NOTE: I have just released a book which compiles (and edits and expands) these posts. It is called “Disqualified? What the Bible Says about Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry.” It is available on Amazon.com. The Kindle version will be released in the next couple of days – not sure what the hold-up is there. This book reviews the biblical evidence on divorce and remarriage, beginning with the cornerstone in the Old Testament – the twin principles of God’s intent of marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman and the understanding of the brokenness caused by sin. It then lays the foundation with an examination of the passage in Deuteronomy 14:1-4 which necessitates a “grounds” for divorce. Jesus builds the structure in his teachings, reiterating the intent of God’s creation – lifelong covenant – but also establishing the divorce exception as a grounds for divorce. Then Paul puts the finishing touches on the structure with his extensive teachings in 1 Corinthians 7, adding abandonment as a second grounds and dealing with other significant issues. I also address the issue of abuse and how that should be handled. Having surveyed the biblical evidence, I then turn my attention to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, examining what the phrase, “Husband of one wife” means, and give advice both to the divorced who want to serve in the church and to churches dealing with this issue.
If you are reading these posts, I think you will find the book “Disqualified?” helpful.
“I want to stick to the biblical standard. I don’t think we should compromise the Bible to let divorced men serve as deacons.”
I was having a discussion with my deacons a few years ago. Our church has had an unwritten rule for a long time that divorced men were ineligible to serve as deacons in the church. That is not unusual at this church. Unwritten, unofficial policies abound! Soon after I assumed the pastorate here, I began a crusade against unwritten rules, and so we needed to discuss this issue. During the discussion, one of our men made the declaration above. For him, the Bible was absolutely clear that divorced men were not allowed to serve in positions of leadership in the church. It was settled doctrine and only those who desired to compromise the truth and molly-coddle sinners would hold to the other view. It is also a pretty loaded way to end debate, painting those of us who disagree with his conclusion as those who prefer to follow the culture instead of the Word of God. It stung a little.
That was the challenge that led me to take this old seminary paper (from before man had discovered fire) and turn it into a more extensive study on divorce, remarriage and ministry. I wanted to demonstrate to my good friend (who has since gone to be with the Lord) that my position was based not on a desire to compromise truth, but on a serious attempt to understand the biblical teaching on the topic. I know that many serious (and perhaps more qualified) Bible students disagree with my position, but I wanted to demonstrate that my position came out of Bible study, not Bible compromise. I do not think the biblical evidence supports the strict prohibition of all who have been divorced from serving as elders, pastors or deacons.
It is now time to get to the heart of this matter.
Can a divorced man be biblically qualified to serve the church as a pastor, elder or deacon?
What does the Bible say here? There may have been a time when opinion was nearly unanimous among those who had a high view of Scripture. Only the most liberal of churches gave their pulpits to divorced men in previous generations. Now, it is common for churches to have divorced men in service on staff, as elders or as deacons. I pastored in a small association for nearly 15 years in which three of our leading pastors were divorced men. These were conservative, Bible-believing, Gospel-proclaiming men who had failed marriages in their pasts. Each was remarried with a godly and supportive spouse in the present. Many have left the absolute prohibition against the divorced serving the church in the dust.
But in questions of biblical interpretation, majority does not rule. The fact that at one time the prohibition against the service of the divorced was nearly universal did not make it right and the fact that many churches have now rejected that standard does not make it wrong. The answer is in exegesis, not popular opinion. What does the Bible say? If the Bible does support the traditional prohibition to these leadership positions, we should not compromise just because divorce has become so prevalent. We should do exactly what the Bible says. So, that is what we will examine here.
The crux of the issue is one small phrase that appears twice in 1 Timothy 3 (verse 2 concerning overseers and in verse 12 concerning deacons) and again in Titus 1:6 as a requirement for elders. Elders and deacons were both required to be “the husband of one wife.” That is the sum total of the biblical evidence. Those who maintain that divorced men are prevented from serving as pastors, elders or deacons must demonstrate that this phrase applies to divorce. Those who hold that this passage permits service from divorced men must demonstrate that the phrase does not speak to divorce.
