The following is a position paper I presented to the deacons of Central Baptist Church on the meaning of the phrase “husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:12.  As we ever seek to be faithful to the teaching of God’s Word, it is important that we approach disputed passages with care and with prayer.  It is to that end that I wrote the following paper.

This is a position paper, not a paper containing official policy, and it reflects only my opinions.  It is designed to contribute to an ongoing conversation.

On the Meaning of “Husband of One Wife”

Prepared for the Deacons of Central Baptist Church

By Wyman Richardson, Pastor

 

It is amazing how powerful three little Greek words can be:

μιας γυναικος ανδρα

That phrase appears three times in the New Testament:  in 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12, and Titus 1:6.  The first and third of those references refer to the qualifications of elders.  The second, 1 Timothy 3:12, refers to the qualifications of deacons.

Those three words have been translated in various ways in various translations and paraphrases.  Here is but a sampling of some of these:

“husband of one wife” (English Standard Version)

“faithful to their spouse” (Common English Bible)

“faithful to his wife” (New International Version)

“faithful in marriage” (Contemporary English Version)

“have only one wife [or be faithful to their wife]” (Expanded Bible)

“faithful to one wife” (Knox Bible)

“committed to their spouses” (The Message)

“men of one woman” (Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament)

“husbands of only one wife” (New American Standard Version)

“be married only once” (New Revised Standard Version)

“one wife husbands” (Young’s Literal Translation)

As can be seen, there is confusion on just how to render these three words and there is confusion on how to interpret them once rendered.  For Baptist Christians, for whom the Scriptures are our marching orders, this is an important issue.

This paper has two purposes: (1) to review the possible interpretations of those three Greek words, showing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each position and (2) to offer my own thoughts.  In fulfilling the first task, I will be drawing on numerous quotations from representatives of these views.

I have prepared this position paper for you, the Deacons of Central Baptist Church, to facilitate our discussion of deacon qualifications.  I claim no exclusive, expert, or definitive knowledge of the issue.  I simply claim that how we interpret these words, and how we allow our interpretation of them to affect the calling of men into the diaconate at Central Baptist Church is worthy of careful consideration.

It is likely the case that the majority of Southern Baptist churches see in these words a prohibition against divorced men serving as deacons.  At least, that has been my experience as a pastor of Southern Baptist churches in Oklahoma, Georgia, and Arkansas.  But is that the best interpretation?  If it is, then we should not allow divorced men to be deacons, for the question at hand is not about the authority of scripture but the interpretation of scripture.

What the Bible says is the decisive issue and the end of the conversation for Christians who see Scripture as definitive and authoritative.  This is our bedrock conviction concerning the authority of the Bible and we do not apologize for our commitment to yield to what it says.  But therein lies the question:  what, in fact, does it say?  Simply repeating a particular English translation of the words does not solve the issue, for translation itself involves a degree of interpretation and, even if it is decided that “husband of one wife” is the best translation, that does not settle the issue of interpretation, of what those words mean.

In this position paper, I will be considering four different interpretations.  More than four have been proposed over the years, of course, but there are some interpretations that I will not grant the dignity of consideration.  For instance, I will not consider the Roman Catholic idea that “husband of one wife” is actually a call for singleness and celibacy and that the “wife” referred to by Paul is actually the Church.  This view was expressed by the 11^th/12^th century Benedictine abbess, Hildegard of Bingen, who interpreted the words in this manner:

What does this mean?…A priest should not have two roles and be at the same time the husband of a physical wife and of a spiritual spouse; but he should be the husband of one wife, namely, the holy church…Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, who rule well their children and their houses [1 Timothy 3:12].  What does this mean?  Let those who render service to the priests and assist them be the husbands of one wife by faithful marriage.  And who is this wife?  The chaste Bride who can be injured by no corruption, as a woman is corrupted when she loses the flower and innocence of virginity, which she had at the beginning of her marriage when not yet corrupted by her husband…For My friend Paul displays that bride to the priests and the other ministers of My altar so that they will choose her as their wife and not seek a carnal spouse.[1]

With all due respect to sister Hildegard and those Roman Catholics who subscribe to this view, this is clearly a false interpretation employed to buttress a priori Roman Catholic beliefs concerning celibacy.  It has no bearing in the text itself, and I will not treat it as if it does.

