One
Flesh: A Book About Divorce & Remarriage
Chapter 6
Husband of “One” Wife
The New Testament lists two offices for the
servant leadership of each local congregation, Elder and
Deacon. The books of First Timothy and Titus give
specific qualifications for men who are to shepherd
God’s people. The qualifications listed are
the minimum standards of what an elder or deacon
“must” be. All believing men should seek
after these character traits for their lives. Not
all will meet these standards and qualify for leadership.
Being disqualified from leadership does not mean a man
cannot carry on a fruitful ministry for the Lord. The
phrase “husband of one wife” has been the
subject of much discussion. Relevant Texts First Timothy 3:2 Greek Transliteration
Translation
Parsing einai
(einai)
“to be”
pres. inf. miav
(mias)
“of one”
gen. fem. sing. gunaikov (gunaikos)
“wife / woman”
gen. fem. sing. andra
(andra) “husband
/ man” acc. masc.
sing. First Timothy 3:12 Greek Transliteration
Translation
Parsing estwsan (estosan)
“they must be”
pres. act. imp. miav
(mias)
“of one”
gen. fem. sing. gunaikov (gunaikos)
“wife / woman”
gen. fem. sing. andrev (andres)
“husbands / men” nom.
masc. pl. Titus 1:6 Greek Transliteration
Translation
Parsing estin
(estin)
“he is”
pres. act. ind. miav (mias)
“of
one”
gen. fem. sing. gunaikov (gunaikos)
“wife /
woman”
gen. fem. sing. anhr
(aner)
“husband /
man” nom.
masc. sing. Related Texts First Timothy 5:9 Greek Transliteration
Translation
Parsing enov
(henos)
“of one”
gen. masc. sing. androv (andros)
“husband / man”
gen. masc. sing. gunh
(gune)
“wife / woman”
nom. fem. sing. The phrase “husband of one wife”
is “mias/3391 gunaikos/1135 andra/435”.
The literal Greek allows for either “of one wife a
husband” or “of one woman a man.” Smoothed
into modern English the phrase would be “husband of
one wife”. It could also be a combination of
the two such as “of one wife a man”. Some have attempted to translate it as
“one woman man” but this is not precise. The
numeral “one” (mias) is genitive as well
as feminine. Since it is genitive it should be
translated in the possessive sense. In an English
translation this normally requires the use of the word
“of”. Since it is feminine it modifies
the word “woman” or “wife”. In the three relevant texts the substantive man
is anarthrous, without the article. This is
pertinent as translations throughout the centuries have
consistently rendered this phrase as “the
husband of one wife” even though no article is
present. The absence of the article can mean that
the noun is indefinite but there are also considerable
examples in the New Testament where an anarthrous noun
should be translated as definite. Robertson writes: We have seen that the substantive may still
be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so.1 Examples of this in Paul’s letters
include First Timothy 5:9, (henos andros gune)
“the wife of one husband” and First
Thessalonians 2:13 (logon theou) “the
word of God.” Robertson expands on this: It would have been very easy if the absence
of the article in Greek always meant that the noun was
indefinite, but we have seen that this is not the case.
The anarthrous noun may per se be either definite
or indefinite.2 Dana and Mantey write: It is important to bear in mind that we
cannot determine the English translation by the presence
or the absence of the article in Greek. Sometimes
we should use the article in the English translation when
it is not used in the Greek, and sometimes the idiomatic
force of the Greek article may be best rendered by the
anarthrous noun in English.3 Greek grammar is only part of the equation
in translating and interpreting Scripture. The
other part of the equation is context. In
determining the view of the writer much of the time
contextual usage is a deciding factor. Context
plays a significant role in translating these three
relevant phrases. With few exceptions the phrase
has normally been translated “the husband of
one wife.” This is especially true when translations
are undertaken by a group or team of qualified Greek
scholars. The KJV, NKJV, RSV, NAS, and NIV all
uniformly translate these passages in First Timothy and
Titus as “the husband of one wife.” As far back as the 5th century
the Latin speaking church translated the phrase
“husband of one wife.” The Latin Vulgate
translates First Timothy 3:2: unius uxoris virum (of one wife a
man). First Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6 are
similarly translated. The Latin word for wife is uxor.
There are other Latin words such as femina, mulier,
and puella that the translators would have used if
they simply wanted to express the idea of a woman or
feminine gender. Those who wish to allow divorced and
remarried men to serve as elders usually resist the
translation “husband of one wife.” They
normally prefer the translation “one woman
man”. Many who prefer the translation
“one woman man” fail to admit that the Greek is
just as literally translated “husband of one
wife.” This is because the anarthrous
construction, absent the article, can mean that the
qualitative aspect of the noun rather than the strict
identity of the noun is emphasized. Dana and Mantey write: An object of thought may be conceived of
from two points of view: as to identity or quality.
To convey the first point of view the Greek uses the
article; for the second the anarthrous construction is
used. 4 Those who wish to allow divorced and
remarried men to serve as elders frequently claim that
the qualitative aspect of the noun emphasizes the current
state of the man not lusting after or flirting with other
women rather than the sin of a second marriage. In
response to this there is nothing inherent about the
anarthrous construction that would lead one to this
conclusion. In order for the quality of the man to
be true his actions must represent his identity. Dana and Mantey present examples of definite
anarthrous constructions which show the qualitative
aspect of the noun. They include Ephesians 5:9 (tekna
photos) “children of light” and First
Thessalonians 5:5 (huioi photos) “sons of
light.” Both phrases were penned by Paul.