The issue boils down to this question. Does the requirement that elders and deacons be the “husband of one wife” preclude those who have been divorced from serving? If we can determine what that phrase means, we can answer the question pretty easily.
The question is what “husband of one wife” means. The answers have generally fallen into three categories.
- The most obvious answer might be that Paul was prohibiting polygamists from serving in these leadership positions.
- Others, like the deacon whose quote I mentioned earlier, see the phrase as synonymous with “never go.”
- And, of course, there are those who believe that there is more at stake here than polygamy or a simple divorce prohibition. The meaning of that phrase answers the question
A word of warning is appropriate here. There are two serious sins that we must avoid. In Revelation 2, Jesus rebuked both Pergamum and Thyatira churches for tolerating evil and false doctrine. Tolerating what God calls sin cannot be tolerated! If this phrase is properly interpreted as “never divorced” then we should not go beyond what the Word of God allows. But there is another danger to be avoided. In 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul warned the people not to “go beyond what is written.” Jesus rebuked the religious leaders and Paul warned the Galatians about those who added human rules to God’s Word. If “husband of one wife” does not refer to divorce, then those who have issued a blanket prohibition of service by divorced men have gone imposed human rules on God’s Word and that is no small matter.
Look at Revelation 22:18-19 where John gives this warning about the prophecies he has written.
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
Severe penalties attach to either adding to or taking away from the words of the prophecy. Perhaps that warning is specific to the Revelation, but the principle is instructive for us.
It would be deeply damaging to the Body of Christ to allow divorced men to serve in leadership positions if the Scriptures prohibit it. But it would be just as serious a sin to prevent men from serving without biblical warrant. It is not acceptable to either take away from the teachings of scripture or to add to them.
Anyone who engages in an argument wants to place the burden of truth on the other side; it grants a huge advantage if one’s opponents bear that burden. But I do believe that it is incumbent on those who would use “husband of one wife” as a blanket prohibition against divorced men serving as pastors or deacons to prove their point. If the passage cannot clearly be demonstrated to be a prohibition on service by the divorced, then it should not be used in that way. Unless there is a clear prohibition in God’s Word, we should not make one!
Ultimately, though, the crux is the meaning of this phrase. So, what does it mean to be “the husband of one wife?”
Husband of One Wife
As mentioned above, there are at least three major ways to view this passage. Let us examine these in a little more detail.
1) First, many have taken this in the most literal sense possible, as a condemnation of polygamy. The common English translation of the phrase would seem to differentiate the husband of one wife from the husband of more than one wife. It is the simplest interpretation and most literal interpretation.
But two objections can be raised to cast doubt that this phrase speaks of polygamy. First, there was evidently little polygamy practiced in the Roman Empire. There was some polygamy practiced among the Jews, but Paul was not writing to a primarily Jewish culture here. If polygamy was not a huge issue, it seems unlikely that Paul would focus on that as he gave instructions about church leadership.
But the most devastating evidence against the polygamy interpretation is found in 1 Timothy 5:9, where the same phrase is used with the gender roles reversed. Widows who were going to be added to “the list” (which no one knows too much about) had to have been “the wife of one husband.” Regardless of how common polygamy (more than one wife) was, polyandry (a wife with more than one husband) is among the rarest of cultural phenomena. When Paul demands a woman be the wife of one husband, it is clear he was not addressing polyandry. When he uses a nearly identical phrase to refer to a husband of one wife, it is then unlikely that polygamy is the focus.
Polygamy obviously is outside the boundaries of God’s original intent and this passage would probably have at least a secondary application to the practice. Men who have more than one wife would not be allowed to serve as pastors or deacons in the church. But that does not seem to be the primary teaching here.
2) The most common focus of this verse has been as a prohibition against divorced men serving in leadership positions. Since Jesus said that divorce (except on the grounds of adultery) was invalid and adulterous, it is logical to assume that a divorce man who remarries is actually married to two women and by that is the husband of more than one wife.