The four proposed interpretations of “husband of one wife” I will consider in this paper are as follows:

Interpretation #1:  A Prohibition Against Polygamous Men Serving as Deacons

Interpretation #2:  A Prohibition Against Divorced Men Serving as Deacons

Interpretation #3:  A Prohibition Against Single Men Serving as Deacons

Interpretation #4:  A Prohibition Against Unfaithful Men Serving as Deacons

Under each heading, I will attempt fairly to represent the strengths and weaknesses of each view and will offer my own opinion as well.

Interpretation #1

A Prohibition Against Polygamous Men Serving as Deacons

Many read the phrase “husband of one wife” to mean, “not married to more than one woman at a time.”  In this view, the phrase is seen as a prohibition against polygamous men serving as deacons.

Arguments in Favor of this Interpretation

On the surface of it, this seems to be the most straightforward interpretation:  a deacon can have one wife but not two or three or more.  John Calvin saw this interpretation as so self-evident that he, following John Chrysostom’s lead from the 4^th century, flatly called it “the only correct one” and noted that polygamy “was generally allowed among the Jews then.”[2]  The great Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, said that “husband of one wife” referred to “one at a time, clearly.”[3]

There is some evidence for the practice of polygamy in the 1^st century.  We can see this in Josephus’ (1^st century) assertion that “by ancestral custom a man can live with more than one wife” as well as in Justin Martyr’s (2^nd century) observation in his Dialogue with Trypho that “it is possible for a Jew even now to have four or five wives.”[4]

In this view, Paul was anticipating the conversion of either Jewish or Greco-Roman men who had more than one wife.  Polygamy is not consistent with a Christian sexual ethic, and this view sees the words as meaning that men with multiple wives must not be given leadership status that would appear to legitimate or normalize their behavior.

Arguments Against this Interpretation

Various arguments have been posited against this view.  For starters, the question of the prevalence of polygamy in the first century is highly disputed.  Philip Towner sees this interpretation as “not likely” since “monogamy was by far the norm of that day.  Polygamy was generally regarded as abhorrent and did not need to be mentioned in such a list.”[5]  Furthermore, others have pointed out that 1 Timothy was written to Timothy in Ephesus, a Greek city, and it is in no way evident that polygamy would have been an issue there.

Another argument involves Paul’s use of this phrase in reference to women in 1 Timothy 5.  In verse 9 of that chapter, in seeking to define the guidelines for the church’s benevolent aid for widows, Paul defines the widows who are eligible for such aid as “having been the wife of one husband.”  Now, this is an extremely important verse, and one we will return to again and again, because whatever interpretation we apply to “husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:12) must also be an intelligible interpretation for “wife of one husband” (1 Timothy 5:9).

On this point, the polygamy argument utterly fails, for, as Greg Allison notes, “polyandry [a wife with more than one husband] was unheard of among women in this society” and that, on that basis, “‘the husband of one wife’ should not be taken as polygamy.”[6]  To simplify this, if “husband of one wife” is an argument against men having more than one wife then “wife of one husband” must consistently be an argument against women having more than one husband.  And while polygamy might, in theory, have been in practice in the first century (even in Ephesus, we might add, among Jews who might have lived there), polyandry certainly was not.

Conclusions Concerning this Interpretation

Based on the evidence, it seems to me that the polygamy interpretation, while perhaps theoretically possible, is extremely unlikely and should not be taken as a serious option.

Interpretation #2

A Prohibition Against Divorced Men Serving as Deacons

As mentioned earlier, many see this statement as a prohibition against divorced men serving as deacons.  Indeed, most of the controversy in our tradition centers around this interpretation.

