Untitled Sermon (36)

1 Timothy 3:1–7 - Policy #4: Leadership

What is a “One-Woman Man?” – Part 2

The most difficult/controversial phrase in modern times is found in verse 2a: “the husband of one wife.” I’d like take time to think what Paul intended when he wrote that phrase. There are two main ways Christians have interpreted this. One is that a divorced and remarried man whose first wife is still alive has 2 living wives in a “one-flesh” sense. The other is that these qualities are “patterns of life;” therefore, the remarried man who is faithful for a number of years is a “one-woman man.” This comes up with deacons as well, so this was important to Paul. Let’s examine three areas this morning:

I. Paul’s Word Choice

II. History of Interpretation

III. Paul’s Historical Context.

Paul’s Word Choice. The phrase in Greek (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα) literally

means “a one-woman man.” Paul’s word order in Greek emphasizes the word, “one” (μιᾶς).[1] That is, Paul could have chosen a more natural word order, which would not emphasize “one:”—ἄνδρα μιᾶς γυναικὸς (“a man of one woman”)—but he did not. The most responsible interpretational guidelines regarding biblical word usage is to study the word or phrase in the following order:

1. Did Paul use this term anywhere else in this letter?

2. Did Paul use this term anywhere else in any of his other letters?

3. Did any other New Testament writer use this term?

4. Did the Septuagint use this term?

5. How did secular Greek writers in Paul’s time use the term?

6. How was the term used most recently after Paul used it?

To answer question #1, #2, and #3, Paul is the only New Testament writer to use it, and he used it three times.[2]To answer #4 and #5, it is not found in Greek literature prior to Paul’s usage, and there is no record of this word phrase anywhere else in first-century literature. To answer #6, the post-Pauline usages excluded men who had been married twice while a previous spouse was living, as documented in the next section. In short, those (1) closest in time to Paul who (2) spoke the same Greek language as Paul were certain Paul meant to exclude men who divorced and remarried while any previous spouse was still living.

The most detailed explanations are found in the early church document, The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, which began circulating around 375–380 A.D. (which, for reference, predated the finalized versions of the Nicene Creed—ca. 385 A.D.—and the Apostles Creed—750 A.D). The document, internally, claims to have been written by the 12 apostles, “all being present,” including the Apostle Paul. Apostolic authorship cannot be verified, and some traditions think Clement of Rome, himself a disciple of Paul, compiled and edited it. Yet, the value of the document, for our purposes, is it shows how the early church interpreted Paul’s phrase, “one-woman man.” In Chapter 14, titled, “Matrimonial Precepts among Clergymen,” the document states:

We have said that a Bishop, and a Presbyter, and a Deacon, when they are constituted must be but once married; whether their wives be alive, or whether they be dead; and that it is not lawful for them, if they be unmarried when they are ordained, to be married afterwards; or if they be then already married, to be married a second time; but that they should be content with the wife whom they had when they came to ordination.[3]

These stipulations go further than Paul’s language in 1 Timothy 3 or Titus, but they are (1) closest in time to Paul, (2) written by men who spoke the same language as Paul, and (3) consistent with the highly respected pagan priests of Paul’s day, the Flamine priests (discussed below), which some suggest may have influenced Paul’s choice of phrase. That is, Paul would not have wanted Christian standards to be less than pagan standards.