The prohibitionist group is not uniform by any means. Some would prohibit all divorcees from serving in these positions. Other would restrict only those who were divorced after their conversion. How can we hold someone accountable for their actions before Christ saved them? There is a continuum of strictness among those who hold this traditional view, but share the belief that this verse eliminates those who are divorced from this kind of service in the church.
3) The third view, the one I hold, is that this passage does not refer to divorce, but to the kind of husband a man is to his wife.
I could list pros and cons of the second and third views, but it all comes down to the exegetical study of the phrase. What does “husband of one wife” mean? So, let us examine this phrase.
Examining the Phrase
It is my contention that neither divorce nor polygamy is the primary focus of this passage. I believe that Paul is requiring that a man must demonstrate himself as a faithful and devoted husband before he is ready to lead God’s church.
The translation “husband of one wife” may not be the best translation of the passage. The Greek phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2, “mias gunaikos andra”, could be literally translated “one-woman man” or “a man of one woman.” The last word, man, appears in a slightly different form in each of the three passages, but the meaning is the same. The key leaders of the church, elders and deacons, are to demonstrate themselves to the church as “one-woman men.”
That accurate translation seems to almost explain itself. What is in view here is the man’s heart. It involves much more than just being sexually faithful to his wife. A one-woman man is faithful in body, yes, but also in soul and spirit. He is devoted to his wife. His relationship with his wife demonstrates that he knows how to be a servant leader. If he is not faithful and devoted to his wife, it is unlikely he will be faithful and devoted to his church duties.
This is a much higher burden than some other interpretations require. Since we do not have polygamy (at least officially) in our nation, it would be an empty requirement if that meaning is accepted. If the command is simply a prohibition that a man never has been divorced, all that is required is that a man has avoided divorce. But this command is more significant than that. I have known men who have never been divorced and have never cheated on their wives, but show little devotion to their wives. They may be technically “the husband of one wife” but cannot by any means be called a “one-woman man.”
It is my belief that this kind of character is what is in view in this command. If Paul had wanted to say that a man who had ever been divorced was not qualified to serve as an elder or deacon, there are ways he could have said that in Greek. Paul spoke clearly and it is clear what he meant in this passage. He was saying that men who lead the church should be men who have demonstrated their abilities to lead their homes and demonstrate faithful servant leadership to their wives.
Conclusion
The meaning of Paul’s phrase here will always be open to discussion and interpretation. It seems highly likely he was not speaking of polygamy, since polygamy was not a common practice in Roman culture, and since the same construction is reversed as a requirement for a woman. Certainly, polygamy would be inappropriate for church leaders, but it is not the chief intent of this verse.
In reality, those who use this as a prohibition of divorce are also assuming the passage refers to a form of polygamy. They believe that the first marriage was not ended and so, by the second marriage, the man has become a kind of polygamist, married in God’s eyes to both his former wife and his current one.
My quarrel with this view is two-fold. First of all, I think it makes a blanket generalization about the teachings of Jesus on divorce that is, in many cases, not warranted. A man who is divorced on biblical grounds is freed from his marriage covenant and is free to remarry. When he remarries, he is the husband of one wife and one wife only – his new wife. The former marriage is over, in God’s eyes. We will examine this in more detail later.
My second problem with this view is that if Paul was intending to prohibit divorced men from serving as deacons or elders, there are ways he could have stated that more plainly. “An overseer must never have divorced a wife and remarried.” He could have given words that would clearly and unequivocally say what he meant. Paul was never one for veiling his words. He said what he meant. If he had meant divorce here, he would have said it.
The most obvious focus of the phrase is fidelity and commitment. A husband must demonstrate to all that he knows what it is to be a servant leader by being a good husband who loves his wife and devotes himself to her. Context, linguistics and logic all seem to support this viewpoint.
It is an unwarranted stretch to use this phrase as a blanket condemnation of divorced men as serving as deacons, elders, pastors, or in other leadership positions. No biblical grounds exist on which to deny all divorced people from serving. To do so, in my mind, is to violate the teachings of Scriptures.
Next time, we will examine the implications of the phrase in more detail.
Previous Installments
Part 1 of this series “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: What Does the Bible Say?” introduces the topic and sets forth three different approaches to the topic.