Arguments in Favor of this Interpretation

There are some good arguments for this position.  One such argument is the old age of this view:  it has been held by some Christians for almost all of Christian history.  Peter Gorday notes that this interpretation was a “generally accepted tradition” among the churches known to Basil the Great in the 300’s.[7]  The 4^th century Apostolic Canons say that a man “who is involved in two marriages, after his baptism…cannot be an episkopos, a bishop.”[8]  Benjamin Merkle, while ultimately rejecting this interpretation as the best one, does see this view as “the view of the early church, which valued celibacy after the divorce or death of the spouse.”[9]

Furthermore, James Brundage points out that 4^th and 5^th century church councils ruled against remarriage for clergymen.  They saw themselves, Brundage says, as upholding “earlier” bans on remarriage and, most significant for our considerations, they saw remarriage as a violation of Paul’s teaching that only a man who is “the husband of one wife” can serve in these capacities.[10]

Arguments Against this Interpretation

However, there are arguments against this interpretation.  While the view is indeed very old, Philip Towner points out that “there is no first-century evidence of its use in connection with divorce.”[11]

Furthermore, there is the fact that Paul does not use the word “divorce” in this verse.  As Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin, Jr. point out, “had Paul clearly meant to prohibit divorce, he could have said unmistakably by using the Greek word for divorce (apolyo).”[12]  Of course, this is an argument from silence, and Paul could have been employing an unusual phrase for divorce, but the fact that he does not use the word is significant and worthy of note.

John MacArthur, Jr. has pointed to the absence of the definite article in Greek as evidence that Paul is likely not referencing marital status.[13]  In other words, the text does not actually say “the husband of one wife.”  When a Greek noun is without a definite article, that construction (called an anarthrous construction) suggests that the quality of the noun is being emphasized.  What this means is the phrase could be translated as something like, “a one-woman sort of man.”[14]  That would be a more literal rendering of the phrase and would suggest that Paul likely means something other than the number of wives a man has had.  It would suggest, instead, that Paul is saying something about the kind of man he is referencing.

Furthermore, Robert Saucy notes that none of the other deacon qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 can be legitimately interpreted to mean that they must have been met throughout a man’s entire life, and poignantly asks, “Why not apply this principle to all these qualifications if we’re going to apply it to this one?”[15]  For instance, should we interpret, “not given to much wine,” to mean if a man has ever been drunk at any point in his life he should not be a deacon?  Of course not.

This raises the question of whether or not these qualifications might have been violated when the prospective deacon was a non-believer without them disqualifying the man in the present day.  It seems to me that we would grant this on every other qualification.  We celebrate and open the diaconate to men who were former drunks and former bad husbands and who formerly had terrible tempers but who have now been gloriously saved by Jesus Christ.  We do so because we understand that lost people act like lost people.  Should the same not be granted to this qualification?

What is more, to say flatly that these three words prohibit a man who has ever been divorced for any reason at all at any point in his life is to risk putting it into collision with other passages.  David Instone-Brewer sees this interpretation as “technically possible but unlikely” and points to the biblical allowance of divorce in some cases as arguing against this interpretation.[16]  If Jesus allowed divorce in the case of sexual immorality (Matthew 5:31-32) and if Paul allowed it in the case of abandonment, saying that the abandoned brother, in that case, “is not enslaved” (1 Corinthians 7:15), should that not inform our reading of this text if, in fact, it is a reference to divorce at all?  And what of men who divorced their wives to try to save the lives of their children from an abusive mother?  And what of men who were abandoned and divorced despite their protests?  Does the voice of the whole counsel of God truly disqualify these men from serving?

What is more, it is doubtful that this interpretation passes “the 1 Timothy 5:9 test,” referring to the parallel verse speaking to the issue of widow care.  Let it be understood that if “husband of one wife” is taken to mean “never divorced” then “wife of one husband” must also refer to “never divorced.”  By that standard, a woman who has ever been divorced, for any reason, would be ineligible for the benevolent assistance of the church, for Paul clearly says in 1 Timothy 5:9 that only women who have been the “wife of one husband” can be enrolled in the benevolence ministry of the church.

I once posed this objection to a sincere church member at another church who interpreted “husband of one wife” to refer to divorce for any reason, asking her if she was truly comfortable telling divorced widows that we would not provide them assistance.  She rejected the notion as nonsensical.  In doing so, she was right, but also terribly inconsistent.  Again, whatever interpretation we grant to 1 Timothy 3:12 must also work with 1 Timothy 5:9.