In both of these citations the stress is placed upon the
quality of the noun but that which is stated about their
identity is nevertheless true.5 Blass, Debrunner, and Funk cite an example
of the qualitative genitive in First Timothy 5:9 (me
ellattos etos exekonta) “not less than sixty
years”.6 Here is a statement about the one
husband wife who must be at least sixty years old to
be placed on the list of widows. This is not a
generalization about her qualities but a substantive
statement of her minimum age. The use of a qualitative genitive in First
Timothy 3:2, 3:12 and Titus 1:6 in no way weakens
“the husband of one wife” translation. A
man’s qualities (the things about him) show the
distinctives of who he is. The text states that the
man who desires the position of elder or deacon must have
the distinctive quality of being mias gunaikos andra.
The translation “one woman man” is permissible
but the translation “husband of one wife” is
better. This has been the normative and preferred
translation of Greek scholars throughout much of church
history. In the English speaking world this is
shown by the overwhelming majority of Bible translations
which render the phrase in this manner. Wuest writes: The literal translation is, “a man of
one woman.” The words, when used of the
marriage relation come to mean, “a husband of one
wife.” The two nouns are without the definite
article, which construction emphasizes character or
nature.7 Although Wuest sees the use of the
qualitative genitive as an emphasis on character he does
not allow this passage to teach that a divorced and
remarried man may serve as an elder or a deacon. This is
shown in his translation as well as his exposition.
He quotes Alford, Vincent, and White in Expositors
to support his conclusion. None of these sources allow
divorced and remarried men to serve as elders. Wuest states: An interpretive translation offers the
rendering, “married only once.” We submit
that this is not the literal translation of the Greek
here, but in light of the above historical background, it
is the interpretation of the words, and gives the English
reader in unmistakably clear language, the true meaning
of the words in the A.V., “the husband of one
wife”...Since character is emphasized by the Greek
construction, the bishop should be a man who loves only
one woman as his wife.8 Men have come up with five different
interpretations of what “mias gunaikos andra”
in First Timothy and Titus may mean: 1. Elders or Deacons must be
married. 2. A remarried widower cannot
serve as an Elder or Deacon. 3. A Polygamist cannot serve as
an Elder or Deacon. 4. Divorced and remarried men
cannot serve as Elders or Deacons. 5. An Elder or Deacon must be
faithful to one woman at a time. These interpretations are not necessarily
either/or selections. More than one may be included
in the final biblical conclusion. The use of the
word aner (man) rather than the word anthropos precludes
women (gune) from serving as elders or deacons. 1. Elders or Deacons must be married. This is a doubtful interpretation. The
verse states that the man must be the husband of
“one” wife not “a” wife. The
adjective “one” (mias) is in the
emphatic position. This means that the emphasis is
placed on the number of wives a man is allowed to have,
not that he must be married. If Paul wanted to
teach that an elder or deacon must be the “husband
of a wife” he could have easily expressed himself by
the omission of “one” (mias). Paul is
listing sins or character flaws in a man’s life that
would disqualify him from leadership. Jesus taught
that remarriage after divorce was adultery (Luke 16:18).
Neither being married once nor remaining single is a sin
(1 Cor. 7:7, 28). Paul claimed that the single life
allows a fuller devotion to the Lord (1 Cor. 7:32).
He taught that virgins were free to marry (1 Cor.
7:35-36). Mounce lists other counter arguments as
well: (b) Paul and
Timothy would not be eligible to be overseers; (c) it
runs counter to Paul’s teaching that being single is
a better state for church workers (if they have the gift;
1 Cor. 7:17, 25-38); (d) this line of reasoning, to be
consistent, would have to argue that the overseer is
required to have more than one child since tekna
“children” (v 4) is plural; and (e) most adult
men were married so it would have been a moot point.9 Chrysostom writes: A Bishop then
he says “must be blameless the husband of one
wife.” This he does not lay down as a rule,
as if he must not be without one.10 2. A remarried widower cannot serve as an
Elder or Deacon. This view was held by some second and third
century commentators. It is improbable that this
was what Paul was saying. Paul not only permitted but
encouraged younger widows to remarry (I Cor. 7:39-40; I
Tim. 5:14). If widows were allowed to remarry it
would seem probable that a widower would be allowed to do
the same. In the centuries following the apostolic
age, remarriage after the death of one’s spouse was
seen as a weakness but not a sin. The argument that a
second marriage is a sign of spiritual weakness on the
part of the elder or deacon could just as well be applied
to the first marriage. The Bible teaches that only death dissolves
the one-flesh marriage bond, thus freeing the living
spouse to remarry without sinning (1 Cor. 7:39-40; Rom.
7:2-3). The context of First Timothy and Titus
deals with sins that would disqualify a man from
leadership. Nowhere in Scripture is remarriage
after the death of one’s wife portrayed as forbidden
or even morally questionable. Mounce writes: The later reference (applied to
“younger widows”) is in the context of
Paul’s instructions to widows where earlier Paul
says that a widow may be enrolled if she has been enos
andros gune, “one-man woman” (1 Tim. 5:9),
the exact phrase applied to overseers and deacons but
reversed in gender. Because the phrases are so
unusual, we expect them to have the same meaning. It
seems doubtful that Paul would encourage the remarriage
of “younger widows” if this is meant that they
could never later be enrolled if they were again widowed.12 The no remarriage for widowers view was held
by some 2nd and 3rd century
commentators. In the centuries following the apostolic
age remarriage after the death of one’s spouse was
seen as a weakness but not a sin. The Shepherd of Hermas reads: “If a wife or husband dies, and the
widower or widow marries, does he or she commit
sin?” “There is no sin in marrying
again,” said he; “but if they remain unmarried,
they gain great honor and glory with the Lord; but if
they marry, they do not sin.”13 Tertullian (a Montanist)
writes: If it be granted that the second marriage is
lawful, yet all things lawful are not expedient.14 Cyril of Jerusalem states: But folk may be pardoned for contracting a
second marriage, lest infirmity end in fornication.15 The context of this statement shows that
Cyril was speaking of remarried widows and widowers not
divorce and remarriage. Chrysostom writes: But why does he discourage second marriages?
