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.
Bart Barber has advanced an interpretation of the biblical qualification for becoming an elder or a deacon in the church, based on the ancient concept of the univira, that a man must be “the husband of one wife” or more literally, a “one-woman man.” According to Bart, this is not a uniquely Barberian concept, but was a common patristic interpretation. Univirae were women who were only married to one man in their lifetime. Timothy and Titus, the recipients of the books in which Paul used the term “one-woman man” would have almost certainly been familiar with this concept.
The exegetical argument goes something like this:
1. The concept of the univirae was well established in Roman culture. Women who worked in certain positions in Roman temples were required to be married only once in their lifetimes. If their husbands died, they were not permitted to be remarried. There seems to be little question about this concept. A univira was a woman who had been married once and only once in her entire life.
2. In 1 Timothy 5:9, Paul is speaking of the list of widows, and says that a woman that is to be placed on that list must be a “one-man woman” – a phrasing nearly identical to the phrase used in 1 Timothy 3 (for both elders and deacons) and Titus 1 (elders). It is fair to assume that the meaning of the phrases would be uniform. Bart argues that the phrase in 1 Timothy 5:9 would likely have called to mind the univira concept. The more common Greek phrase would have been “monandros” but the phrase is so similar in meaning to the word that Titus would have likely understood Paul to have been invoking the common univirae concept.
This would seem to me to be the bedrock of Bart’s argument. If Paul intended and Titus understood Paul to be invoking the univira concept here, then it is fair to switch the genders in the qualifications for elders and deacons. If 1 Timothy 5:9 is not invoking the univira concept, then the argument fails.
3. Believing that it is reasonable to view 1 Timothy 5:9 as demanding that widows be univirae, Bart argues that the same concept ought to apply to the qualifications of elders and deacons as well. I would say this makes perfect sense. If it can be established that the phrase in 1 Timothy 5:9 demands that those on the list of widows be univirae (invoking the Roman concept) then it is also reasonable to say that such is the case for pastors/elders and deacons. The phrases are so similar in construction that the meaning of one would govern the meaning of the other.
4. So, Bart concludes (though, at least in April of 2010 when he wrote the article linked to above, he held a soft conviction on this) that an elder or deacon in a church may be a person who has only been married once. Essentially, leaders in the church must be male univira (don’t know enough Latin to coin the masculine term – univirum?). They must not be polygamists. They must not be divorced and remarried. They must not be widowed and remarried. One marriage. The leaders of the church must be men who have only ever been married once in their entire lives.
Bart states that if his wife passed away (God forbid) he would leave the ministry if he decided to remarry.
I think it is fair to say that this is not a common view of this passage today. We tend to argue between the three more common views – prohibitions against polygamy, against divorce, or for marital fidelity. Biblical issues are not settled by popularity, but the rarity of this view does seem to make it harder to accept.
But, is it biblical? Let us examine that question.
Examining the Univira Interpretation
First, let me say that engaging Bart is a little intimidating. He is a scholar, I am a pastor who dabbles in biblical interpretation. That is not some kind of false humility but a recognition of reality. And Bart is gifted at theological argument. Had God not called him to ministry he would probably be arguing before the Supreme Court or handling OJ Simpson-style trials! So, I enter this arena with trepidation.
Nonetheless, I am not yet convinced that Bart is right about this interpretation and will engage it on the following bases. The downside, of course, is that by the time this discussion is over, he will have likely convinced many of you that he is right and I am wrong! Here goes anyway.
1. I am not convinced that Paul intended to invoke the univira concept in 1 Timothy 5:9.
First of all, by Bart’s own admission, the common Greek term for univira was monoandros, not “one-man woman” as was used in this passage. If Paul had intended to refer to the commonly-known concept, why did he not simply use the commonly-known term?
Second, it seems odd that Paul would take a pagan concept from idol temples and impose that on both the widows list and on elders and deacons. Is there another instance in the writings of Paul in which he takes a practice from idol temples and brings it into the church? This seems to go a step beyond eating meat sacrificed to idols – basing leadership principles on practices unique to idol culture.
Paul is known to take common terms and baptize them into unique meanings. He does this with the word “mystery” which he imbues with a unique meaning different from common usage. He took a rare word from the Greek language – agape – and turned it into a representation of divine love. But this does not seem like the simple borrowing and reinvention of a term, but the adoption of a pagan practice.
2. I am not persuaded that the linkage of monandros ” (the Greek equivalent of univira), “henos andros gune” (one-man woman) and “mias gunaikos andros” has been sufficiently established.
This is simply an expansion on the point I just made.
Bart argues a sort of geneaology of these terms. Univira was commonly translated into Greek as monandros. Monoandros is similar in meaning to henos andros gune and would therefore call the univira concept to mind. Flipping the genders would carry that same concept into the mias gunaikos andros and require that pastors/elders and deacons never in their lives being married more than once.
I have already admitted that if the beginning of this concept is correct, the final gender switch is justified. But, I think even Bart might admit that this is a strong and even harsh interpretation of this passage. It seems to me that such an interpretation needs to be established as the best and perhaps only reasonable interpretation.