Finally, it seems to me that if the phrase “husband of one wife” is taken as a reference to the number of wives a man has had, we must include widowed men who have remarried in that list.  To say that the phrase refers to divorced men but not to widowed-and-remarried would seem to read into the phrase a nuance it does not seem to contain.  But I do trust we would all object to barring widowed-and-remarried men from the diaconate.

Conclusions Concerning this Interpretation

This interpretation does indeed have merit, and it should not be discarded flippantly.  It certainly should not be discarded simply because we find it difficult.  If it is to be rejected, it should be rejected for sound reasons in the light of the witness of Scripture.

In my opinion, in light of the arguments for and against this view mentioned above, I find the idea that these three words mean a blanket prohibition against a divorced man serving as a deacon unconvincing.  I believe this interpretation says more than what Paul is saying and sets us up for conflict with other Biblical truths.

It is my opinion that divorce may disqualify a man under certain conditions, but it does not necessarily do so.  The fourth view will speak more to this.  But, concerning this view, Benjamin Merkle’s conclusion seems wise:

The situation of a divorced man must be treated seriously…If he is the “innocent” party in the divorce and was not unfaithful, some time is still needed for him to prove himself in his new marriage.  The same is true if he was divorced before he became a Christian (whether he was unfaithful in the relationship or not).  But if a professing believer was unfaithful to his wife and was later divorced, then extreme caution must be exercised.  The sin of unfaithfulness and divorce, like all sins, can be forgiven, and the person can become renewed.  Thus, after a period of many years in his new marriage, it may be possible, though perhaps not advisable, for a divorced man to become an elder.[17]

Interpretation #3

A Prohibition Against Single Men Serving as Deacons

I will treat this interpretation briefly.  I am surprised at how widely it is assumed that this verse prohibits single men from serving as deacons.

Arguments in Favor of this Interpretation

I suppose it could be argued that the phrase sounds like it is saying men must be married, especially if you emphasize the first word:  “HUSBAND of one wife.”  This would be an argument in favor of this interpretation.

Arguments Against this Interpretation

However, many factors mitigate against such a view.  John Chrysostom said that “Paul is not making a hard and fast rule that a bishop must have a wife, but that he must not have more than one.”[18]  This is but one example of an early (4^th century) rejection of this view.

Furthermore, this statement is a qualitative statement, like others in Paul’s list of qualifications.  Trying to apply this same approach to other qualifications makes it nonsensical.  For instance, the equivalent of this interpretation applied to other qualifications would be to say that Paul’s assertion that a deacon must not be “addicted to much wine” means deacons must drink wine since Paul is addressing their handling of it.  But clearly that is an absurd notion and is not Paul’s point.  His point is that a deacon who drinks wine must be temperate and moderate in doing so and must not be a drunkard.  Along these same lines, Benjamin Merkle notes that consistently holding this view would mean that “we would have to require men to have more than one child since Paul indicates that a potential elder must man his ‘children’ (plural) well.”[19]  This is surely a silly interpretation, as would be the idea that a deacon must have children at all.

Ed Glasscock suggests that this interpretation would actually create “an inconsistency in Paul’s view” since “it surely would not be consistent to require marriage to serve the Lord as an elder or deacon (1 Tim 3:2,12), yet encourage one to stay single so as not to be distracted from serving the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32).”[20]  And, of course, there is the point that Paul himself was single.

Gregg Allison has pointed out that this interpretation does not work with 1 Timothy 5:9 (“having been the husband of one wife”), for “widows” are, by definition, women who have been married.  Thus, this interpretation would make 1 Timothy 5:9 say something like, “widows, if they have been married…”  But that is a redundant absurdity.  Allison rightly calls that a tautology, a meaningless statement.[21]

Conclusions Concerning this Interpretation

In my opinion, this is a very weak view.  Singleness should not be a disqualification for the deacon ministry.

