A. General Principles

This is a summary of what I believe the Scripture teaches on the subject of Divorce:

• 1. Divorce is a technical word which describes the annulment of a marriage which gives both parties the right of remarriage, Deuteronomy 24:1-3.

God ordained Marriage between a man and a woman to be for the duration of their lifetime. When the sin nature entered the world and men and women were being born sinners, one of the consequences of the Fall of Adam was divorce. Husbands and wives became promise breakers rather than promise keepers. In the process of time God granted Israel a bill of divorcement (Deuteronomy 24:1) with the right of remarriage (Deuteronomy 24:2).

In Matthew 19: 1-12 the discussion between our Lord Jesus Christ and the Jewish Theologians of the day was not should divorce be permitted, but what were the lawful grounds for divorce. The School of Shamai was very conservative. They limited divorce to only a few reasons. The School of Hillel was very liberal. A man could divorce a woman for any cause or give any excuse. In this passage Jesus was being asked about His views on divorce. He said that He would permit the annulment of a marriage in the instance of adultery. However, He stressed the permanence of marriage and not escape from marriage (Matthew 19:4-6). The Doctor’s of the Law debated the number of reason a man could have to get out of marriage, but Jesus emphasized that marriage is to be permanent. Point of doctrine! It is the duty of the pastor to help couples stay married. We need to help them find ways to solve their problems.

• 2. God permits divorce but limits it.

• 3. A married couple can dissolve their marriage if adultery has occurred. Reconciliation and Biblical forgiveness is always preferable and should be vigorously pursued. Adultery does not have to end a marriage. It can be forgiven and healing can occur between the couple, Matthew 5:32;19:9.

• 4. Desertion is another Biblical ground for divorce, 1 Corinthians 7:15. Pray for the one who left and seek reconciliation, but if that one will not return, then divorce can be obtained. It doesn’t have to end the marriage, but God permits a divorce under these circumstance.

B. Other Special Considerations

• 1. Anything that happens before Salvation is blotted out - Isaiah 43:25; I Jn 1:7; Psalm 103.12. All sin, including a marriage failure, regardless of the grounds for divorce when forgiven by God no longer exists. The repercussions of a divorce may continue [child support, alimony, etc], but when God forgives a sin, that sin no longer exists. God will not bring it up again and neither should we.

• 2. The physical death of a spouse releases the surviving spouse from marriage, Romans 7:1-4; 1 Corinthians 7:39.

In 1 Timothy 5:14 Paul advises young widows to remarry. There was no stigma attached to a second marriage when a spouse died. Scripture must be compared with Scripture to arrive at accurate and correct interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). When you have two Bible passages in conflict (1Timothy 5:14 cp 1Timothy 3:2) your interpretation is wrong. God is not the author of confusion. The above two exceptions to the standard “married only once” are held by most who hold the ‘no divorce view”.

C. Problem Passage: 1 Timothy 3:2

Exegesis of : mias gunaikos andra

• 1. These three words have occasioned much debate. Before we get to interpretation we should always strive for correct and accurate translation. I fear the reverse has been the order of the day. However, I submit that correct interpretation can only come from correct translation. Translation comes first!

• 2. Mias is an adjective in the genitive case and is translated “of one”. It often coveys the idea of unique or special. As a genitive of description it gives a characteristic to the noun it modifies. The characteristic is oneness. It modifies the noun gunaikos which is the word for woman - “of one woman.” The genitive phrase describes the noun in the accusative case andra which means “man.” So the phrase comes to be translated “a one woman kind of man” and since we are speaking about the marriage relationship of the bishop we change the nouns to“a one wife kind of husband”. Mias gunaikos has been tragically reduced to an numerical interpretation and we have lost in translation the beauty of the words “being a husband devoted only to his wife, or being a husband faithful to only his wife.” He is not to be a playboy or flirtatious with other woman.

• 3. Any husband whose relationship with his wife can be described as Mias gunaikos will not be an adulterer, a polygamist, a womanizer, a homosexual male, rather their union, unity, and depth of love for one another protects their marriage. Faithful to his one and only, not just married once. She is special to him. She and she alone fills his mind and heart. Not the sentiment “she is the one I married.” Although there is a great deal of merit associated with being married once, how much more to be married and hold onto each other with love, devotion, and respect. That is noteworthy! The standard set by this passage is for the pastoral candidate to be solely, wholly, and only devoted to his wife.

• 4. It is true that a man can be married only once (numerically) and have a great relationship with his wife. Yet, sadly, more and more Christians are seeking to escape from marriage.

• 5. “The husband of only one wife” is an incorrect interpretation of this expression. A man can have only one wife during his lifetime and still not meet the standard that Paul has set up in this phrase. Paul has raised the bar, not lowered it.

• 6. While some stress the legal status of a man who is seeking to become a pastor and although this is to be considered, I believe this expression asks us to lift the bar and examine the qualities of his marriage. Is he a faithful, loving husband? Does he display a devotion to his wife? Paul understood that the pressures and temptations in the ministry are so great that the lack of domestic tranquility can destroy a man’s ministry so he wrote - “a one woman sort of man”. See also 1 Peter 3: 1-5

• 7. In examining a man for the office of the Pastor one group will ask, “Have you ever been divorced?” If he says, “No!” He passes the test. But this phrase demands more of us. What is his relationship with his wife like? Is she altogether lovely in his eyes? Does he demonstrate a devotion to her? Does he value her opinion? Are they in agreement about the ministry? How do they handle disagreements?

• 8. Regarding this passage, the word order, the absence of the Greek article, the genitive of description, and the context all drive the translation to be stated in a qualitative sense rather than the traditional sense which favors giving the phrase in a numerical interpretation.

D. Exegesis

Regarding the absence of the definite article

When the definite article is omitted, as it is in the Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:2, the anarthrous construction stresses quality and not quantity. Not how many wives has he had in a life time [quantity], but the quality of his marriage.

In his commentary on 1 Timothy 3:2 Dr. Wuest writes (I provide the entire paragraph of his thought because we have an illustration of the principle that the Bible must be interpreted from the original languages):

Now, to consider the meaning of the words, “the husband of one wife.” The Greek is mias (one) gunaikos(woman) andra (man). The word “man” is not anthropos, the generic term for man, but andra, the term used of a male individual of the human race. The other two words are in the genitive case, while andra 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.

A.T. Robertson explains that the qualitative force of the nouns is “best brought out in anarthrous [without the definite article] nouns.” So quality is foremost in the mind of Paul as he wrote this passage and remember he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. The standard is not that a man stayed married to only one woman, but rather the focus is on the quality of his love for the woman he married. If his love for her is great that kind of love will last a lifetime, it will stand the test of time, but also set a standard in the Church for all aspiring to be married. The Pastor should be an example to all in every area of his life.

Finally Dana and Mantey offer this explanation:

Sometimes with a noun which the context proves to be definite the article is not used. This places stress upon the qualitative aspect of the noun rather than its mere identity. 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, p.149.

Resources relied on for translation and interpretation:

H. E.. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan Co.,1957) pp74,75,149.

Kenneth S. Wuest, The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), electronic edition.

A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), pp.496-502, 794.