“The Husband of One Wife”

Our sermon series called “Who Leads the Church?” has raised some questions, for which I am thankful. I am thankful because it means you all are thinking and are willing to talk with me about these things. One question I talked with someone about was the meaning of a qualification for the office of pastor-elder in 1 Timothy 3:2. God’s Word says,

“Therefore an overseer must be . . . the husband of one wife,”

This translation is also reflected in the NASB, KJV, NKJV, and CSB. The NIV translates it as “faithful to his wife.”

The greek reads μιᾶς (mias) γυναικὸς (gynaikos) ἄνδρα (andra). A very wooden translation of the greek phrase in question is “one woman man.” We might hyphenate it in English to say that he is a “one-woman-man.”

Options For What This Means

I thought of writing out my own thoughts on this, but I can’t improve on the ESV Study Bible notes on this topic found in the sidebar beside 1 Timothy 3:2. What follows are direct quotes from that source, with only the headings put by me.

1. Faithful to his wife

“Many commentators understand the phrase to mean “having the character of a one-woman man,” that is, “faithful to his wife.” In support of this view is the fact that a similar phrase is used in 1 Tim. 5:9 as a qualification for widows (Gk. henos andros gynē; “one-man woman,” i.e., “wife of one husband”), and in that verse it seems to refer to the trait of faithfulness, for a prohibition of remarriage after the death of a spouse would be in contradiction to Paul’s advice to young widows in 5:14. Interpreters who hold this first view conclude that the wording of 3:2 is too specific to be simply a requirement of marriage and not specific enough to be simply a reference to divorce or remarriage after divorce. In the context of this passage, the phrase therefore prohibits any kind of marital unfaithfulness.

2. Not a polygamist

“Another view is that “husband of one wife” means polygamists cannot be elders. Interpreters who hold this view note that there is evidence of polygamy being practiced in some Jewish circles at the time. On this view, the phrase means “at the present time the husband of one wife,” in line with other qualifications which refer to present character. On either of these views, Paul is not prohibiting all second marriages; that is, he is not prohibiting from the eldership a man whose wife has died and who has remarried, or a man who has been divorced and who has remarried (these cases should be evaluated on an individual basis).

3. Never had more than one wife for any reason

“A third view is that Paul is absolutely requiring that an elder be someone who has never had more than one wife. But that does not fit the context as well, with its emphasis on present character. On any of these views, Paul is speaking of the ordinary cases and is not absolutely requiring marriage or children (cf. v. 4) but is giving a picture of the typical approved overseer as a faithful husband and father.”

My Reflections

Agreeing with the ESV Study Bible notes, I find the first view most convincing. Paul is saying that elder-overseer-pastors must be men who are known as being faithful to their wives in every way. They must not be men who are losing the fight in pornography. They must not be men that others would say is regularly flirty with women not his wife. Instead, they must be men who are faithful to their wives.

Does this mean a man can’t ever be a pastor-elder if he’s ever been divorced? I don’t think the text is trying to answer that question directly. The question is not, “Has this man ever been divorced?” The question is, “Is this man faithful to his wife in every way?” A man who is regularly lusting after pornography is not being faithful to his wife. A man who has an ongoing secret “friendship” with another woman is not being faithful to his wife. While this man might still be married, he’s disqualified from being an elder-pastor.

When it comes to the specific question of divorce, I would want to come to an agreement with a group of pastor-elders on that topic, present it to the members, and let the membership decide and go with that view. I recognize that is a bit of a cop-out, but the topic is so sensitive and has such potential to impact so many people that I think it best presented as a group of pastors and not by just me.