Is the thing condemned? By no means, that is heretical.
Only he would have her henceforth occupied in spiritual
things, transferring all her care to virtue. For
marriage is not an impure state, but one of much
occupation.16 Montanists forbade second marriages as an
article of faith. The “Apostolic
Constitutions” allowed a man who was already married
to be ordained, but if he was single when he was
ordained, he must remain so all his life. It should be
noted that not all commentators held that remarriage
after the death of a man’s wife would disqualify him
from church leadership. Theodoret of Mopsuestia mentions
contemporary commentators who allow remarried widowers to
be elders and deacons: They say (i.e.
various interpreters). . . Like wise any man who lives on
after the death of his first wife may legitimately take a
second wife, as long as he lives in the same way with her
as with the first, and ought not be prohibited from
becoming a bishop.17 Some claim that it was purely the ascetic
tendencies of these early Christians that led them to
teach that remarried widowers cannot serve as elders or
deacons. The motive behind this is often an attempt
to discredit other early church teachings regarding the
permanence of marriage. The early church writers
had a virtual consensus in teaching that divorced and
remarried men could not serve as elders or deacons. They
made a distinction between the weakness of remarriage
after the death of a spouse and the sin of remarriage
after the divorce of a spouse. Modern expositors
who wish to allow divorced and remarried men to serve as
elders normally down play this historical fact by
claiming that both conclusions were merely based
upon the ascetic tendencies of the early church. In
response to this it should be noted that there are still
scholars today who believe that the “one wife”
statement prohibits remarried widowers from serving as
elders and deacons. These modern conclusions can
hardly be explained away as the result of ascetic
cultural influences. 3. A polygamist cannot serve as an Elder
or Deacon. Some modern commentators teach that the
“husband of one wife” statement applies only to
polygamists. A man can have as many wives as he
wants but only one at a time. He is allowed to
divorce and remarry, numerous times, as long as he
legally has only one wife at a time. They believe
that the main modern day application refers to
missionaries who go to a people who practice polygamy.
When a man turns to Christ he must cease practicing
polygamy if he desires to serve as an elder or deacon.
This may be one possible application but it is a doubtful
interpretation. The New Testament expects all
believers to refrain from polygamy once they turn to
Christ. It is doubtful that only those believers
who sought positions of oversight would need to abstain
from polygamy. It is highly unlikely that
Paul’s original intent was to deal with converted
polygamists. There is no hint in the New Testament
that this was a problem that burdened the early church.
Homer Kent writes: Polygamy at this time was forbidden in the
empire, although some of the Jews were known to have
practiced it, and even many Romans found ways to
circumvent the law. There is no evidence from these
days that any polygamist entered the church. Hence
it is hardly to be expected that a special prohibition
was needed to exclude them from overseer, since there was
probably none in the membership.18 Mounce writes: Even if polygamy existed among the Jews,
evidence is lacking that it was practiced by Christians,
and therefore “Christian polygamy” most likely
is not in view.19 Correct rules can help determine the meaning
of Scripture: 1. Interpret in a plain and normal
grammatical sense. 2. Interpret obscure passages in light of
the clear. 3. Interpret historically and contextually. 4. Cross reference words and phrases with
others in the same book or by the same author. Was Paul dealing with polygamists who were
candidates to be elders or deacons? Alford writes: But the objection to taking this meaning is
that the Apostle would hardly have specified that as a
requisite for the episcopate or presbyterate, which we
know to have been fulfilled by all the Christians
whatever: no instance being adduced of polygamy being
practiced in the Christian church, and no exhortations to
abstain from it.20 Justin Martyr tells us that in the
second century A.D. some Jews still practiced polygamy
but he gives no mention that the practice occurred among
Gentiles. The historian Will Durant tells us that
polygamy was prohibited by Roman law. The lex
Antoniana de civitate prohibited polygamy among
Gentiles but made an exception for Jews. Theodosius
enforced monogamy on the Jews (circa A. D. 390)
because of their continued practice of polygamy. It
is known that some Jews in the East continued to practice
polygamy until the establishment of Israel in 1948. In speaking of his Jewish ancestry Josephus
states: For it is the ancient practice among
us to have many wives at the same time.21 Greeks and Romans practiced adultery,
fornication, homosexuality, concubinage, as well as
divorce and remarriage. If
polygamy existed among gentiles it was neither lawful nor
common. Paul wrote the epistles to Timothy and Titus in
Ephesus and Crete. These were predominantly Gentile
Roman communities. These Ephesians and Cretans were
excluded from the common wealth of Israel (Eph. 2:12).
It seems improbable that they would be involved in the
mainly Jewish practice of polygamy. There is no
evidence that they practiced polygamy. They did
practice divorce and remarriage. It seems more
probable that Paul would deal with something that was a
problem, divorce and remarriage, rather than something
that was not, polygamy. It is also possible that
multiple marriages were seen as a form of polygamy. Oepke writes: No laws existed against bigamy but monogamy
ruled in practice. . . divorce was common either by
consent, by declaration before a judge or third party, or
by unilateral action of the husband. Repeated divorces
constituted a form of polygamy.22 4. Divorced and remarried men cannot
serve as elders or deacons. This seems to be included in Paul’s
prohibition. Since this is a difficult passage, it
would be wise to cross reference it with similar words or
phrases made in the same book. In First Timothy
5:9, Paul gives instructions on who may be placed on the
list of widows to receive financial support. He
states that qualified widows must have been the
“wife of one husband”. The original
phrase is “henos/1520 andros/435 gune/1135”.