If the Bible is clear, it should be followed even if the interpretation seems harsh to us. Those who support egalitarianism ignore the simple readings of scriptural passages because they find it unfair that women are prevented from holding pastoral positions. We have to follow the dictates of the Bible even if they lead us where we would rather not go. But the principle of male leadership is well-established in Scripture and is based on the simplest and clearest reading of every passage in the NT that deals with the topic.
Here, Bart is advancing a strict and restrictive interpretation that is based on weaker evidence (the identification of 1 Timothy 5:9 with the univirae concept); one that actually seems to be in contradistinction with the biblical teaching on marriage (argued below).
There are other equally compelling or even superior interpretations of the words that do not lead to these conclusion. There are enough questions about the linkage of these terms that the interpretation fails, in my mind, to warrant implementation.
Again, in the absence of clear evidence linking monandros to henos andros gune, the interpretation is unconvincing. Bart describes it as “strikingly similar” but that does not seem like enough weight to me.
3. It appears that this view diverges from the general biblical teachings on marriage.
Both Jesus and Paul advance the concept of marriage as a holy covenant in which God participates. They honor marriage as part of God’s original intent and view it as sanctified and blessed. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul honors the single state as advantageous and blessed, if one is able to live that way and if one is so called. The single are able to devote much time to God’s work without being distracted by family matters. But he also honors marriage.
In Ephesians 5 (and elsewhere) marriage is seen as a picture of Christ and the church. Husbands are called to love as Christ loved the church. Wives are to submit as the church to Christ.
Romans 7:1-3 emphasizes beyond contestation the fact that marriage ends at death. When the spouse dies, the marriage is ended and the person is free to marry another.
If marriage is blessed and holy, if it is a picture of Christ and the church, if it clearly ends at the death of one of the spouses, why would the pagan-based univira concept be imposed on church leadership?
The univirae teaching seems incongruous with biblical teachings on marriage.
4. It seems that this concept penalizes obedience.
Each of the other qualifications for leaders in the church is a question of godliness or ungodliness, of spiritual maturity and holiness. A man must be above reproach, self-controlled, not quarrelsome, not violent. To fail in any of these areas is evidence that we have not yet been conformed to Christ in that part of our lives. The character qualities are evidence of growth in becoming Christlike.
But if an elder or deacon’s wife passes away, his marriage is over. He is then free to find a godly wife and marry her. It is not sin to do so. But are we to believe that by walking in obedience completely to the Word of God, by being a faithful husband, by marrying godly wife after his first wife dies, that somehow he is no longer qualified to serve as a church leader?
I hate to apply human logic to biblical interpretation, but that makes no sense to me.
I discussed this with Bart in the previous post’s comments, and he brought up a very good point. Women who walk in obedience to Christ are still biblically restricted from these positions of elder and deacon. So, it is in the realm of possibility that a person walking in obedience to Christ could be restricted from leadership positions.
I would argue against that being the case here. Paul, in asserting male leadership at home and especially at church, argues on the basis of the created order (Adam created first, then Eve), on the order of the fall (Eve was deceived) – both of these points being made in the verses immediately preceding the passage on the qualifications of elders in 1 Timothy 3. Male leadership in the Bible is rooted in God’s creation (in ways we do not perhaps fully understand).
But marriage is also part of God’s original intent – Adam and Eve were created uniquely for each other. It would go against created order to force singleness on those who are leaders in the church.
So, the issue of male leadership is rooted in the created order while restricting marriage would seem to be contrary to it.
5. There seems little value, intent or purpose to such a restriction.
Of course, God does not have to explain himself to me, but you can look at each of the other restrictions on leadership and explain why they are important and necessary to mature leadership. Why does a leader need to be sober, self-controlled and gentle? That is self-evident. These are part and parcel of godly, servant leadership.
Why would a leader who was married and whose wife died be required to remain unmarried? How does that affect his leadership? It could, according to 1 Corinthians 7, expose him to lust and even immorality. Is there some spiritual value in a univirae-like restriction on pastoral leadership?
And every other interpretation of this passage has a biblical symbolism attached to it – they uphold the value of marriage and family. The view that “husband of one wife” restricts polygamy obviously speaks to the importance of monogamous marriage. The anti-divorce view upholds the sanctity of marriage. The faithful husband view reminds us of the need to do more than just stay married to one woman – a church leader must be a true servant leader at home, loving his wife as Christ loved the church.
What does the univirae model symbolize? What part of the sanctity and value of marriage does this bring to our remembrance? It penalizes marriage instead.
6. Two speculative questions about this view.
These are not evidence against the view or even reasons to reject it, but are just more items of interest. I should probably leave these off in fear that the discussion will be sidelined by these questions.
- Doesn’t the univirae concept sound a little bit like the eternal marriage concept of the Mormons?
I am certainly not accusing Bart of supporting a false faith like Mormonism or anything like that, but it seems that this view requires a view of marriage that survives death. A leader – elder or deacon – is required to stay faithful to a marriage when the other is dead.
