Sermon Tone Analysis

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

Titus

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).

Traditional View

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).*

Debated View

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.