This is the same phrase, exactly reversed, as in First
Timothy 3:2, 3:12; and Titus 1:6. The words “andros”
and “gune” have the same lexical
roots as “andra” and “gunaikos”
in First Timothy 3. The only variation is that
“henos” is genitive masculine while
“mias” is genitive feminine. Both
words should be translated “of one”. Tertullian writes: When he suffers not men twice married to
preside (over a church), when he would not grant a widow
into the order unless she had been “the wife of one
man”.23 William Mounce writes: Since the phrase is somewhat unusual, it is
safe to insist that it had the same meaning in reverse
when applied to widows (1 Tim. 5:9) and there is no
evidence of polyandry.24 Robertson writes: The wife of one man (henos andros gune).
Widows on this list must not be married a second time.25 Since “wife of one husband”
excludes women who had divorced and remarried,
“husband of one wife” would exclude men who had
divorced and remarried. It is doubtful that Paul
was excluding women who had previously been widowed and
remarried. Remarriage after the death of
one’s husband was not considered a sin. Paul
actually encourages younger widows to remarry (I Tim.
5:14). It is improbable that Paul was dealing with
polyandry, being legally married to more than one husband
at a time. There is no record that this was practiced by
women in New Testament times. Some claim the use of present tense
Greek verbs in First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 allows
divorced and remarried men to be placed in leadership.
The present tense is primarily used to show the
idea of progress. It is generally, though not
exclusively, a durative tense. It is used in First
Timothy 3 and Titus 1 when giving the necessary
qualifications for those who desire to be in leadership.
It is erroneous to believe the use of the present
tense allows divorced and remarried men to be elders or
deacons. The interpretation of First Timothy 3 and
Titus 1 does not hinge on the use of present tense
verbs. Rather, it hinges on the permanence of
marriage. The marriage bond is not dissolved by
adultery, divorce, or any other thing short of death.
The man who divorces and remarries, is actually taking a
second wife. He is the husband of more than
one wife. Athenagoras writes: That a person should either remain as
he was born or be content with one marriage; for a second
marriage is only a specious adultery. “For
whoever puts away his wife,” says He, “and
marries another, commits adultery.”26 Justin Martyr writes: Whosoever marry her that is divorced from
another husband, commits adultery. . . So that all who by
human law, are twice married, are in the eyes of our
Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust
after her.27 Origen writes: But as a woman is an adulteress, even though
she seem to be married to a man, while the former husband
is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her
who has been put away does not so much marry her as
commit adultery with her according to the declaration of
our Savior.28 Augustine writes: Seeing that the compact of marriage is not
done away with by divorce intervening; so that they
continue as wedded persons one to another, even after
separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom
they shall be joined, even after their own divorce,
whether the woman with the man, or the man with the
woman.29 Stauffer writes: Dissolution may take place but not a new
marriage, for the replacement of one spouse by another is
adultery and affects the original union.30 Some allow a man who was divorced and
remarried, before he came to Christ, to be an elder or
deacon. It is assumed that God’s forgiveness
clears the slate for the man to be in leadership. It
is true that God forgives all sin and releases each
believer from guilt and eternal punishment. There
are consequences for sin in this life. If pressed
to its logical conclusion, then all divorced men, who
confess their sin of divorce and remarriage, may become
elders or deacons. It would not matter whether it
happened before or after conversion. An elder could
divorce his wife and remarry. He could ask
forgiveness and be reinstated to leadership. He
could then divorce and start the cycle all over again. Augustine has this to say: On this account the Sacrament of marriage of
our time hath been so reduced to one man and one wife, as
that it is not lawful to ordain any as a steward of the
Church, save the husband of one wife. And this they
have understood more acutely who have been of opinion,
that neither is he to be ordained, who as a catechumen or
as a heathen had a second wife.31 Augustine claimed that the man who had been
married a second time was not allowed to be an Elder in
the church. Augustine made no distinction whether the man
was a catechumen or a heathen (i.e. before he was
saved or after he was saved). Chrysostom writes: “A Bishop then,” he says,
“must be blameless, the husband of one wife.”
This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be
without one. But as prohibiting his having more
than one. For even the Jews were allowed to
contract second marriages, and even to have two wives at
one time.32 Chrysostom knew that Jews not only practiced
polygamy, but also divorced and remarried. Both
actions would mean a man had more than one wife. Both
would disqualify a man from leadership. Ambrose writes: And the Apostle has established a law,
saying: “If any man be without reproach the husband
of one wife”. . . ; he, however, who has married
again has no guilt of pollution, but is disqualified for
the priestly prerogative. . . But we must first notice
that not only has the Apostle laid down this rule
concerning the bishop or priest, but that the Fathers in
the Nicene Council added that no one who has contracted a
second marriage ought to be admitted among the clergy at
all.33 Ambrose takes the idea of clergy farther
than the New Testament allows. Nevertheless the consensus
opinion of the early church regarding leadership and
those who have contracted second marriages is represented
here. The context of Ambrose’ statement refers
mostly to widowers remarrying but is also forbids those
who are married a second time because of divorce. Adam Clarke writes: He must be the husband of one wife. He
should be a married man, but he should be no polygamist;
and have only one wife. . . The apostle’s meaning
appears to be this: that he should not be a man who has
divorced his wife and married another; nor one that has
two wives at a time.34 The following is a further list of quotes of
those who believe that Paul excludes those who are
divorced and remarried from serving as elders and deacons
by the phrase “husband of one wife”. Basil: The canon absolutely excludes digamists from
the ministry.35 The context of this letter deals with
divorce and remarriage not the remarriage of widowers. The Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament reads: The qualification “wife of one
husband” may refer to non-remarriage after the death
of the spouse, but in view of the right to such
remarriage in Rom. 7:1ff., the commendation of it for
younger widows (1 Tim. 5:14), and the general approval of
married clergy (1 Tim. 3), it seems more likely that the
reference is to remarriage after divorce (as in 1 Tim.