- Doesn’t it appear as a short hop between the univirae concept and the celibacy teaching that has been so problematic in the Catholic church.
Again, this is simply a sideline to the main argument. But the idea that a man should stay single if his wife dies seems like one small step in the direction of the demand of celibacy which has caused so much trouble in the Roman Catholic church.
What I Believe
I remain convinced that there are better explanations of the phrase that the attempt to bring the pagan concept of the univira forward and read it into 1 Timothy 5:9. Knight, in the NIGCT volume on the Pastoral Epistles, argues that the phrase “demands a life of sexual and marital fidelity. NIV captures the meaning of the phrase with the words ‘has been faithful to her husband.’” Lea and Griffin in the New American Commentary argue that Paul would not “prohibit remarriage in v. 9 and command it in v. 14.” They agree that it is “more likely that he was demanding faithfulness during her marriage to the single husband whom she once had.” They also argue that a woman married more than once could fulfill this requirement if she had been widowed twice and been faithful to during those marriages. The Baker commentary by Larson buttresses this by arguing against the “only one husband” concept. “Instead, being a “one-man woman” speaks of faithfulness and loyalty. This is reminiscent of the qualifications for elders and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12.”
The arguments presented in those commentaries are more persuasive to me that Paul’s intent in both the commands concerning the widows and those about elders and deacons have a broader focus.
A widow, to be placed on the list, and those men who would aspire to leadership positions must have been loyal and faithful spouses. They must not have been polygamists. They must not have broken their marriage vows by infidelity. They must not have ignored or mistreated their spouses. This is the kind of marriage-honoring, Christian maturity that is required of leaders in the church.
I’ve always wondered why the Bible doesn’t simply mean what it says. People seem to go to great lengths to explain it doesn’t really mean this or that .. and I have to wonder if that might be part of the reason so many of the folks in so many of the churches don’t may much attention to so much of what it plainly does say.
No thanks. I’ll stand on what it plainly states, and leave the shadow-boxing to someone else, along with the part about telling God whom He is and is not supposed to use.
I would never tell God whom he can and cannot use. However, if his word tells us, then we should obey that!
Bob,
That’s a nice sentiment and I agree with you in spirit.
But, there is no such thing in literature of any kind of a “simply means what it says” and that settles it interpretation.
Add to that we are separated from the writers by centuries and the words were recorded in a language no longer spoken (at least not exactly as the Koine). I’m sure you are aware of the difficulties of secondary syntax that requires some degree of interpretation.
Even primary syntax can sometimes, though not as often be problematic.
Also, the verse that is being discussed “one woman man” is idiomatic. We have no modern exact use of that idiom in English that I know of.
Try telling some remote cattle herder sitting while milking his cow: “Please, help me! I’m about to kick the bucket!” More than likely he is going to cradle his bucket of milk rather than expect your soon demise.
Again, I do agree with the spirit of what you are saying. And I do agree we do more “shadow-boxing” than required.
I’ve always wondered why the Bible doesn’t simply mean what it says. People seem to go to great lengths to explain it doesn’t really mean this or that
Just like when people go to great lengths to explain away what the Bible clearly teaches about women serving as pastors, specifically that they can’t.
“Doesn’t the univirae concept sound a little bit like the eternal marriage concept of the Mormons?”
I can see how one would consider this,
but in the early Church (third century A.D. onward), abstaining from remarriage after widower-hood looks to be more of an honoring of one’s religious duties and commitments,
rather than a clinging to honoring in perpetuity a relationship with a deceased spouse after widower-hood has begun.
” Doesn’t it appear as a short hop between the univirae concept and the celibacy teaching that has been so problematic in the Catholic church.”
In the sense that it is the LATIN (Roman) rite of the Catholic Church that adopted clerical celibacy after the third century, and not the other rites of the Catholic Church (there are many ‘rites’ within the Catholic Church) that developed out of traditions not centered in Rome;
there is a some connection to Roman historical influence, perhaps.
HOWEVER, eastern rite Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox whose traditions also began in Jerusalem and spread out to the east;
these groups of Christians also have certain limitations of ‘marriage’ or ‘remarriage’ AFTER ordination,
especially when someone is going to become a full ‘bishop’.
Marriage is permitted prior to ordination, and even in the Catholic Church, many eastern rite Catholic clergy are married, but will not re-marry after a wife has passed, since they have been ordained.
The Eastern Orthodox have similar traditions of permitting marriage prior to ordination, but discourage re-marriage after widow-hood for their bishops also.
There are about 300 Latin rite Catholic priests who ARE married and have families, but they were ordained as priests from other traditions such as the Anglican priesthood. They are not permitted to re-marry after ordination in the Latin rite, should their spouse die.
It’s complicated. Your questions are good ones, DAVID. Interesting, and well-considered.
Mormonism teaching on marriage is quite different. The Mormon teaching is also a popular romantic idea of marriage being eternal. It’s actually part of the temple wedding ceremony to seal husband and wife for now and eternal.
