17-6-26, Deacon Study Guide, "Husband of One Wife"
The NIV translation that the overseer be “the husband of but one wife” implies that Paul was prohibiting polygamy among the overseers. Such a practice would be so palpably unacceptable among Christians that it would hardly seem necessary to prohibit it. It is best not to see Paul as writing primarily in opposition to polygamy. Some have felt that Paul was demanding that the overseer be a married man. However, Paul’s own singleness (1 Cor 7:7–8) and his positive commendation of the single state (1 Cor 7:1, 32–35) would seem to allow a single man to serve as a church leader. Others have felt that the passage rules out remarriage if a first wife dies, but Paul clearly permitted second marriages in other passages (1 Tim 5:14; Rom 7:2–3; 1 Cor 7:39). His statements here should not contradict the permission for remarriage he gave in other passages. Another interpretation is to understand Paul to have prohibited a divorced man from serving as a church leader. While this can be Paul’s meaning, the language is too general in its statement to make this interpretation certain. Some evangelical New Testament scholars suggest that there are New Testament passages that appear to permit divorce (Matt 19:9; 1 Cor 7:15).
It is better to see Paul having demanded that the church leader be faithful to his one wife. The Greek describes the overseer literally as a “one-woman kind of man” (cf. “faithful to his one wife,” NEB). Lenski suggests that the term describes a man “who cannot be taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity.” Glasscock uses Lenski’s understanding to support his view that a divorced man can serve as a church leader if he is thoroughly devoted to the wife whom he has married.55 His application prohibits a monogamous man known to be flirtatious from serving in a place of leadership. Glasscock does not seek to encourage either divorce or the presence of divorced men in the ministry. He suggests that we must not hold a man’s preconversion sins against him (Col 2:13). Had Paul clearly meant to prohibit divorce, he could have said it unmistakably by using the Greek word for divorce (apolyō, cf. Matt 1:19).
the husband of one wife
The NIV translation that the overseer be “the husband of but one wife” implies that Paul was prohibiting polygamy among the overseers. Such a practice would be so palpably unacceptable among Christians that it would hardly seem necessary to prohibit it. It is best not to see Paul as writing primarily in opposition to polygamy. Some have felt that Paul was demanding that the overseer be a married man. However, Paul’s own singleness (1 Cor 7:7–8) and his positive commendation of the single state (1 Cor 7:1, 32–35) would seem to allow a single man to serve as a church leader. Others have felt that the passage rules out remarriage if a first wife dies, but Paul clearly permitted second marriages in other passages (1 Tim 5:14; Rom 7:2–3; 1 Cor 7:39). His statements here should not contradict the permission for remarriage he gave in other passages. Another interpretation is to understand Paul to have prohibited a divorced man from serving as a church leader. While this can be Paul’s meaning, the language is too general in its statement to make this interpretation certain. Some evangelical New Testament scholars suggest that there are New Testament passages that appear to permit divorce (Matt 19:9; 1 Cor 7:15).
It is better to see Paul having demanded that the church leader be faithful to his one wife. The Greek describes the overseer literally as a “one-woman kind of man” (cf. “faithful to his one wife,” NEB). Lenski suggests that the term describes a man “who cannot be taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity.” Glasscock uses Lenski’s understanding to support his view that a divorced man can serve as a church leader if he is thoroughly devoted to the wife whom he has married.55 His application prohibits a monogamous man known to be flirtatious from serving in a place of leadership. Glasscock does not seek to encourage either divorce or the presence of divorced men in the ministry. He suggests that we must not hold a man’s preconversion sins against him (Col 2:13). Had Paul clearly meant to prohibit divorce, he could have said it unmistakably by using the Greek word for divorce (apolyō, cf. Matt 1:19).
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, as at that time was too common both among Jews and Gentiles, especially among the Gentiles.
The husband of one wife (v. 2b). All of the qualifying adjectives in this passage are masculine. While there is ample scope for feminine ministry in a local assembly, the office of elder is not given to women. However, a pastor’s homelife is very important, and especially his marital status. (This same requirement applies to deacons, according to 1 Tim. 3:12.) It means that a pastor must not be divorced and remarried. Paul was certainly not referring to polygamy, since no church member, let alone a pastor, would be accepted if he had more than one wife. Nor is he referring to remarriage after the death of the wife; for why would a pastor be prohibited from marrying again, in the light of Genesis 2:18 and 1 Timothy 4:3? Certainly the members of the church who had lost mates could marry again; so why penalize the pastor?