Paul used a similar phrase concerning widows in 5:9: “a one-man woman” (ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή). The Constitution of the Holy Apostles specifies this means she “had only one husband.”[4]The latinized equivalent, monandria, is found in first-century literature and on funerary inscriptions. It referred to a woman/widow who was married only once in her lifetime.[5]

History of Interpretation. Historically, biblical scholars have debated three

main interpretations of the phrase, “one-woman man:” (1) a prohibition of (not divorce but) remarriage while the first wife is living; (2) a prohibition of polygamy; and, (3) not a “prohibition” at all, but rather a “reflection” of faithfulness to one’s current wife.[6]

The earliest interpretation is a prohibition against remarriage while the first wife (or any previous wife) is living. The earliest known commentary dates around 140 A.D. from a Christian writer in Rome, Hermas. He stated, “The husband is to be the husband of one wife and not to live with another. If he divorces her and marries another, he commits adultery.”[7]Tertullian (160–220 A.D.) took a similar view: “The Apostle bids the overseer to be the husband of one wife. Not that he grants him permission of marrying once more, but that he will not have him admitted who has been twice married.”[8] The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (375–380 A.D.), cited above, affirms the same, in even stronger language.

John Chrysostom, an influential archbishop of Constantinople in the late fourth-century, interpreted this phrase as a prohibition against polygamy. He stated, “This [requirement] he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must be without one [wife], but as prohibiting his having more than one.”[9]John Calvin, in his commentary on 1 Timothy (published in 1556 A.D.), mentioned Chrysostom’s position, and it worked its way from there into many modern commentaries. The main problem with this view is it does not fit the historical context. Polygamy was not widespread when Paul wrote in the first century (or when Chrysostom wrote in the fourth century). In fact, Roman law stated only one marriage could exist at a time.

The interpretation that this is not a “prohibition,” but rather a reflection of faithfulness to one’s current wife evolved over time. It often is described as emphasizing marital “fidelity,” not marital “history.” I was unable to pinpoint the first commentator to state that outright, but it became popularized during the Reformation (i.e., fifteenth century) and post-Reformation eras (sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). Calvin saw it as both a “prohibition” against polygamy and a “reflection” of fidelity. The Presbyterian, Albert Barnes (1845 A.D.), the Methodist, Joseph Benson (late eighteenth century), and the late, non-denominational pastor, John MacArthur (twenty-first century),[10]followed this interpretation. The main argument is that all the other qualifications describe patterns of life (rather than historical referent points), and this one does, too.

Paul’s Historical Context. We know from our extensive historical background study that Paul was aware of several contextual issues in Roman culture: (1) rampant divorce/remarriage (especially among the Roman Emperors); (2) the symposium “after dinners;” (3) the general sexual immorality; and, (4) the standards of the pagan, Flamine priests. Before addressing those areas, let me rule out “prohibition” of polygamy as Paul’s primary intent. Polygamy would be the easy answer, and we could move one. For one, though, the historical evidence simply does not show polygamy was a widespread problem. Two, Roman law made no provisions for polygamy—quite the opposite. The 12 Tables (450 B.C.), upon which Roman law was founded, only recognized monogamous marriages. Valerian and his son, Gallienus (258 B.C.), passed a decree which penalized polygamy: “He who has two wives at once is branded with infamy . . . he who pretended to be unmarried, but had another wife . . . can lawfully be accused of the crime of fornication.”[11]The laws Octavian passed, Lex Julia (18 B.C.) and Lex Papia Poppaea (9 B.C.) only recognized one wife at a time. These laws were still in effect when Paul wrote. Three, the parallel phrase in 1 Timothy 5:9, “the wife of one husband,” certainly wasn’t excluding polyandry, for it was nonexistent.[12]For these reasons, it seems unlikely Paul had polygamy in mind.

The main contextual issue which was rampant was divorce and remarriage. It was common, legally codified, and easy to initiate by either males or females. Cicero, a famous first-century B.C. politician and lawyer, divorced and remarried several times. Octavian Augustus did as well. Octavian’s wife, Livia, divorced her husband in order to marry Octavian. Further, divorcees were required to remarry within a certain time or lose inheritance rights and/or legal privileges. Marriage, divorce, and remarriage became part and parcel of the pagan culture, often purely for financial reasons. Bruce Winter’s comment is telling:

Married men were frequently changing their wives. Even making allowance for the exaggerated comments of Seneca, wives also engaged in changing partners. He [Seneca] hoped in the light of such intervention that no longer would “illustrious and nobly born women count their age not by adding up consuls but by husbands, and go away [divorce] in order to marry and marry in order to divorce.”[13]

Yet, Seneca’s actual commentary is even more telling. Seneca, an advisor to Emperor Nero, wrote in the same time period as the Apostle Paul. He described the times as follows:

Is any woman ashamed of being divorced . . . they leave their homes in order to marry others, and marry only in order to be divorced? . . . Women learn do to what they hear so much about. . . . A woman is frumpish and old-fashioned if she does not know that “adultery with one paramour is nicknamed as marriage.”[14]

Even closer to Paul’s situation: Paul wrote this letter sometime between 62–64 A.D. Fresh on his mind would be the scandal in 62 A.D. Emperor Nero divorced his wife, Octavia, and remarried Poppaea Sabina. Paul was close to the situation. He communicated with Christian saints in Nero’s household. He even wrote to the Philippians, “All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household.” Whereas polygamy was virtually non-existent, divorce and remarriage was rampant in first-century Rome, from the Emperor’s household all the way down to the lower classes.

A second contextual issue was the symposium “after dinners.” You may recall a staple of building a career among the middle and upper classes was to attend the night-time symposia, often with a female escort. The symposia, much like modern “cocktail parties,” were meetings in homes where there was eating, drinking, entertainment, and social networking. Plutarch described the “after dinners” as “intemperate intercourse follows a lawless meal.”[15]The “after dinners” were a time when males would satisfy their sexual passions with female escort(s) and/or other men’s wives. Such actions would violate the “one-woman man” word choice of Paul.

A third contextual issue was sexual immorality in general. Multiple sexual partners were socially acceptable; and in some cases, expected. It was legal for a male to engage in sexual relations with concubines (hired servants), his slaves, or the hetairai (female escorts). Winter comments, “It is well known that the sexual propriety expected of a wife contrasted starkly with the culturally acceptable unfaithfulness of her husband with household slaves and female dinner companions.”[16]Winter cites several ancient authors, preceding and during Paul’s life, who accepted and encouraged casual sexual encounters This, too, would violate Paul’s “one-woman man” word choice.

A fourth contextual issue was a special class of pagan priests in Paul’s time called the Flamine priests. Flamine priests served the most important gods: namely, Jupiter (Zeus), Mars (Ares), Quirinius (no Greek equivalent), etc. Flamine priests only could have one wife. In fact, if his wife died, he was required to resign as priest. Paul certainly was aware of these highly esteemed priests. Perhaps his “one-woman man” language took that into account, as his Christian ethics in other writings almost always rose above the pagan world’s ethics

Timeless Principle

Overseers must be a “one-woman man.”

Present Age Use

There is no question Paul’s list of qualities were meant to exclude some. The question is, “Who did Paul intend to exclude by the phrase, ‘one-woman man?’”

Each congregation will need to work through that question in light of the grammatical and historical evidence. Allow me to offer some personal reflections as I have struggled through this (and continue to do so) with everyone else.

1. Historically speaking, the two greatest issues of Paul’s times, relative to this phrase, were (1) divorce and remarriage and (2) fornication (sexual immorality) in general: prostitutes, the culturally acceptable symposium immorality, masters being immoral with female slaves, and/or casual sexual relations common to every age and epoch. Also, false teachers in Ephesus were forbidding marriage (1 Tim. 4:3), which may have implications on this phrase, too.

2. Grammatically, Paul’s usage emphasizes the adjective, “one.” Mounce (a Greek scholar) admits the construction is unusual, but also indicates the most natural rendering would exclude remarried men while any previous spouse is living.[17]Paul’s corollary phrase in 1 Timothy 5:9 suggests past marriages do factor into the decision of whether the congregation is to support a widow. In 1 Timothy 5:9, Paul coupled “one-man woman” with a perfect tense participle (“. . . having been”—in Greek, his signifies a past event which has abiding results). To be fair Paul used a present active verb (“must be” and “let . . . be) in 1 Timothy 3:2a and 3:12—not a perfect tense participle. Yet, without pressing those grammatical parsings too far, we must ask, “If marriage history affects widow support, would it affect overseer and deacon appointments as well?”