I’m with Bob (assuming Bob’s comment means that he holds the polygamy view).
A polygamist has more than one wife. A man divorced and remarried unbiblically still only has one wife and is an adulterer. If Paul wanted to restrict adulterers he would have said adulterers.
It has been pointed out that polygamy was not widely practiced at the time of the Roman Empire. I think this rather makes the point rather than refutes it. Pastors would have been ministering in the Roman empire, and polygamy would have hurt their witness in a culture that frowned upon it.
I would guess that all of us would hold that the phrase restricts polygamy. But is that the whole force of the statement? Is that all it means?
Bill: Yes and yes, and I agree.
Would he needed to have restricted adulterers by name?
Is it not a reasonable position that these qualifications are based on an assumption of “and not living openly in sin?” Some things really should be able to go without saying, should they not?
After all, he also does not exclude “those who make their living robbing the Imperial Postal Service” but we would likely assume that someone who did would not be an elder.
That does not indicate that the polygamy view is not the right one–but to say that “if Paul wanted to restrict adulterers he would have said adulterers” makes it sound as if any form of adultery would be acceptable, since it’s not explicitly forbidden in this list.
Yeah, I’m not sure what that meant, but adulterers would certainly be excluded from service.
Doug: My point was that unbiblically divorced and remarried was already defined by Jesus as living in open sin. Paul wouldn’t, as you point out, have to forbid it.
Ok, if that was your point, then we’re just repeating each other. That’s just not how I understood your statement.
One historical problem with Dr. Barber’s position is that in the ancient world, it was very rare for a husband to outlive his wife. At least it was alot more rare than it is today. Usually the only times in which the husband did outlive the wife was when the wife died due to child birth. Paul, and the early Christians, simply did not face the regular possibility, that a elder/deacon may have his wife die unexpectedly.
I also would argue, that if we follow Dr. Barber’s logic and reasoning, then we must also take the position, that in order to be a elder/deacon, then then the man must either be married, or be a widower who does not remarry, in order to be a elder/deacon. The problem with this, then is that you disqualify, some of the apostles, Paul, and even Jesus himself from ministry according to this scheme. There also is no reference to Timothy being married, who was ordained to be an elder, if you wish to pull the “Apostles are special cases” clause.
In addition, Paul mentions in 1st Cor 7:7 that he wishes “all men” remain as he is, IE single/celebate. If this truly means all men, specifically young men who are growing up in the faith, then how can they serve as elders/deacons.
So then we must, by simple logic conclude, that 1st Tim 3 and Titus do not exclude celebrate men from the ministry. If this is the case, then we must also call into question the intention of “husband of one wife”. Was Paul saying that elders/deacons could only marry one women ever? Or was he speaking out directly against polygamy practices, adultery, and immoral fornication with women other than their wives?
Someone in centuries past said the biggest problem we have with the Bible is its perspicuity, or, to put it in another term, its clarity. Because the Bible seems so clear, we think that we really discern and understand its meaning (we also have the thought in the back of our minds that it must mean what we think it means). The truth is the Bible is clear, but its depth is what escapes us. You will notice that everyone easily quotes the idea of forgiving others, if you would be forgiven. After all, our Lord said so, but they forget that there is another reason for forgiving given by the Apostle Paul, namely, that of forgiving others because God for Christ sake has forgiven you. That reason is a far more powerful motive for forgiving than the mere fear of Hell. Reading a clear statement like that of Jonah’s message to Nineveh, “Forty Days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” as the only way it must be leads one into real problems, when God spares the city and even the prophet expected that was His purpose. His statement was an unconditional prophecy and yet it was not fulfilled, much to the disappointment of the prophet (how would you like to have a minister who wanted to see you destroyed…that is what Nineveh got). God argued with the prophet. Yes, the Sovereign God argued with His hard-headed servant. And then Jeremiah got mad at God and called Him a liar..O yes, and Jeremiah is the one who tells us God divorced Israel and threatened to divorce Judah (presenting God in the character of having two wives, a bigamist, if you please). The Roman Catholic position on ministers with marriage is that if one of our Baptist ministers and his wife converted to Catholicism, they would be accepted. However, if the wife dies, he can never remarry (if he has come as a minister and become a priest. It is called Digamy, I think. And yet, God allows for remarriage, even our Lord did, in the case of the injured party. Our Lord Himself made the exception, and I have read all kinds of arguments over the past 54 years that seek to explain away that exeption….It can’t be done, brethren.
The forgiveness matter you point out is monumental in magnitude. When we finally come to grips with the staggeringly awesome nature of what God, in Christ did for the singular us (me, you, him, that guy, her, the other fellow, etc), how can we NOT forgive?
For Jesus’ sake, not for mine.
Getting saved was simple. Learning that was not.
Among Christian people there is very little room for ‘being offended by others’ . . . not when we have sought forgiveness of our own sins made possible through the terrible sufferings of Christ for our sake.
‘Being offended by someone’ no longer has much meaning in our lives when we think on the grace we ourselves have received.