Part 2 of the series, “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: The OT Foundation: Does God Hate All Divorce?”, examines several OT passages that set the foundation of the biblical teaching. It especially examines the Malachi passage that has been interpreted as a general statement, “God hates divorce.”
Part 3 focuses specifically on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, the key OT passage on the subject. “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: Deuteronomy 24:1-4 – Establishing Grounds for Divorce.“
Part 4 focuses on the teachings of Jesus on the subject. “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: What Did Jesus Say?”
Part 5 examines Paul’s teachings on the subject and lays the groundwork for the study of 1 Corinthians 7, the pinnacle of biblical teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage. It especially examines the question of whether Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 7 were just Paul’s opinion or were they inspired scripture. “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: Were Paul’s Views Scripture or Opinion?”
Part 6 examines 1 Corinthians 7:10-24, a post entitled, “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: Paul’s Groundbreaking Teaching.”
Part 7 summarized the biblical teachings, drawing seven conclusions about divorce and remarriage. “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: A Summary of the Biblical Teachings on Divorce.“
I dug around just a little bit some years ago and came to the conclusion that the phrase really meant that the elder was to be a “one (or first) woman man”. If .. as our church does .. the body holds that the deacon or elder must be the husband of one wife (period ever end of story unless she dies), then that would seem to mandate that the guy be married, and I haven’t seen churches insist that they be married.
Thus far, I very much admire your approach and your conclusions. I shall await further installments.
I hold the position that a deacon must be a married man, but for reasons aligning with but in addition to these verses in Timothy.
See also B.H. Carroll, who was divorced before salvation due to an adulterous spouse. Thank you for a thorough treatment of a thorny issue.
Really enjoying this series. We wrestled through this as a church while writing our constitution and by laws and seem to have come to similar conclusions to yours. Keep going!
Good treatment of the issue. Sadly, many churches hold that once divorced the man can never serve as a church officer.
Interestingly, the Baptist seminary I graduated from had a requirement that to enroll there, a man could not have ever been divorced no matter the circumstances and he could not be presently married to a woman who had ever been divorced for any reason even if he himself had not been divorced. IMO, that is the easy way out and and an unbiblical one as well.
Dave, Really good information and well written. Enjoyed the read. One of the things that I was able to see clearly after I was divorced was the “one flesh” issue. You can describe one flesh and explain it all day long but you never really understand it completely until your marriage is severed. The one flesh issue is the mystery of the church, as you know, too. A person doesn’t realize its effect until divorce and remarriage. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24… Read more »
Dave, I like that you actually took the time to communicate thoughtfully on this serious issue. I weigh in to this discussion the powerful illustration Paul uses frequently of marriage and the gospel (Romans 7, 1 Corinthians 7, 2 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5). I think there is some weight to consider. If the Gospel is at stake it is a sober issue to look at Scripture intentionally on the matter. I have heard the “one-woman man” argument. I think it is helpful and right. However, because of the weight of the other teachings from Paul about the beautiful picture of… Read more »
If the Gospel is at stake… The Gospel is not at stake because Paul is never describing salvation or the Gospel message (Jesus died for your sins) when using a marriage illustration; Paul is always describing the relationship between the man & woman as synonymous with Jesus & the church respectively. The only possible exception would be Romans 7 where Paul is speaking specifically about death giving absolute freedom from marriage as synonymous with freedom from the law of sin. I find it ironic that your argument references freedom from the law while making a legalistic point. The marriage illustrations… Read more »
Greg, I hold that the gospel is a stake. I’m not saying that the gates of Hell will prevail, but Paul clearly teaches Timothy to not give in to strange doctrines, myths and genealogy arguments. Christ and the church is an illustration of the gospel. A clear gospel, a pure gospel, a saving gospel is at stake. I disagree that the gospel is not at stake in Paul’s teaching on marriage. I see that some may not think so. Yes, in the marriage illustration Paul is showing that Christ loves the church. My marriage is a gospel message to my… Read more »
I would reverse that argument Paul, concerning the gospel (it will be a focus of a future post on the topic.)