3:2, 12).36 Derickson writes: He (Jesus) seems to leave the
impression that those that remarry are involved in
adultery. Since adultery is intimate relations
outside of the bounds of marriage it would seem to be a
continuing thing. It does not seem logical that a
church would want a man in the position of elder, which
was in continuing adultery.37 Matthew Henry: First Timothy 3:2 - He must be the husband
of one wife; not having given a bill of divorce to one,
and then taken another, or not having many wives at once.
First Timothy 3:12 - As he said before of the bishops of
ministers so here of the deacons, they must be the
husband of one wife, such had not put away their wives,
upon dislike, and married others. Titus 1:6 - The husband of one wife may be
either not having divorced his wife and married another
(as was too common among those of the circumcision, even
for slight causes) or the husband of one wife, that is,
one and the same time no bigamist.38 John Wesley: But whereas polygamy and divorce on slight
occasions were common both among Jews and heathen, it
teaches us that ministers, ought to stand clear of those
sins.39 John Gill: Only if he marries or is married, that he
should have but one wife at a time; so that this rule
excludes all such persons from being elders, or pastors,
or overseers of the churches, that were
“polygamists”; who had more wives than one at a
time, or had divorced their wives, and not for adultery,
and had married others.40 Adam Clarke: The apostle’s meaning appears to be
this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his
wife and married another; nor one that has two wives at a
time.41 Newport White: What is here forbidden is digamy under
any circumstances. This view is supported (a) by
the general drift of the qualities required here in a
bishop; (b) by the corresponding requirement in a church
widow, v. 9, and (c) by the practice of the early
church (Apostolic Constitutions, vi. 17; Apostolic Canons
16 (17); Tertullian, ad Uxorem, I. 7: de
Monogam. 12; de Exhort. Castitatis, cc.
7, 13: Athenagoras, Legat. 33; Origen, in Lucam,
xvii. P. 953, and the Canons of the councils, e.g.,
Neocaesarea (A.D. 314) can. 7. Quinisext. Can. 3).42 Marvin Vincent (Word Studies in the New
Testament): The husband of one wife. Compare verse
12; Titus 1:6. Is the injunction aimed (a) at
immoralities respecting marriage - concubinage, etc., or
(b) at polygamy, or (c) at remarriage after death or
divorce? The last is probably meant.43 Homer Kent: Consequently, when men were to be considered
for this high office, there must be no record of divorce
or other marital infidelity in the candidate, even before
his conversion. The same marital standard was true
of the enrolled widow as of the overseer (3:2) and the
deacon (3:12). There must have been no divorce,
polyandry, or other marital adulteration.44 Charles Ryrie: Clearly this is not a prohibition
against bigamy or polygamy since these were not practiced
among the Greeks and Romans. They had multiple
women in their lives, but only one wife. It is a
question of whether Paul is prohibiting digamy (being
married twice legally). Personally I see the
evidence as proscribing digamy for an elder.45 Paul Enns: Husband of one wife: it does not mean
“one at a time” (polygamy was unknown among
Greeks and Romans); he has not been divorced and
remarried.46 Those who assume that God would not require
such high standards for leadership should read the Old
Testament. In Leviticus 21:7 the sons of Aaron, the
priests, were not to marry a harlot or a divorced woman.
In Leviticus 21:13-15 the high priest was not to marry a
harlot, a widow, or a divorced woman. He must marry
a virgin. It is admitted that believers today are
not regulated by the Levitical law. It is also
acknowledged that the passage does not restrict divorced
men from serving as priests, but rather those who had
married a divorced woman. Nevertheless, those who
assume that God wouldn’t disqualify a divorced
person from spiritual leadership may be assuming too
much. What if a man is not himself divorced but
marries a divorced woman? There are qualifications
mentioned in First Timothy and Titus which cover this.
The elder is to be blameless. Would an elder who
has committed adultery by remarrying a divorced woman be
considered blameless? He may be forgiven, but is he
blameless? There is a difference! What if a man was divorced but has not
remarried? “Blameless” includes anything
in a man’s past or present that would bring his
character into question. The elder must be one who
“rules” his house well. If he cannot
govern his own house, he cannot govern the church of God.
Even if his wife was the ‘guilty’ party,
Scripture states that the wives of leaders must be
faithful. The wife of an elder can make or break
his ministry. An elder must also have his children
in subjection. If a man’s children do not live
with him because of divorce, how can he claim they are in
subjection to him? Answers to Objections of the no divorce
and remarriage view. Objection - Paul could have used different
Greek words to literally state an elder or deacon must
not be “divorced and remarried.” Answer - The phrase “husband of one
wife” is broader than the proscription of men who
were divorced and remarried, yet still includes it.