“Love is always patient and kind; it is never jealous, love is never boastful or conceited; it is never rude or selfish; it does not take offense, and is not resentful. . . . ” – (from 1 Corinthians 13)
I am allergic to reinterpreting Scripture based on millenia old historical findings. I think we should leave well enough alone and administer this verse by the common practice in the Southern Baptist Convention for the first 150 years of its existence as far as we know: It requires male eldership. It doesn’t require marriage. If you’re married, it must be to the first woman you married.
Exceptions for couples that have been saved after a divorce could be made, but why? Are we short on pastors? Then raise salaries. 😉
It might be more appropriate for you to state, “as far as I know” instead of “we know”. Male eldership, yes. Doesn’t require marriage, yes. Some of most prominent SBC pastors would not fall into your classification of “first woman married.” I do appreciate the potential for an increase in pay.
Yeah…I forgot to include the marriage concluded successfully by God’s request of the spouse’s presence in heaven condition. My apologies on that.
Dave,
Good points but you have done something that becomes very common within this argument. You have contrasted Paul’s position against Jesus’ position. Maybe you did this without realizing it but the argument goes in that direction in #3. While you begin by affirming their commonalities of a covenant you then only use Paul’s writings to prove it. Thus, you never point to the areas that Jesus dealt with the issue of marriage.
Here is one place, I believe, you have missed the mark in your argument. If you look at Matthew 19, the famous “exception clause”, you will notice that verse 10 has a very curious statement by Peter. Jesus’ restrictions on marriage were not such that Peter would make such a statement, not if there is an exception. It is clear, from Jesus’ statement about the remarriage in verse 9 Peter made his statement that it would be good for a person never to get married. Have you ever asked yourself a question concerning Peter’s statement? Why would Peter make that statement if Jesus allowed for remarriage even in the case for an exception?
Second, as to your argument for the “pagan concept”. Would you not agree that is exactly what Paul did at Mars Hill? He used statues to pagan deities to present the Gospel. Also, Paul was not just writing Pauline concepts, he was anointed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and what he penned was the Word of God. He brought in hymns of the Christian church that are now Scripture. Have you considered Titus 1:12? He used the words of a Cretian prophet and made it Scripture.
Third, I am not convinced by Bart that a husband that has lost his spouse to death and remarried is disqualified. Why? Death is the only place in scripture that clearly allows a remarriage. While Paul in 1 Corinthians clearly states that a person who divorces under biblical grounds is free from that marriage, no place can on find a clear allowance for a remarriage. Scriptural speaking, Paul clearly forbids remarriage in an illustration of the law in Romans 7. He gives the only place that allowance is given for a remarriage. Because of this clear allowance for remarriage I believe Bart is a bit off with his argument for one whose spouse died. However, I do understand his logic in the “one-woman man” directive. I do not accept that logic for a widower for the simple reason the Bible clearly allows for remarriage in the case of a death. However, in the case of scriptural divorce the Bible does not give as clear of an allowance for remarriage.
Fourth, your argument for a Deacon/Elder being allowed in those positions based on the widow identifier in 1 Timothy 5:9 is, shall we say, pushing the envelope. Do you understand that the “widow” being taken into the benevolence roles of the church is an ordained office the same as Deacon? While I do not believe you think that, your argument borders on that line of reasoning. This position is really a “straining at gnats” position because the office of Deacon is not the same as the widows receiving benevolence assistance from the church.
Well, there you have it. It is not Scripture, but I believe it is faithful to it.
Tim,
1) I don’t know if you have been reading my series here, but one of my points has been that the doctrine of marriage and divorce in scripture developed over time. Moses laid the foundation, Jesus built the structure and Paul put on the finishing touches. Since I assume a general agreement between Jesus and Paul, I only used Pauline passages.
In my mind, at least, there is no disagreement between Jesus’ teachings and Paul’s.
2) Yes, I agree that Paul appealed to pagan concepts in preaching in certain environments. But to me, that is a significant difference from bringing a pagan practice INTO the church.
3) I have argued that a biblically valid divorce (in which the other partner breaks the covenant through adultery or abandonment) officially ends a marriage (and allows remarriage) as death does.
That has been argued in other posts in the series. I realize that on this issue, there is never going to be unanimity among us.
4) That is not my argument, Tim. My only link is that the meaning of one-man woman and one-woman man needed to be treated the same way. I did not equate the offices of elder and deacon with that of the widow’s list. But the offices had one qualification in common – though with genders switched.
What would you say?
Scenario one: A man was married right out of high school and three years later he divorced his wife. He was an unbeliever at the time and really made a mess of his life. A few years down the road he is converted, remarries and later believes God is calling him into the ministry, what would you say?
Scenario two: Identical story but now it is a woman who married right out of high school, she divorces an abusive husband who ends up in prison. Five years after all of this she becomes a Christian and is going to marry a man called into the ministry. Do you officiate their wedding? Would you not call him as pastor because of this scenario?