What is the focus of the gospel? Transformation. What better illustration of the gospel than taking those who have failed in the past and rebuilding in them a godly character, integrity and respect.
The gospel demands, in my thinking, that we allow for those who have failed to be restored, in due time, even to leadership.
DAVID, in the early Church, some Christians renounced their Christianity under persecution but later wanted to return to the church. These ‘Lapsi’, as they were called, had been guilty of a terrible thing: they had, out of fear, denied Christ, and THEN, they had betrayed other Christian people into the hands of Roman persecutors, often for martyrdom. Some in the Church thought that this betrayal was so egregious that the ‘Lapsi’ would never receive God’s forgiveness, nor should they receive communion again. But the early Church disagreed. . . based on the teachings of the sacred Scriptures. From time to… Read more »
Dave, I see that the gospel ‘demands that we allow for those who have failed to be restored, in due time, even to leadership.’ That’s not my point. My point is that I am alright and at peace with an interpretation of Scripture that says the office of elder/pastor and deacon not be filled by a remarried man. I think I didn’t flesh that point in out very good in my original reply to your post. Would someone make an allowance for women to be in this same office for this same reasoning? (Some do.) But there is a standard… Read more »
I think I would reply with one of the paragraphs in the original post: “It would be deeply damaging to the Body of Christ to allow divorced men to serve in leadership positions if the Scriptures prohibit it. But it would be just as serious a sin to prevent men from serving without biblical warrant. It is not acceptable to either take away from the teachings of scripture or to add to them.” We are both extrapolating gospel principles in different directions. The question is more direct: does “husband of one wife prohibit divorced men from these positions? That is… Read more »
I think that paragraph from your original post is among the strongest, needed statements you make. It would be equally tragic. Is it a thorny issue because we don’t want to offend someone by holding an office of the church to a standard of Scripture or is it thorny because it’s not that clear? I wish Paul had been more directly clear. But, my direct answer to the issue is that the weight of scripture helps me see that this points more toward a more strict standard than a less strict. (I’m not advocating legalism based on man’s standards. Isn’t… Read more »
I’m sure glad that God’s view of a covenant relationship in the gospel is not the prevailing view of the covenantal relationship of marriage.
Excellent summary, David. A one woman kind of man, meaning a man who is faithful to his wife, treating her with affection and appreciation. When I had my separation and divorce some 43-44 years ago, I nearly committed suicide due to not knowing how to live with such a frustrating circumstances. If it had not been for some friends, especially one who supplied me with one book in particular on Divorce and Remarriage which went into the Greek and Hebrew meaning of the words involved, I doubt that I would have ever made it. After my divorce was final, some… Read more »
Dave, I am glad you are running this series, because it is a discussion that needs to take place. Twice you referenced one of your problems with the ” nodivorce-remarriage” view is that could have been stated plainly, as “if Paul was intending to prohibit divorced men from serving as deacons or elders, there are ways he could have stated that more plainly.” It is possible that objection is not as strong as you think if you consider a fourth theoretical category of meaning; that Paul used this phrase to encompass all these restrictions you discuss — no polygamy, no… Read more »
I do think there is something to your point, Robert. Husband of one wife obviously encompasses polygamy even if that is not the primary focus.
But, does it mean, “never divorced?” I do not see that.
Dave, perhaps another way of looking at this is that saying “if Paul was intending to prohibit divorced men from serving as deacons or elders, there are ways he could have stated that more plainly” to some degree requires assuming the conclusion. Here is something that might illustrate it. If I have a tire iron and say, “Well if this had been intended to loosen lugs it would look like this (holding up a four point lug wrench).” That would be assuming that lugs could only be loosened one way, or only with one tool.
Enjoyed this Dave. This topic was dealt with in length in some of my classes, and it often left my head spinning in the discussion. For some reason this is a topic that people have trouble explaining clearly, and expressing the different sides to the argument. In the end I reached a similar conclusion to yours, but kept quiet over it since it was the rather unpopular viewpoint in my situation (I regret not speaking up about it.) I do have one question for you. I realize this doesn’t pertain directly to the original topic, but still encompasses the different… Read more »
I do not think that these verses are meant to be taken that way, though some do. I believe that the intent is to limit men to one woman, not to impose a marriage standard.