3. Syntactically, all three times Paul used the term, he used it in connection with managing children and households (1 Tim. 3:11–12; Tit. 1:6). Historical records reflect high divorce and remarriage rates in Ephesus. For example, Curchin notes, “[A] substantial proportion of marriages ended in death or divorce within ten years.”[18]If children were involved, custody almost always was awarded to the father.[19]If the father remarried, it presented a new set of complications. The new wife became the domina (or dominant mistress). Curchin explains, “[T]he step-mother (noverca) played an important role in raising children from her husband’s previous marriage.”[20]Depending on the social class of the first wife, this could create tension in the home. The husband must manage a blended family and provide for contact between his first wife (or other living wives) and her (or their) children who were raised by the new domina.[21]If Paul were excluding remarried men from overseer responsibilities and deacon service due to this complex household dynamic, it would allow the father to focus on his family responsibilities. Paul (syntactically) connected household management to the phrase, “one-woman man.”

4. Theologically, Paul addressed divorce/remarriage in Romans 7:2–3 and 1 Corinthians 7:10–11 before he wrote 1 Timothy.[22]His comments in those two places are consistent with the term “one-woman man” serving to exclude a remarried man while his first wife (or any previous wife) is alive. In Romans 7:2–3, Paul declared a woman (or man) who remarries while the first spouse is living will be called an adulterer.

1 Corinthians 7:10–11 ESV

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

Romans 7:2–3 ESV

For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

Romans 7:2–3: For a married woman is bound by the law to her

husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

This does not mean a person should divorce his/her second spouse if they have remarried while his/her first spouse is alive. Be faithful to your spouse. You made a covenant before God and man to do so. It does mean there may be some implications as it relates to overseer and deacon qualifications.

In 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, Paul stated a divorced person should remain unmarried or be reconciled to the spouse with whom he/she covenanted.

1 Cor. 7:10–11, 39: To the married I give this charge (not I, but the

1 Corinthians 7:10–11 ESV

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

1 Corinthians 7:39 ESV

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

These verses imply one wife for life. If the spouse dies, the living spouse is free to remarry. As well, in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, he doesn’t mention divorce or remarriage. However, the tenor of his statements on marriage reflects permanence. He likens the one-flesh union of marriage to a picture of the gospel: namely, “I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (Eph. 2:32). Many interpreters, ancient and modern, suggest remarrying while the first spouse (or any previous spouse) is living breaks that beautiful imagery.[23]

5. Doctrinally, the phrase “one-woman man” has implications on oath-breaking, vow-breaking, and covenant-breaking. Each of the three times Paul used this phrase, he prefaced it with the character quality, “above reproach/blameless” (1 Tim. 3:2, 10; Tit. 1:6). Greek commentators typically see this as epexegetical; that is, the phrase “one-woman man” (as well as the entire list of qualities) further defines one who is “above reproach/blameless.”[24]Does this blamelessness extend to his marriage oaths, vows, and dowry contracts he made before God and men? To break an oath, a vow, or a covenant and enter into new oaths, vows, and/or dowry contracts with another woman was the character quality of a worldly “covenant-breaker,” which Paul described elsewhere.[25] Much of Paul’s content in 1 Timothy is pushing back against worldly influences in the kingdom of grace. Those with one spouse only would be seen as “covenant-keepers” as opposed to “covenant-breakers.”