It’s clear that a man’s ability to manage his own marriage and home indicate ability to oversee a local church (1 Tim. 3:4–5). A pastor who has been divorced opens himself and the church to criticism from outsiders, and it is not likely that people with marital difficulties would consult a man who could not keep his own marriage together. I see no reason why dedicated Christians who have been divorced and remarried cannot serve in other offices in the church, but they are disqualified from being elders or deacons.
husband of one wife—confuting the celibacy of Rome’s priesthood. Though the Jews practiced polygamy, yet as he is writing as to a Gentile Church, and as polygamy was never allowed among even laymen in the Church, the ancient interpretation that the prohibition here is against polygamy in a candidate bishop is not correct. It must, therefore, mean that, though laymen might lawfully marry again, candidates for the episcopate or presbytery were better to have been married only once. As in 1 Ti 5:9, “wife of one man,” implies a woman married but once; so “husband of one wife” here must mean the same. The feeling which prevailed among the Gentiles, as well as the Jews (compare as to Anna, Lu 2:36, 37), against a second marriage would, on the ground of expediency and conciliation in matters indifferent and not involving compromise of principle, account for Paul’s prohibition here in the case of one in so prominent a sphere as a bishop or a deacon. Hence the stress that is laid in the context on the repute in which the candidate for orders is held among those over whom he is to preside (Tit 1:16). The Council of Laodicea and the apostolic canons discountenanced second marriages, especially in the case of candidates for ordination. Of course second marriage being lawful, the undesirableness of it holds good only under special circumstances. It is implied here also, that he who has a wife and virtuous family, is to be preferred to a bachelor; for he who is himself bound to discharge the domestic duties mentioned here, is likely to be more attractive to those who have similar ties, for he teaches them not only by precept, but also by example (1 Ti 3:4, 5). The Jews teach, a priest should be neither unmarried nor childless, lest he be unmerciful [BENGEL]. So in the synagogue, “no one shall offer up prayer in public, unless he be married” [in Colbo, ch. 65; VITRINGA, Synagogue and Temple].
The husband of one wife (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα). Comp. ver. 12; Tit. 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. Much of the difficulty arises from the assumption that the Pastorals were written by Paul. In that case his views seem to conflict. See Rom. 7:2, 3; 1 Cor. 7:39; 8:8, 9, where Paul declares that widows are free to marry again, and puts widows and virgins on the same level; and comp. 1 Tim. 5:9, according to which a widow is to be enrolled only on the condition of having been the wife of but one man. The Pauline view is modified in detail by the writer of the Pastorals. Paul, while asserting that marriage is right and honourable, regards celibacy as the higher state (1 Cor. 7:1, 7, 26, 34, 37, 38). In this the Pastoral writer does not follow him (see 1 Tim. 2:15; 3:4, 12; 4:3; 5:10, 14). The motive for marriage, namely, protection against incontinency, which is adduced by Paul in 1 Cor. 7:2, 9, is given in 1 Tim. 5:11–14. As in Paul, the married state is honourable, for Bishops, Deacons, and Presbyters are married (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Tit. 1:6), and the honour of childbearing conferred upon the mother of our Lord is reflected in the Christian woman of later times (1 Tim. 2:15). While Paul advises against second marriages (1 Cor. 7:8, 9, 27, 39, 40), in the Pastorals emphasis is laid only on the remarriage of church-officers and church-widows. In the Pastorals we see a reflection of the conditions of the earlier post-apostolic age, when a non-Pauline asceticism was showing itself (see 1 Tim. 4:3, 4, 8; Tit. 1:15). The opposition to second marriage became very strong in the latter part of the second century. It was elevated into an article of faith by the Montanists, and was emphasised by Tertullian, and by Athenagoras, who called second marriage “a specious adultery” (εὐπρεπής μοιχεία).*
First, it may mean that these leaders were to be married, to have a wife, not to be single. Second, it may mean that they were to have only one wife at a time, not to be polygamous. Third, it could mean that they were not to be divorced. Greek, however, had a word for divorce, and it is difficult to see why Paul would have used this strange circumlocution in its place. A fourth possibility is that Paul was referring to those who had only a single wife for the length of their lifetime, including widowers who never remarried. Being married to only one husband for their whole life made a woman worthy of special honor in the Hellenistic world (cp. 1 Tim. 5:9; lit., a “one-man woman”). Paul may have applied this special virtue to the male leadership as well. The fifth possibility is that Paul meant a man who was faithful to his wife, a man of one woman. Prostitution and mistresses were a way of life for the first-century Greeks. Paul may well have held up the ideal of marital fidelity for the leaders of Ephesus, a characteristic that would have stood out as an exception and an example to the surrounding culture.