Scenario three: (this is probably for those who hold to Bart’s view) A Christian woman’s husband dies and later she marries a pastor who had never been married. Would you not even consider him for the pastorate because his wife was once married and then widowed?
All of you who are ministers could be faced with all three scenarios, how would you respond?
Kendall, this would be an interesting post in and of itself.
1) Depending on the circumstances, I would have little problem with this. It seems strange that we would hold him in exclusion because of sins he committed pre-conversion.
2) I would perform the marriage.
3) Since I don’t take the Univirae view, I would not consider this an issue.
Agreed.
Kendall,
If “one-man woman” means something analogous to “univira,” then your third scenario really wouldn’t play into that question. He’s still the husband of one wife, and his one wife isn’t anyone else’s wife.
I Cors.7:27: “Are you loosed (divorced) from a wife? Seek not a wife. But, and if you marry, you have not sinned.” Our problem is our tendency to analysis. We suffer, as one minister declared back in the 60s, “form the paralysis of analysis.” Our filters are set for exactitude of very narrow statements. What we need is a synthetical method; we need the comparing scripture with scripture method of the Reformers; it was the one way they had of countering Rome’s insistence upon its supposedly infallible interpretations.
Gentlemen, you all should make a close study of Jonathan Edwards’ Humble Attempt and the nearly 100 promises he presents there as motives for prayer for the expansion of the Gospel among the nations.
I would also call your attention to Zeph.2:10-12 where God reveals Hi9s awesomeness as the reason for the change in attitude and worship of mankind. Like the lady said to a friend of mine about why she responded so readily to his Arminian plan of salvation, “O it was so wonderful that I could not resist it.” Took him forty years to figure out that she was right. And, gentlemen, what do you do with one who is forgiven by God? Do you still drag up that past failure and smite them in the face with it? Or do you believe the slate is wiped clean by the precious blood of Jesus and the person is free to go on about life? And by the way does not the Bible say it is better to marry than to burn? Also, do you not have to have the gift of continence in order to not marry? And if you do not have that gift does not the Bible say it is better to marry? And again I call attention to David, after his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband is called by the Holy Spirit of God in the NT a PATRIARCH and a PROPHET. O, and he wrote a lot of inspirational stuff that still comforts the hearts of adulterers who are repenting…and a host of others for other sins. The Reformers had to face these issues and they wrote on them. John Milton in his prose works presents the work of one of the Reformers on the issue of Divorce and Remarriage. I can’t think of the Reformer’s name without the work before me. And you all should read Gill on I Cors.7.
Dave,
As I mentioned in the original post, and as I reiterate today, I am longing for someone to talk me out of this interpretation. You have not done so, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless.
I will take a moment to offer some responses, although I will refrain from going on at length. My original post gives most of my thoughts about this.
1. a. Strictly speaking, the term occurs in Latin and any rendering in Greek is going to be merely a translation. “Gune” (woman) could occur after monandros equally well. It is an addition, not a substitution. So that word does not contribute to the conversation. “Andros” appears in both translations alike. The only difference is the substitution of “henos” (“one”) for “monos” (“one”). When the only difference is the swapping out of one word for “one” in favor of another word for “one,” then I’m prepared to employ the descriptor “strikingly similar.” In fact, if this is not “strikingly similar,” then I really don’t know anything that could ever be “strikingly similar.” This is the most “strikingly similar” phrase possible in the Greek language in this case.
The Latin word “univira” occurs VASTLY more than does any translation of it into Greek. I concede, it is indeed less-civilized Greek to translate “univira” into Greek with “henos” instead of “monos,” but if your argument depends upon the presumption that Paul’s Greek was always polished and refined and unlikely to introduce his own novelties into the text, then I think you’re on shaky ground.
1. b. “Univira” is a term that was used in pagan temples, not a word that was born in pagan temples. The concept of strong marital faithfulness (for women) was prized in Roman culture at-large—a general cultural virtue. Pagan temples embraced that virtue and cultivated it, but that does not make the virtue wrong. Pagan temples probably also required that people working there not be pugnacious, for example.
2. I agree with you that this is just an extension of your first point. I don’t see much more to argue here.
3. I’m not suggesting that there is a moral or a theological reason for the biblical qualification. Perhaps there is a practical concern afoot here (more on that below). I do not believe that remarriage “dirties” a person such that he cannot serve as a pastor.
4. I’m going to interact with your argument about the created order, which is the strongest one under this point, since your “penalize” language has to go away as soon as you address my point about women. Because women are restricted from this office, you either have to explain why women are being penalized, or you have to admit that some of these restrictions are not penalties. And if some of these restrictions are not penalties, then you can’t presume that any one of them is without offering some sort of evidence.
With women, acknowledging that this restriction is not a penalty, you have looked for another reason for the restriction. I think that’s a good, sane thing to do. With regard to women, you’ve found a rationale for the restriction in the created order and the order of the Fall.
So, if the “one-woman man” restriction is not a judgment of a man’s character (or a woman’s, if you wish to consider 1 Tim 5:9), then what reason could there be for that restriction? We’ll consider that below.