Paul did not use the precise words “not a
polygamous.” Yet, all agree that the “husband
of one wife” phrase would exclude polygamy. He
also did not utilize the precise words to forbid
“adulterers,” “fornicators,” or
“practitioners of concubinage” to serve as
elders. The same thing could be said about
“homosexuals.” The phrase “husband of one
wife” prohibits all these sins as well as divorce
and remarriage. Objection - The use of the present tense
verb stresses the general qualities of the man and what
he currently must be. These qualities are unrelated
to sins that he may have committed in the past. Answer - If the “present tense”
objectors were logically consistent then the use of the
present tense verb would only apply to those sins that an
elder or deacon is presently committing. The
“husband of one wife” phrase is unqualified by
any particular past tense time limitation. One would be
inconsistent if he disqualified a man who divorced and
remarried yesterday while allowing a man to serve who
divorced and remarried five years ago. The problem with this objection is further
shown by the variations of it. Some claim that
these qualifications have no relationship to a man’s
sins before he became a Christian. Some claim that
these qualifications do not apply to a man’s sins
after he was saved but before he became an elder. Others
claim an elder or deacon would only be disqualified if he
divorced and remarried after obtaining office in the
local church. The claim is made that God’s
forgiveness cancels past sins so that a man may hold the
office of elder or deacon. If this is true then
only those men who are currently practicing these sins
would be disqualified. To be completely logical and
consistent a man who is an elder or deacon could divorce
his wife and remarry. He could then claim
God’s forgiveness and be reinstated to a position of
leadership. A uniform application of this
“present tense” teaching would mean that an
elder or deacon could divorce and remarry numerous times
and continue to be reinstated after each divorce. In some modern evangelical churches a man
who has only one divorce and remarriage may be allowed to
serve while those who have more than one divorce and
remarriage are not. This shows the fallacy of the
position. If qualification for leadership is based
only on the “present tense” then men who have
multiple marriages, even after they become Christians,
would be qualified to serve as elders and deacons. The
truth is that one divorce and remarriage, whenever it
occurred, disqualifies the man from church oversight.
This is because the man who divorces and remarries
actually has two wives. This is true whether the divorce
and remarriage occurred before or after the man was
saved. Being born again does not change one’s
marital status. When a man and a woman are married they
become ‘one flesh’. They are united by a
bond that can only be broken by death. Romans 7 and
First Corinthians 7 teach that the wife is bound to her
husband as long as he lives. Matthew 5, Luke 16,
and Mark 10 teach that divorce and remarriage is equal to
adultery. When a man divorces his wife the court
may claim that they are no longer married but the Bible
teaches that they remain ‘one flesh’ (Matt.
19:6). In Mark 6:17-18 Herodias remarried Herod yet
the Bible claims that Herodias was still the wife of
Philip even though her remarriage was legal according to
Roman law. The phrase “husband of one
wife” can only allow for divorce and remarriage if
all divorces have the exact same effect as death. Objection - The no divorce and remarriage
position is the only qualification that is related to a
man’s past. Answer - This is a further variation of the
“present tense” objection. There are other
things in the leadership qualifications of First Timothy
and Titus that take into account a man’s past.
Being blameless (1 Tim. 3:2) and having a good reputation
(1 Tim. 3:7) are the result of years of honest dealing
and integrity. The “present tense”
advocates often fail to take this into account when they
claim that today (the present) is all that
matters. A dishonest man may need to make
restitution for sins that he committed years earlier.
Simply claiming that these sins occurred before a man was
saved would not mean that he had a good reputation with
those outside the church. Managing one’s
household (1 Tim. 3:4) and having faithful children (Tit.
1:6) is the culmination of years of labor. The failure of
a man to manage his household disqualifies him from
leadership. Derickson writes: A man that has been divorced has not had a
properly functioning family and is not eligible.47 It is the past actions of the man that presently
affects his situation. The past actions of a man who
remarries after divorce makes him presently be the
husband of more than one wife. The past
actions of the man who divorces his wife presently
disqualifies him from leadership. Divorces normally occur because a man has
not managed his household well. Marriage is one of
the most probing tests of a man’s character and
beliefs. Divorce often (but not always) reveals
hidden character traits that would further disqualify a
man from oversight. Even though the man may not
have initiated the divorce it may show that he is
unloving, unforgiving, self-willed, harsh, or quick
tempered. Objection - The “one woman man”
interpretation emphasizes the positive aspect of this
qualification. First Timothy 3:2 contains only
positive statements about a man’s character. The
use of the negative (not) is reserved for other verses.
This is the reason that the “husband of one
wife” phrase cannot mean “not divorced and
remarried.” Answer - The idea that the qualifying verses
of First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are conveniently broken up
into positives and negatives is mistaken. The verse
numbers are not part of the inspired text. The
reasons why Paul was led by the Holy Spirit to use
certain negative terms and order the qualifications in
this manner are not stated. First Timothy 3:2 begins with seven
so-called positives (defined by the absence of
“not” (mh) followed by three so-called
negatives (defined by the use of “not” (mh).
Next comes one positive “gentle,” followed by a
true negative “not” (mh) and then
somewhat of a negative “no lover of money”.
“Not” (mh) is not used but the word
itself begins the negation “a”). Verse 4
contains two positive statements. Verse 5 is a
rhetorical question qualified by a negative
“not” (ouk). Verse 6 contains two
negatives “not” (mh). Verse 7
contains a positive and a negative. The rest of
First Timothy 3:8-13 (qualifications for deacons) and
Titus 1:6-9 (qualifications for elders) is interwoven in
similar fashion. There is no clear pattern of
positives and negatives. Simply because qualifications are stated in
either a positive or negative manner does not mean that
they cannot have opposite implications. A
“blameless” man could be interpreted as “not
open to blame.” A “self-controlled”
man could be interpreted as “not out of
control.” Conversely, a man who is “not
violent” and “not quick tempered”
could be said to be “gentle” or
“patient.” A man who is “not
a lover of money” could be interpreted as
“content.” When this same interpretive
principle is applied to the “one wife” phrase
the outcome is much the same. Those who wish to allow divorced and
remarried men to serve as elders and deacons often use
terms such as “not a polygamist,” “not
an adulterer,” “not flirtatious,”
“not promiscuous,” “not
lustful” as well as other negative phrases. One
wonders how they get such negative terminology from such
a positive phrase? In First Timothy 5:9 the phrase “wife
of one man” is positive but still contains negative
interpretive implications. The woman who may be
enrolled on the list of widows could not have been
divorced and remarried. She could not have
had two husbands. She also could not be
under sixty years old. Objection- All who are allowed into
membership should be allowed into leadership. Answer - The intent of the lists in Timothy
and Titus is to exclude the unqualified. The phrase
“one woman man” must exclude women. It
would certainly exclude polygamists. The phrase
“not a new convert” discriminates against new
believers. The phrase “able to teach”
discriminates against those who are unable to teach.
