Christ.
“It’s clear from teh Scripture itself you are reading in something that it doesn’t say.”
How so? There’s no evidence that they were married before their ministry. You are asserting that they were in fact married, despite the fact that Scripture is silent here. Can you not accept that if you rely on scripture only you have no means to justify yourself?
“The qualifications do not specify as to when a person is married, it simply is IF the person is married, ie his house needs to be in good order, the children under control, etc.”
Exactly. Thank you. I have been saying that since the beginning. I’m glad you’ve finally come around to my very first post in the thread. Just because Timothy says that a priest may already be a married man, doesn’t mean that marriage is a requirement.
“There is no explicit specification that they cannot marry after being recognized as a church leader.”
Timothy is talking about the eligibility of already-married men. Paul talks about how priests should be celibate. Why is Paul less authoritative in Corinthians than he is in Timothy?
“Ambiguity is not God’s way, if there was such a prohibition of church leaders marrying AFTER, but NOT BEFORE, I believe that would have been made explicit, to avoid such confusion altogether.”
I think Paul is very clear. “It is better for an unmarried man who can devote himself entirely to God”. But I guess you believe that is ambiguous?