Since Jesus was unmarried and Paul was unmarried it seems unusual that unmarried people would be restricted from leadership role.
And Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians seems to speak to the issue directly. Being single is advantageous, not to be punished.
Thanks for the response Dave. I agree with you.
Hey Dave,
With respect to Paul being unmarried, I have read that in order for him to have been a “Pharisee of Pharisee’s” he WOULD have had to have been married. Some have surmised that his conversion to Christianity may have been grounds for his own divorce.. since there is no mention of a wife anywhere in the Scriptures. Just a comment; I have never investigated that theory.
><>”
I have heard that as well, that Pharisees were required to be married, but like you have never studied it.
Some of the scholastic luminaries out there might have some info on this?
Bob,
I’m of the opinion, though I can’t prove it, that Paul was divorced. As a good Pharisee it would seem he would have been married. Also, it seems he was a member of the Sanhedrin, which I believe required one to be married.
Paul never said he had never been married. He only used the present tense when speaking of his marital situation.
Don,
I suspect you may be right.
><>”
Or, he could have been a widower. Who knows.
Another option might be that his wife was deceased.
Sorry, Dave. Looks as if I posted right on your heels.
Here is a question on this: Would the Greek-speaking recipients of Paul’s letters have read “one-woman man?” Or would they have read this as “one-wife husband” given that the words are the same in Greek? After all, they did not have the benefit of a George Jones song to familiarize them with the phrase “one-woman man.” All that to raise this: I think there is much to consider in terms of grace and qualification for ‘named-office’ service and that we are too quick to cast aside some people for distant sin long-forgiven and character issues long outgrown. We are also… Read more »
Doug, I think there is merit to your statement but personally I believe Paul is simply saying exactly what Dave has suggested, that he be a consistent head of his household, which would include his relationship with his wife. Even going back to the objection made earlier about the gospel and the church’s correlated relationship, we must all remember that we are ALL sinners condemned and that sin is sin… so the point to the correlation as I see it is that God accepts us as we are and moves us to the place He wants us to be as… Read more »
Obviously, the key is to get inside the 1st Century mind. It is not easy to leave behind the mindset with which I think.
Oh, and kudos on the George Jones reference.
Dave, You said, “Elders and deacons were both required to be ‘the husband of one wife.’ That is the sum total of the biblical evidence [against ordaining those who have been divorced].” I disagree. Stronger evidence may be where Scripture says he is to rule his own house well and to have his children in submission. In addition, even if you assume the proper translation is “one-woman man” or “a man of one woman,” that could be taken to prohibit ordaining a divorced man. For example, if a man has been divorced and remarried, he is a two-woman man, not… Read more »
David, you make an assumption that a divorced and remarried man is the husband of two wives. I do not think that is true, if he divorce was on biblical grounds (adultery or abandonment). A man divorced on biblical grounds is free to remarry and be the husband of one wife and one wife alone.
I agree with you that it is up to the local church.
I’m not really seeing how the admonition about governing his children well fits into the marriage debate. Can you develop that a little further?
It can be argued that a divorced and remarried man does not have a history of being a “one woman man.” Does a “one woman man” only depend on what he has been the last year or two, or his long term pattern of living?
Children are devastated by divorce. Divorce causes much trauma, drama, and problems in the divided families. Not exactly the picture of a home ruled well with the children well behaved.
Not looking for a big argument. Just saying both sides in this issue have some strong evidence.
David R. Brumbelow
Dave, I think to some extent you can argue against divorce with the “one woman-man” idea even if you don’t make an assumption that a divorced and remarried man is the husband of two wives. This is especially true in cases when a man had several marriages. On the one hand, some might argue that a man who has been divorced and remarried four or five times is a “one-woman man” because he is currently devoted to the wife he has. On the other hand, I’d say the preponderance of evidence indicates he has a history of not being a… Read more »
Here’s one of the bottom line issues for me, Robert. Not all divorces are alike and not all divorcees are in equal situations.