–to be continued
–continued from above
5. As to value, intent, and purpose, I can share a few ideas with you.
The first idea is not really mine, and indeed, I don’t even agree with it. But, I love to share knowledge gained through research, so there’s no charge for this: A very strong sentiment existed in the earliest days of Christianity that second marriages were an extravagance—a worldly preoccupation with romance rather than a dedication to the spiritual task at hand. Christiane’s description above at this point is precisely on-point. The Christians closest in time and proximity to the New Testament church believed that a second marriage was a distraction, evidence that a pastor was neither content in nor dedicated to his duties.
That so many of the earliest Christians believed this does not make the point. They were no more perfect than we are, and much of the New Testament came into existence to correct their errors. But we must humbly acknowledge how much closer they were to being able to understand Paul than we are today. The Bible cannot mean today what it did not mean then.
This much is clear: It rubs you and me the wrong way, but it didn’t rub ANYBODY the wrong way in the first and second centuries. Even the people who didn’t think this was the best interpretation didn’t offer the kinds of objections against it that we do. The fact that we abhor it so much, Dave, may say more about our sexually-obsessive culture than it does about the plain meaning of the Bible.
As a second suggestion, not unrelated to the first, perhaps there is indeed a spiritual truth here that is being underscored. Christ has but one bride. That’s not only true serially, but it is also true absolutely! In all time and in all places, Christ has but one bride. Perhaps an opportunity is given here for married pastors to illustrate that truth with their lives.
–to be continued
–continued from above
6. Now, to address your secondary questions…
a. Christiane was quite accurate in her reply to this. The emphasis for early Christians was not upon the pastor’s clinging to some eternal concept of marriage to his deceased spouse. The emphasis instead was upon receiving the premature death of his spouse as God’s moving him into a new chapter of his life in which he could devote more of himself to ministry.
You and I might not share that same point of view, but the fact that it exists shows us that this cannot have been about any sort of a Mormonish view of eternal marriage.
b. I think you’re 100% right when you say that it is a short hop from this concept to the idea of clerical celibacy. Have you considered that this might be an argument in its favor rather than an argument against it?
Mandatory clerical celibacy is a BAD hop away from this concept, but I think it is closer to the Bible than is our de facto state of prohibited clerical celibacy at work today, which is clearly not the New Testament view. I’m not afraid of viewpoints that move us toward a greater appreciation of Christian celibacy WITHOUT taking us so far as to outlaw clerical marriage. There may be unbiblical points of view that would move us in that direction, but I have not doubt that any view moving us in the opposite direction would not be biblical.
In conclusion, I think you have little to fear that I will convince everyone of my position and leave you standing alone. If I could sell this idea in this culture, I could sell ice to Eskimos. Indeed, I’m enough a part of this culture that I despise this interpretation above all others.
And yet, the grammatical-historical evidence for this interpretation far outweighs all of the others. Find me an example of this phrase or any other like it being used in the Greco-Roman world to ban polygamy. It doesn’t exist. Find me an example of this phrase or any other like it being used in the Greco-Roman world to extol some fuzzy notion of romance measured without regard to a person’s actual, legal track record of marriage. It doesn’t exist. There do exist, however, numerous letters, tombstones, and other writings from the first century and from throughout the Mediterranean basin in which the phrase “one-man woman” clearly and explicitly means a woman who has never, under any circumstances, had a second husband.
That’s pretty hard evidence, right there. I haven’t found a way around it yet.
“Find me an example of this phrase or any other like it being used in the Greco-Roman world to extol some fuzzy notion of romance measured without regard to a person’s actual, legal track record of marriage.’:
Who has advocated a “fuzzy notion of romance” as the meaning of “one-woman man?” (or its gender-reversed statement).
I, and those scholars I mentioned above, see the word as referring to fidelity, devotion and true servant leadership in the home – ie being the kind of Christlike husband Eph 5 demands us to be. It is about being a man who is obedient to the biblical commands concerning being a husband.
“Fuzzy notions of romance?” I’ve not read anyone who advocated such a thing.
By “fuzzy notion of romance” I mean entirely subjective, non-quantifiable appraisals of a man’s “fidelity, devotion, and true servant leadership in the home,” measured by something other than the actual, legal track record of his marriage(s).
Do the scholars give any linguistic evidence for the use of this phrase to mean something like that? Any inscriptions? Any passages from Cicero? I don’t know of any. I’ve never read anyone citing any.
This is where my scholarship level ends. I am not really qualified to do original research in a field like this. I can read and at least somewhat understand commentaries and such. But I am probably too dependent on their research and conclusions.
It stretches me to the far extent of my own training and capabilities (and access to resources…I don’t live in Rome) as well, and I, too, am dependent upon the research of others.
Nevertheless, it is this category of evidence that has pushed me to the view that I hold.
Dave, this exchange brings up something I was going to ask on the other post about divorce, but since I think it is related I’ll ask it here.
In practical terms of how we live with our wives, what does a “one-woman man” look like?
Thanks.