Interpretation #4

A Prohibition Against Unfaithful Men Serving as Deacons

Finally, there is the argument that “husband of one wife” is most faithfully rendered as “one-woman man” and is prohibiting unfaithful, womanizing men from serving as deacons.

Arguments in Favor of this Interpretation

New Testament scholar Craig Keener suggests that the phrase “husband of one wife” “probably meant a faithful husband.”[22]  He says that the phrase is referring to moral character, not number of wives.

John MacArthur, Jr. agrees, arguing that “the issue” with this saying “is moral character, not marital status.” He sees it as Paul saying that deacons “must not be unfaithful to their wives either in their actual conduct with other women, or in their minds.”[23]  Luke Timothy Johnson says “the main point of the requirement would seem to be first the avoidance of any appearance of immorality” and that “the most likely option is…that the man has proved faithful in his marriage.”[24]

Ray Stedman notes that the phrase “has given rise to a lot of controversy” but argues that “the word basically means that an elder [or deacon] is to be a one-woman man, i.e., not a philanderer, not attracted to every skirt that walks down the street, not constantly eyeing somebody or someone else’s wife. It is to be very evident that an elder is committed to one woman, his wife, whom he loves.”

Furthermore, this interpretation, unlike the others, passes “the 1 Timothy 5:9” test.  Applied there, Paul would be saying that widows who were of devious character, who have lived immorally and recklessly, and who were presumably living in the same way, would not be available for the church’s assistance.  While still presenting challenges, that is at least a workable interpretation.

Arguments Against this Interpretation

The main arguments against this view turn out to be the arguments for the other views mentioned above.  Many simply feel that other views, particularly the divorce view, have more merit.

A friend of mine objects to this view at least partly on the grounds (as he told me) that he suspects that those who want to believe this really just want to make a hard requirement easier.  Were that the case, a person would be wrong in doing so.  However, even if that were the case, motives, good or bad, do not render an interpretation right or wrong.

Even so, I wonder if this interpretation really does make the matter easier?  It seems to me that reducing “husband of one wife” to mere conjugal numerics makes it easier by making it quantifiable and simple without touching on the issue of the human heart at all.  It is much harder, in fact, to say that a man who has never been divorced might still be violating this “one-woman-man” standard if he is lecherous or a womanizer.  In such a case, the numbers work in his favor (he has had only one wife) but the weightier matter of the condition of his heart works against him.  This interpretation, in fact, calls us all into question and makes us look at our own hearts and not merely at our marital status.

My Personal Position and Proposal

Taking all things into consideration, it seems to me that the wisest course, and the one that presents the least number of challenges and inconsistencies, is to see the phrase “husband of one wife” as a reference to a man’s moral character and not the number of times he has been married.  Of course, a deficiency in a man’s moral character may be revealed in a divorce, but, then again, not every divorce is a result of a deficiency in a man’s moral character.  A man might be divorced and be a deacon, if the situation surrounding the divorce and an evaluation of the man’s current life does not reveal the besetting sin of immorality and unfaithfulness.  On the other hand, a man might have never been divorced and still not be eligible to be a deacon if he is flirtatious, a womanizer, and not a “one-woman-man.”

Divorce should give us pause and make us careful, to be sure.  Furthermore, it perhaps might be wisely deemed that a serial divorcer who has had many wives may present too much of a stumbling block to the church, even though we believe he can be forgiven through the blood of Christ.  A man who sinned in divorced should be carefully examined and appropriate time and care should be given to see that his character and name have been sufficiently restored.  A man who was sinned against in divorce or who divorced on biblical grounds should not be treated as a second class citizen, on the basis of the witness of God’s Word, though, even here, a period of time for healing and restoration before such a man is welcomed into the diaconate may be appropriate.

Admittedly, the difficulty with this view is that it does not set up nice, neat, clean “rules.”  It requires a careful evaluation of each case, taking into consideration all of the circumstance, and then submitting ourselves to the Spirit’s guidance in each case.  It requires wisdom, which the Lord promises to give those who ask (James 1:5-6).

I propose we ask the Lord for wisdom and let the Spirit guide us cautiously and carefully in this matter, always keeping a view of the cross of Christ in our eyes and hearts.

 

---