There may be a debate as to the degree of standards but
the qualifications are still excluding standards. The
lists present specific qualifications of men not merely
general qualities. Calvin writes: To sum up, only those are to be chosen who
are of sound doctrine and of holy life, not notorious in
any fault which might both deprive them of authority and
disgrace the ministry (1 Tim. 3:2-3; Titus 1:7-8).48 In the Old Testament God had higher marital
standards for priests and Levites. The sons of
Aaron were not to marry a harlot or a divorced woman
(Lev. 21:7). The High priest was not to marry a
harlot, divorced woman, or even a widow. He must
marry a virgin (Lev. 21:13-15). It is admitted that
these standards are not totally analogous with those of
elders and deacons but the comparison is made to show
that God does require higher standards for those in
leadership than for those in the general congregation.
Objection - God Forgives. Answer - This view could also be called the
“it’s not fair” interpretation. Since
God forgives past sins it is not fair to limit
those who may serve in oversight. Eldon Glasscock writes concerning the
candidate for leadership: If God has forgiven him and made him part of
the church, why do Christians hold the past against him.49 Glasscock appears to misunderstand the
nature of the qualifications for elders and deacons.
The qualifications for leadership are given by
inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16). It is God
who decides who is qualified to shepherd His church.
Upholding God’s word is not holding a man’s
past against him. One purpose of this list of
qualifications is to exclude certain individuals from
leadership. Simply because one has his sins
forgiven does not mean that he qualifies for a position
of leadership. This would mean that all believing
men would qualify for leadership because God is always in
the continual process of forgiving. At conversion God forgives all sins past,
present, and future because of the work of His Son.
The spiritual death penalty is taken away. This
does not mean that there are no temporal consequences for
sin in this life. A man’s alimony payments to
his divorced spouse do not cease because he is born
again. The familial divisions and relational
repercussions that occur because of a divorce may last a
life time. Proponents of this position most often
defend a divorce and remarriage that took place before
conversion. This is a theologically inconsistent
position. A repentant Christian who divorces and
remarries is just as forgiven as the non-Christian who
divorces and remarries and is later converted. If
taken to its logical conclusion an elder who divorces and
remarries and then repents is just as forgiven as any
other believer. The end result of the “God
forgives” position is that any man who divorces and
remarries at any stage of his Christian life may serve as
an elder. The issue is not whether God forgives
divorce and remarriage (He does) or whether divorced
and remarried persons can serve God (they can). The
real issue is whether a man meets the qualifications for
leadership. 5. An Elder or Deacon must be
faithful to one woman at a time. Most modern proponents of this view follow
the teaching of Eldon Glasscock (“‘The Husband
of One Wife’ Requirements in 1 Timothy 3:2,” Bib
Sac 140 [1983]:255). Mr. Glasscock teaches that
divorced and remarried persons may serve as elders and
deacons as long as they are only legally married to one
woman at a time. Advocates of this position normally favor
the expression “one woman kind of man.” It
is claimed that the elder or deacon must not be
flirtatious, promiscuous, or involved in questionable
relationships with other women. This is often done
with little or no consideration of the number of past
marriages of the prospective candidate. It is true
that an elder or deacon must not be involved in sinful or
questionable relationships. It is not true that
this nullifies the God given decree that an elder or
deacon must have a life long monogamous commitment to
only one woman as his wife. Proponents of this view normally depreciate
the “husband of one wife” translation and
prefer the translation “one woman man.” The
“one woman at a time” position has several
weaknesses and virtually no historical proponents. If
consistently applied there would be no limit on how many
times a man could divorce and remarry. The only
thing that would matter is that he is legally married to
only one woman at a time. The most common modern
application of this teaching is that a man can divorce
and remarry one time and still be an elder or deacon but
any further marriages are perceived as suspect. While most defenders of this view would
prohibit a polygamist from leadership they have little or
no problem in allowing a digamist (one who divorces and
remarries). They claim that a man must be faithful to his
current wife but fail to see that divorce and remarriage
is actually a form of unfaithfulness to his past wife.
Furthermore, they do not appear to understand that a
divorced and remarried elder may ultimately encourage
others to be unfaithful. The “one woman man” interpretation
appears to be unknown before the 20th century.
In the past, some have interpreted the phrase as meaning
that an elder must be “faithful to his wife”
but the addition of the idea of “one at a time”
is more than the grammar allows. While neither the
newness nor the antiquity of a position is proof of its
orthodoxy, the motivation behind this position is
certainly suspect. The acceptance of this
interpretation appears to be driven by the declining
moral status of the evangelical church. As divorce
and remarriage have become accepted in the church the
acceptance of divorced and remarried men as leaders has
also risen. Derickson writes: This is a recent addition to the menu
of excuses to skirt Scripture and allow people the
freedom to do as they please rather than as the Lord
directs.50 Most of the defenses of the “one
wife at a time” view are actually objections to the
no divorce and remarriage view. They have been
dealt with in previous chapters. Conclusion
The lists in First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are
given by God as the minimum requirements of what an elder
or deacon must be. In some respects they
both limit and exclude certain men from serving as elders
and deacons. The emphasis of the “of one wife
husband” phrase is on the word “one.”