The NIV translation that the overseer be “the husband of but one wife” implies that Paul was prohibiting polygamy among the overseers. Such a practice would be so palpably unacceptable among Christians that it would hardly seem necessary to prohibit it. It is best not to see Paul as writing primarily in opposition to polygamy. Some have felt that Paul was demanding that the overseer be a married man. However, Paul’s own singleness (1 Cor 7:7–8) and his positive commendation of the single state (1 Cor 7:1, 32–35) would seem to allow a single man to serve as a church leader. Others have felt that the passage rules out remarriage if a first wife dies, but Paul clearly permitted second marriages in other passages (1 Tim 5:14; Rom 7:2–3; 1 Cor 7:39). His statements here should not contradict the permission for remarriage he gave in other passages. Another interpretation is to understand Paul to have prohibited a divorced man from serving as a church leader. While this can be Paul’s meaning, the language is too general in its statement to make this interpretation certain. Some evangelical New Testament scholars suggest that there are New Testament passages that appear to permit divorce (Matt 19:9; 1 Cor 7:15).
It is better to see Paul having demanded that the church leader be faithful to his one wife. The Greek describes the overseer literally as a “one-woman kind of man” (cf. “faithful to his one wife,” NEB). Lenski suggests that the term describes a man “who cannot be taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity.” Glasscock uses Lenski’s understanding to support his view that a divorced man can serve as a church leader if he is thoroughly devoted to the wife whom he has married.55 His application prohibits a monogamous man known to be flirtatious from serving in a place of leadership. Glasscock does not seek to encourage either divorce or the presence of divorced men in the ministry. He suggests that we must not hold a man’s preconversion sins against him (Col 2:13). Had Paul clearly meant to prohibit divorce, he could have said it unmistakably by using the Greek word for divorce (apolyō, cf. Matt 1:19).
the husband of but one wife,
The overseer must be the “husband of but one wife” (literally “one woman’s man”). Some have suggested that Paul is here prohibiting polygamy. Since polygamy was only infrequently practiced in the Greco-Roman world of the first century, it seems very unlikely that Paul would write to condemn a practice among overseers that would not be practiced even among Christians outside the leadership. Since Paul offers a similar call for widows who are to be enrolled (5:9) and polyandry (women having more than one husband) was not practiced in the Greco-Roman world of the first century, another solution must be sought.
Some (e.g., Tertullian) have suggested that Paul is prohibiting second marriages. If one sees this quality as further clarification of “above reproach,” one wonders how marrying after losing a mate due to death could bring the overseer under condemnation.
Another suggestion is that Paul was requiring overseers to have living mates. When one realizes that Paul uses a parallel phrase in the description of widows who are to be enrolled (“one man’s woman” 5:9), it becomes clear that this cannot be Paul’s intent.
The most likely interpretation involves seeing the phrase as a call for marital fidelity. Greeks and Romans accepted the option of men having sexual relations with women other than their wives. Sexual promiscuity would, of course, be forbidden for all Christians. Another wrinkle comes from the fact that divorce and remarriage was common. Paul is here requiring that an overseer be one about whom there would be no question in terms of his faithfulness to his wife. He must exemplify the teaching of Jesus that God’s intent in marriage was one man and one woman for life. More than one woman cannot lay claim to this man who is to serve as overseer. His marital life must provide the example and pattern for the church to imitate. The character of a man who is married and divorced and remarried will not likely be “above reproach.”
DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.
In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).
The Old Testament’s View on Divorce The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).
As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1–4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.
As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).
Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.
Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.
In Matthew 5:31–32 Jesus explicity abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.
Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).
Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).
Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.
The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.
In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11–12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.
Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.
Husband of but one wife, literally, a “one-woman man.” This ambiguous but important phrase is subject to several interpretations. The question is, how stringent a standard was Paul erecting for overseers? Virtually all commentators agree that this phrase prohibits both polygamy and promiscuity, which are unthinkable for spiritual leaders in the church. Many Bible students say the words a “one-woman man” are saying that the affections of an elder must be centered exclusively on his wife. Many others hold, however, that the phrase further prohibits any who have been divorced and remarried from becoming overseers. The reasoning behind this view is usually that divorce represents a failure in the home, so that even though a man may be forgiven for any sin involved, he remains permanently disqualified for leadership in the congregation (cf. vv. 4–5; 1 Cor. 9:24–27). The most strict interpretation and the one common among the earliest commentators (second and third centuries) includes each of the above but extends the prohibition to any second marriage, even by widowers. Their argument is that in the first century second marriages were generally viewed as evidence of self-indulgence. Though Paul honored marriage, he also valued the spiritual benefits of celibacy (1 Cor. 7:37–38) even for those who had lost a mate (1 Tim. 5:3–14). Thus he considered celibacy a worthy goal for those who possessed the self-control to remain unmarried. According to this strict view Paul considered a widower’s second marriage, though by no means improper, to be evidence of a lack of the kind of self-control required of an overseer, in much the same way that a similar lack disqualified a widow from eligibility for the list of widows (5:9).