The person you described obviously has some character issues – divorced four or five times.
On the other hand, someone married at a young age whose wife left him for another man, who has since been married and been a good faithful husband to his second wife for 15 years – that is something different entirely.
The problem is that we want it to be all or nothing. It isn’t and we should act like it is.
Thanks, Dave. I believe your answer is consistent with the point I was trying to make — that is, one doesn’t have to believe a divorced and remarried man has two wives (or three or four) to think the “one-woman man” idea argues against it. I suppose there are some cases in which you would have problems with the first remarriage, if it was the man’s own character issues that caused it? Or I could be misunderstanding you. Personally I have run across quite a few people who have used this text to emphasize it doesn’t matter how many times… Read more »
Actually, David, this is the kind of discussion that I think is blogging at its best – discussing a scriptural issue and bringing different perspectives.
I appreciate the different perspectives.
Here is an issue that I think gets grossly overlooked in these discussions on divorce and that is, the divorce itself is not the real problem; to me it is the result of a bad problem that is caused by a variety of things. Sure relationships can be repaired and miracles can happen which is true of every cancer patient I have ever sat with that died. People marry today at very young ages, we are living in a sin depraved world that is running out of control and is no respecter of persons; our priorities are for the most… Read more »
“People marry today at very young ages”
Bob,
This is false. All studies show that the average age for marriage has been getting pushed back later and later for a few years now.
Dave,
You commented on my post back in the day when I articulated the understanding of this phrase that I have come to adopt. That post is here.
In listing the various options, you have not listed the one that I have come to support. Can I presume that to be because you’re going to give that alternative an entire post to itself? 😉
Bart,
Your link isnt working.
The post title is “The One-Woman Man in the New Testament”
Hmm… now its working for me. Thanks.
Of course…
Good. But if you should change your mind and choose not to address it in a separate post, I would welcome to chance to see you interact with those ideas in the course of this discussion. Considering your “problems” listed in your conclusion above: 1. After rejecting the language “husband of one wife” in favor of “one woman man,” your post returns to “husband of one wife” to suggest the Jesus’ teachings about marriage actually make the divorced-and-remarried man, in some circumstances, the husband of one wife. My viewpoint has the strength of consistently interacting only with the reading “one-woman… Read more »
Hmmm. Works when I click it. Maybe, because I’m using a Mac, “it just works.”
I may go get one of those insults from Luther to insert here.
You all need to consider the children in a family where one or both partners might have had a previous marriage. What do you all have to say about the children?
dr. james,
Children would be a big concern. Either of the ex’s could be divisive and create problems. That could affect the “blameless” issue along with having the children in subjection. Blended families can easily have discipline problems. There would always be a balancing act within the family. It would be even more difficult if they produced a child and both had children from their previous marriage. This is not an area to assume that things “could” work out.
Bart,
I noticed you stated “one-woman man” is often translated “husband of one wife.”
What translation(s) render it as “one-woman man”?
Don,
I don’t know.
Bart,
Every translation that I’m aware of use “husband of one wife.” Do you believe they all got it wrong?