This demands that the man who desires oversight remain
faithful to one woman throughout his life. A man who is
faithful to one wife will not divorce her and marry
another. The man who divorces his wife and
remarries another is no longer the “husband of one
wife.” This is true even if the divorce and
remarriage occurred before his conversion. In the
truest biblical sense he is not a “one woman
man.” God has high qualifications for elders and
deacons. Those who are in leadership are to have
impeccable character. The phrase “husband of
one wife” prohibits polygamists, adulterers,
fornicators, and homosexuals from taking part in local
church leadership. It prohibits men who are given over to
lust of other women. It would also prohibit men who
have committed adultery by divorcing and remarrying.
Those who claim an exception, if the divorce and
remarriage happened before conversion, need to put forth
exegetical proof. The “husband of one wife” phrase
is not one of interpretive exclusivity it is one of
interpretive inclusiveness. The prohibition of
divorced and remarried men serving as elders and deacons
has been held by a majority of Greek exegetes and
expositors throughout church history. Although not
the only verdict, the prohibition of divorced and
remarried men serving as elders and deacons has normally
been part of their conclusion. Most commentators
have included it as one of the things that would
disqualify a man from being a “one wife man.”
The list normally includes polygamy, concubinage,
adultery, fornication, as well as digamy (divorce and
remarriage). All of these sins would be excluded by
the “husband of one wife” phrase. There
are also scholars who would exclude a widower who
remarried from serving as an elder or deacon. The recent rise in the acceptance of divorce
and remarriage in the church has also led to a recent
rise in the allowance of divorced and remarried men to
serve as elders and deacons. Until the 20th
century it was difficult to find an exegete or expositor
that claimed the “husband of one wife” phrase
allowed a man who was divorced and remarried to serve in
a position of church leadership. Some, such as
Jerome, Theodoret, and Calvin, saw it as a prohibition of
the Jewish practice of polygamy but they do not claim
that divorced and remarried men could serve as elders. Beyond being the husband of one wife an
elder or deacon must not be open to blame in any area.
He must rule his home and children well. If a man
does not meet the standards given in First Timothy and
Titus he is disqualified from leadership, regardless of
other talents, gifts, or qualifications he may have.
1 A.T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New
Testament, p. 791 2 A.T.
Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p.
796. 3 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar of the
Greek New Testament, p. 150. 4 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar of
the Greek New Testament, p. 149. 5 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar of
the Greek New Testament, p. 150. 6 Blass, DeBrunner, and Funk, Greek
Grammar of the New Testament, p. 99. 7 Kenneth Wuest, Pastoral Epistles,
p. 53. Wuest’s statement about
“character” is widely quoted by those who wish
to allow divorced and remarried men to serve as elders.
Most fail to mention that Wuest does not agree with their
allowance of this practice. 8 Kenneth Wuest, Pastoral Epistles,
p.55. 9 William Mounce, Word Biblical
Commentary, vol. 46, p. 171. 10 Chrysostom, Homily
X, First Timothy 3:2. 12 William
Mounce, Word Biblical Commentary, p. 173. 13 Shepherd
of Hermas, Commandment 4, Ch. 4. 14 Tertullian, De
pud. Ch. 8. 15 Cyril, Catechetical
Lectures 4:26. 16 Chrysostom, Homily
XIV, First Timothy 5:9. 17 Theodoret of
Mopsuestia, Commentary on First Timothy. 18 Homer Kent, Pastoral
Epistles, p. 127. 19 William
Mounce, Word Biblical Commentary, p. 171. 20 Henry Alford,
cited by Kenneth Wuest, Pastoral Epistles, p. 55. 21 Josephus, Antiquities
of the Jews, Book 17, Ch. 1, Sec. 2. 22 A. Oepke, gune
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 134. 23 Tertullian, To
His Wife, Ch. 6. 24 William
Mounce, Word Biblical commentary, p. 171. 25 A.T.
Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament,
vol. IV, p. 585. Robertson contradicts his own reasoning
when interpreting First Timothy 3:2, 12. 26 Athenagoras,
A Plea for Christians, Ch. XXXIII. Vincent (Word
Studies 4:229) cites the “specious
adultery” phrase as a reference to the remarriage of
widowers. Vincent is clearly in error. The
Scriptural quotation and the context of the statement
show that Athenagoras was referring to divorce and
remarriage.
27 Justin
Martyr, First Apology, Ch. 15. 28 Origen, Commentary
on Matthew, Ch. 14. 29 Augustine,
On the Good of Marriage, sec. 7. 30 E.
Stauffer, gameo Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, p. 112. 31 Augustine,
On the Good of Marriage, sec. 21. 32 Chrysostom,
Homily X, First Timothy 3:2. 33 Ambrose,
Letter LXIII, sec. 63-64. 34 Adam Clarke, Notes
in First Timothy 3:2. 35 Basil, Letter
CLXXXVIII. 36 A.
Oepke, gune Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, p. 136. 37 Stanley
Derickson, Notes on Theology, p. 1087. 38 Matthew
Henry, Commentaries in First Timothy and Titus. 39 John
Wesley, Notes on First Timothy. 40 John
Gill, Commentary on First Timothy. 41 Adam
Clarke, Notes on First Timothy 3:2. 42 Newport
J.D. White, The Expositor’s Greek Testament,
p. 111. 43 Marvin
Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, First
Timothy 3:2. 44 Homer
Kent, Pastoral Epistles, p. 172. 45 Charles
Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 416. 46 Paul
Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, p. 355. 47 Derickson,
Notes on Theology, p. 1087. 48 John Calvin, Institutes
of the Christian Religion, Book. 4, Ch. 3, Sec. 12. 49 Eldon
Glasscock, “’The Husband of One
Wife’ Requirement in 1 Timothy 3,” p. 253. 50 Derickson,
Notes on Theology, p. 1087. |