Now, to consider the meaning of the words, “the husband of one wife.” The Greek is mias (μιας) (one) gunaikos (γυναικος) (woman) andra (ἀνδρα) (man). The word “man” is not anthrōpos (ἀνθρωπος), the generic term for man, but anēr (ἀνηρ), the term used of a male individual of the human race. The other two words are in the genitive case, while anēr (ἀνηρ) is in the accusative. 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. The entire context is one in which the character of the bishop is being discussed. Thus, one can translate, “a one-wife sort of a husband,” or “a one-woman sort of a man.” We speak of the Airedale as a one-man dog. We mean by that, that it is his nature to become attached to only one man, his master. Since character is emphasized by the Greek construction, the bishop should be a man who loves only one woman as his wife. It should be his nature to thus isolate and centralize his love. Does this mean that if the bishop is married, he is only to have one wife, not two, or does it mean that if his wife dies, he is not to marry again? As to the answer, we will let Expositors, Alford, and Vincent speak. The two first named believe that the words forbid a second marriage, and the last thinks that that is the probable meaning.
As to the meaning that a bishop may have only one wife at a time, not two or more, Alford has this to say; “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.”
Expositors says: “The better to ensure that the episcopus (ἐπισχοπυς) be without reproach, his leading characteristic must be self-control. In the first place—and this has special force in the East—he must be a man who has—natural or acquired—a high conception of the relations of the sexes: a married man, who, if his wife dies, does not marry again. Men whose position is less open to criticism may do this without discredit, but the episcopus (ἐπισχοπυς) must hold up a high ideal. Second marriage, which is mentioned as a familiar practice (Rom. 7:2, 3), is expressly permitted to Christian women in I Corinthians 7:39, and even recommended to, or rather enjoined upon, young widows in I Timothy 5:14.
“The words ‘the husband of one wife,’ of course, do not mean that the episcopus (ἐπισχοπυς) must be, or has been married. What is here forbidden is bigamy under any circumstances. This view is supported (a) by the general drift of the qualities required here in a bishop; self-control or temperance, in his use of food and drink, possessions, gifts, temper; (b) by the corresponding requirement in a church widow, V9, the wife of one man, and (c) by the practice of the early church (apostolic Constitutions, VI 17: Apostolic Cannons 16 (17); Tertullian, Athenagoras, Origen, and the Canons of the councils.
“On the other hand, it must be conceded that the patristic commentators on the passage, (with the partial exception of Chrysostom)—Theodor Mops., Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Jerome, suppose that it is bigamy or polygamy that is here forbidden. But commentators are prone to go too far in the emancipation of their judgments from the prejudices or convictions of their contemporaries. In some matters ‘the common sense of most’ is a safer guide than the irresponsible conjectures of a conscientious student.”
An interpretative translation offers the rendering, “married only once.” We submit that this is not the literal translation of the Greek here, but in the light of the above historical background, it is the correct 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.”
Alford, in his closing comments, has the following to say: “How far such a prohibition is to be considered binding on us, now that the Christian life has entered into another and totally different phase, is of course an open question for the present Christian at any time to deal with. It must be as a matter of course understood that regulations, in all lawful things, depend even when made by an Apostle, on circumstances: and the superstitious observance of the letter in such cases is often pregnant with mischief to the people and cause of Christ.”
The pastor must also be the husband of but one wife. Literally, he must be a “one-woman man.” This means that the pastor must be committed to the covenant of marriage; he must be faithful to his wife. This is loyal oneness.
Some interpreters believe this qualification means that the overseer could not be in a second marriage, whether by death of a spouse or after divorce. Churches have various policies related to the interpretation of this phrase as they systematize qualifications for ordination or the pastorate. Of this we can be sure—the pastorate requires a strong modeling of marriage and loyalty.
Of one wife (μιας γυναικος [mias gunaikos]). One at a time, clearly.
the husband of one wife The Greek text here, which rendered literally is “the man of one woman,” may mean that an overseer must be either a married man, abstain from polygamy and sexual immorality; avoid remarriage, or be faithful to his wife. Since polygamy was already considered immoral in Graeco-Roman society, it is unlikely that Paul specifically prohibits it here. Also, Paul elsewhere promotes remaining single (1 Cor 7:1) and supports remarriage (1 Cor 7:39). Therefore, it is most likely that Paul is promoting fidelity in the marriage relationship.