6. Practically, Paul wrote the qualifications intentionally to exclude some in lieu of others. Some read the qualification as, “He must be faithful to his current wife” or “He must be faithful to one wife at a time.” The question arises, “Who, exactly, would that exclude?” It only would exclude the active adulterer or fornicator. It goes without saying that such a one would not be fit to serve as an overseer or deacon. He wouldn’t even qualify for congregational membership. If he was a member at all, he would be under congregational discipline, which would disqualify him by default.

Finally, given the grammatical and the first-century historical evidence from which Paul’s grammar originated, he obviously meant to exclude: (1) men who were sexually active with partners other than their wife and (2) men who engaged in the “after dinners” in the private home symposium. Those types of men, according to Paul’s earlier letters, would not even qualify as members.

The question is, “Did Paul also have in mind remarried men (whose former spouse was alive) when he penned that phrase?” Those who were (1) closest in time to Paul and (2) spoke the same Greek language were certain that he did. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the meaning of “one-woman man,” as Paul used it, excludes the man who is remarried while any previous spouse is living. In a certain spiritual/theological sense (i.e., “one flesh” union), he has two wives living. Some may ask, “What if the wife of the overseer or deacon had been divorced before he married her?” Since Paul’s language does not address this situation, then it must be a matter of Christian liberty. In such cases, the husband still would be a “one-woman man,” which is where Paul centered his language in 3:2a.

In light of all this, God is more concerned with a congregation’s heart than with external rules and regulations. Congregations who exclude remarried men as overseers and deacons are no more or less pure than those who don’t. Both congregations can stand before God in good conscience since both sought, honestly and earnestly, to rightly interpret and apply a letter written over 2,000 years ago in a different language and culture.

[1]See William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles in Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2000), 170, 173. Paul could have chosen a more natural word order, which would not emphasize “one” would be: ἄνδρα μιᾶς γυναικὸς (“a man of one woman”). Paul’s order, therefore, was intentional. [2] 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6. [3] The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book VI, Chapter XVII (titled, “The Ecclesiastical CANONS of the Same Holy Apostles Canon Numbers,). [4]See The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book III, Chapter III, (titled, “Of What Character the Widows Ought to Be . . .):” “But the true widows are those who have had only one husband, having a good report among the generality for good works.” [5]See J.N.D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Continuum: 2001), 76, 115. [6]There are other interpretations such as the overseer must be married (Eastern Orthodox), but these three are the main interpretations. [7]Hermas, Mandate, 4.1.6–9. [8]Tertullian, De Monogamia, ch. 11. [9]John Chrysostom, Homily X on 1 Timothy. [10]Although, the MacArthur’s Study Bible downplays the idea of polygamy since polygamy was not a widespread problem. [11] Codex Justinianus, Book IX, Title 9, Section 18. [12]See Schreiner, Handbook on Acts and Paul’s Letters, 383; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 171. [13]Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 48; citing Seneca, De beneficiis, 3.16.2. [14] Seneca on Benefits in Bohn’s Classical Library, trans. by Aubrey Stewart (London: George Bell & Sons, 1887), 65. Accessible online: https://archive.org/details/seneca-on-benefits_202406/page/n3/mode/2up. The specific reference is On Beneficiis 3.16.2. [15]See Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 71. [16]Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 19. [17]Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 173, states, “[T]he expression is not meant to be understood as a twentieth-century idiom.” [18]Leonard A. Curchin, “The Roman Family: Recent Interpretations,” in Zephrus, 53–54, 2000–01, 538. [19]Curchin, “The Roman Family,” 538, states, “The chief contrast with modern divorce is that in Roman times the husband automatically got custody of the children.” [20]Curchin, “The Roman Family,” 538–39. [21]See Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 474. [22] A study of Paul’s prior writings on the issue is called “the analogy of antecedent Scripture” and is a responsible practice for those singularly focused on determining Paul’s original intent in using this phrase. [23]See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 173, for a list of those interpreters. [24]See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 152, states, “all that follows spells out what this entails.” [25] In Romans 1:31.