Don, I don’t know anyone who disputes that the Greek phrase is “one-woman man.” That’s a little wooden in English, so the phrase “husband of one wife” makes for a better, more fluid translation. I must have been unclear in something that I have written, because I don’t have any real objection to “husband of one wife” as an English translation of “one-woman man.” It’s a good translation. I might translate it that way myself. Dave had made the point of suggesting that “one-woman man” was something substantially OTHER than “husband of one wife.” He used that rationale to support… Read more »
I would definitely challenge your characterization of my view, Bart. You said, “Dave had made the point of suggesting that “one-woman man” was something substantially OTHER than “husband of one wife.”” That is not a fair representation of what I am advocating. Of course a pastor/elder/deacon should only have one wife. That is not at issue. However, I do not believe that a man who is divorced on biblical grounds (adultery/abandonment) and is remarried is married to more than one wife. The first marriage was ended when the covenant was broken by those acts defined by Jesus and Paul. So,… Read more »
Dave, Then I honestly misunderstood you. The portion that I apparently heard wrongly was: The translation “husband of one wife” may not be the best translation of the passage. The Greek phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2, “mias gunaikos andra”, could be literally translated “one-woman man” or “a man of one woman.” The last word, man, appears in a slightly different form in each of the three passages, but the meaning is the same. The key leaders of the church, elders and deacons, are to demonstrate themselves to the church as “one-woman men.” That accurate translation seems to almost explain itself.… Read more »
Dave, I see you went to the Greek, but you did not go far enough in the Greek. In the Greek this phrase, “Husband of one wife,” (I Tim 3:2) is in the present infinitive. It would literally be interpreted to continuously be be the husband of one wife. In I Tim 3:12 the verb “to be” is a present imperative which is literally a command to keep on continuously being the husband of one wife. This is a a stronger argument from the Greek that it is in fact talking about divorce. Paul said it this way, it was… Read more »
Dave,
Suppose a man has been married and divorced fifteen times, and is now married to his sixteenth wife. He’s had opportunities (boy, has he!) to learn a thing or two about relationships, and now, in his sixteenth marriage, he is the IDEAL husband.
Is he qualified to serve as a pastor?
I made the point above that all divorces are not created equal. Of course not – a fifteen-time divorced man would not, I think, be biblically qualified to serve. But how about a man who marries young, is faithful to his wife, but she has emotional problems from an abusive upbringing and she leaves him for another man. He tried everything he could to minister to her, to reconcile with her and to restore their marriage, but she was belligerent. She leaves him. He remarries, this time to a godly woman and he demonstrates again his fidelity. They build a… Read more »
As to your hypothetical, I would not vote for him, because I do not believe that he meets the biblical qualifications.
If 15 is a problem, and 2 is not, where would you draw the line, numerically?
Two could be a problem, or not, depending on the circumstances of the divorce. I cannot assign a number.
Great point Bart…I wanted to go there too, but stuck to the Greek. Where would they draw the line? The problem is they can’t, and that is why it IS a blanket qualification. But again, great point Bart.
Gentlemen, I’ve been reading all your posts with great interest, and hope you will excuse my stopping by to share my own experience. My husband heard the call to become a pastor at age 43, and after 5 years in seminary, graduated last May. We’ve been married for nearly 26 years; however I was at one time briefly married for 9 months. When my husband started a church a few years ago, and wanted one of the SBC church planter groups to help, he went online and filled out an application. One of the questions asked was if he had… Read more »
A Baptist church in Amarillo had an elderly godly man recommended to be a deacon, by female members. He was openly rejected because, as Dave says, many years earlier he had been divorced, through no fault of his own.
Yet, a divorced woman was allowed to work in the nursery with innocent young children. In fact no one ever discussed the marital status of women in service.
Bruce: Your comment opens a separate thread of thinking. The term diakonos means “servant”, and yet most churches have created two separate classes of servant. Both are official (eg: deacon and SS teacher), both are recognized. And so it seems to me that both ought to fall under whatever qualifications are listed in scripture. It is interesting to me that if we called deacons some other name besides deacons, but with all the same duties and responsibilities of those bearing the name “deacon”, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I’m not speaking in absence of experience. When our church was… Read more »
I had to leave this and think about it, since I did not totally understand your comment. I think, and I may be wrong, that you mean working in the nursery would not be covered by the same biblical rule as being pastor or deacon. If that is not true, my comment will not make sense. We have something in the Bible which is clearly confusing. I am here as an uninvited guest, so it is with temerity that I say this. I think on this posting we have some of the finest theological minds in SBC, and they simply… Read more »
Consider this hypothesis: A man is married, he and his wife have several children, but they are later divorced. He subsequently marries again. The law of the land says he must pay alimony to his ex-wife and support their children financially. Can he really be viewed as a valid candidate for eldership in the church? Does anyone honestly believe that God does not view him as having more than one living wife, even though the law of the country stipulates that he has a legal obligation to his first wife and children? Those who argue that the 1 Timothy 3… Read more »