SPECIAL TOPIC: HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE

SPECIAL TOPIC: HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE (from 1 Timothy 3)

This phrase has caused much discussion. It was obviously an issue for the
church at Ephesus in the first century (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1,12; 5:7; and in Crete,
Titus 1:6). Here are the basic interpretive theories.

1. it refers to polygamy

2. it refers to a remarriage after divorce

3. it refers to the second marriage after the first wife’s death

4. it refers to a man faithful and attentive to his wife (i.e.,
“a one-woman kind of man,”another way of
asserting good family relationships, cf. NEB)

This list of qualifications refers to family relationships, and any problem in the area of
family relationships disqualifies one from leadership in a local church.

1. Number
1 was not a problem in the Roman Empire, but was a potential problem in Judaism
(though rare in the first century).

2. Number2 was a great problem in the Roman Empire,
and also a problem in Judaism (Hillel vs. Shammai).

3. Number 3 was a major concern of
the Early church, especially Tertullian, and is still an issue in Baptist
circles in Europe. However, 1 Tim. 5:14 is a parallel passage where younger
widows can remarry with no reproach (cf. Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7).

There is one more option, that the requirement refers to marriage versus
singleness. The false teachers had forbidden marriage (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3). This may
be a direct refutation of their tendency toward celibacy and asceticism. This is
not to assert that an unmarried person cannot be a church leader, but that
singleness cannot be a requirement. I think this is the best option and it also
answers the other interpretive problems relating to (1) “not addicted to much
wine” and (2) the issue of women in 1 Tim. 2:8-15. These must be interpreted in
light of the presence of false teachers in these churches.

If the issue is a strong, godly family, then divorce is not
the only critical issue. Even in the OT divorce was sometimes the
appropriate option: (1) YHWH divorces unfaithful Israel and (2) priests were
commanded to divorce unfaithful wives (see “Old Testament Perspective on Divorce
and Remarriage” in
Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society Vol. 40 #4, Dec. 1997). All humans experience disruption in their
family life in some areas. My major concern with taking this qualification
strictly literally is the lack of consistency in taking all the others in this
context literally as well. If divorce disqualifies, then so do (a) not addicted
to wine (cf. “not. . .addicted to much wine” of 1 Tim. 3:8, which is not
necessarily a commandment to total abstinence) and (b) “keep his children under
control” of 1 Tim. 3:4, which would eliminate many modern pastors and deacons.

Truthfully, I do not know many Christian leaders who could consistently
fulfill all of these requirements throughout their lives. So before we become
too critical of the flaws of leadership remember that these qualifications are
God’s will for all His children.
I am not advocating lowering the standards, but not using them in a legalistic,
judgmental sense. The church needs godly, socially acceptable leadership.
However all we have to choose from is saved sinners! Modern churches must seek
out leaders who have proven themselves faithful over time, not perfect people.

One more point, if this list is taken too literally, then Jesus (because He
was single) and Paul (because he was possibly divorced) could not have been
church leaders. Makes one think, doesn’t it?