Now, in just a few moments, Wes Kenney will arrive to say something about how, for me, four comments constitutes not going on at length.
Looks like you’re about done warming up; ready to pitch?
Bart,
Have you explained:
“So, if the “one-woman man” restriction is not a judgment of a man’s character (or a woman’s, if you wish to consider 1 Tim 5:9), then what reason could there be for that restriction? We’ll consider that below.”
I meant for this to serve as an answer to that…
“As a second suggestion, not unrelated to the first, perhaps there is indeed a spiritual truth here that is being underscored. Christ has but one bride. That’s not only true serially, but it is also true absolutely! In all time and in all places, Christ has but one bride. Perhaps an opportunity is given here for married pastors to illustrate that truth with their lives.”
Bart,
Is it safe to assume, based on your understanding of the text, that you believe Abraham would not be qualified to be either a pastor or a deacon?
Yes. I suppose that most interpretations of the text would exclude him. Dave, wouldn’t even YOUR interpretation exclude Abraham?
Wow, that’s a minefield, applying NT standards to the OT. But, yes, I guess that Abraham could be the father of Israel but not a deacon at my church.
The challenge might be to find an OT figure who WOULD be qualified by the NT standard.
Agreed.
Bart,
I understand the Hagar problem. My question was based on his marriage to Keturah. Assuming there had been no Hagar, would his marriage to Keturah disqualify him from being a pastor or deacon?
Well, Don, yes, I guess that would be a second marriage all right.
Bart,
If a man had sex before marriage with someone other than the woman who became his wife, does this also disqualify him? For instance, could the prodigal son of Luke 15 be a pastor or deacon if he were to settle down and find a good Jewish girl to marry?
Don,
It seems unlikely to me that a Roman woman who had consensually had multiple sexual partners before marriage would have been described by the Romans as a univira. I don’t have explicit evidence in that regard and if pressed hard I would have to plead ignorance. But if, rather than being certain, I just had to make a guess as to what Paul was getting at, then I’d say he would probably be disqualified.
The “univira” standard represented the highest possible virtue in marriage for a woman.
So, if I’ve slipped up and missed that passage where Paul ordained the prodigal son, then I’d say that you’ve got me. 😉
I did not say the prodigal was ordained. My question based on your one-woman man beliefs was could the prodigal son become a pastor or deacon? Or did his actions in a far country disqualify him?
Right. And I answered that. And pastors and deacons are the two offices for which we ordain people. That’s why I mentioned ordination.
I’m not sure I understand your answer. Is the prodigal disqualified?
“But if, rather than being certain, I just had to make a guess as to what Paul was getting at, then I’d say he would probably be disqualified.”
Bart,
Just in case anyone might misread my intentions, you are a friend whom I hold in highest regard. I have read your initial post and mostly followed this dialogue. I am internally debating whether I should spend the time with much of a response due to my desire to be most efficient with what time I have. However, I would like to ask one question. When you read the list Paul gives Timothy and Titus regarding what to look for in an elder or deacon, do you think that you are qualified?
Richmond,
Short answer: If I didn’t think so, I’d resign.
Long answer (my favorite kind): I see some things in the list that a person can grow into. For example, I become a little more “able to teach” with each passing year, I think. So many of these qualifications are matters of degree. Others of them clearly are not. One either does not have children who have rejected the faith, or he does. One either is a husband of one wife, or he is not.
If Tracy passed away and I remarried, I wouldn’t be confident that I was not qualified, but I wouldn’t be confident that I was. I think I’d probably do something else.
I have always felt so unqualified concerning aspects of each and every one of the characteristics listed. I am amazed daily that God would allow me this privilege. I think the “univira” argument may be applied after salvation, but to apply before salvation seems to ignore the overarching theme of “new creation”.
I am praying for Tracy’s continued longevity! Not only because she is a kind blessing but I do not want your pastoral contributions to prematurely cease!
😉
Richard Goolsby,
I agree with you.
Also, I think it is a pretty sorry man who tells his wife, “If you go to heaven before I do, I am just gonna quit the ministry!!”
That kind of spousal jealousy is simply despicable! Just for such rude behavior on Bart’s part, I hope Tracy outlives him by 25 years and marries a multi-billionaire, Assembly of God evangelist. That way she can hear some supercharged, exciting preaching and have the money to boot.
Well, if I get to pick the interpretation I LIKE the best…
Wow. There’s a lot to think about here. I appreciate the dialog especially with Dave and Bart. Both of you have offered helpful things to consider and I’m thankful for the questions to both and your answers.
I can’t get Paul warnings to Timothy in his introduction of the letter out of my mind with regard to this issue. (I all positions can claim some strength for their argument from these verses.)
… instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. 1 Tim 1:3-7 (NASB)
I think this is an important discussion because Paul deals with it in the letter. Marriage is a significant issue, both in the OT and NT. It can’t be handled lightly, ever. (I’m not suggesting anyone is.) Marriage, divorce and remarriage. If it is possible error is close by in this matter, I would rather err on the side of caution toward remarriage of a divorced pastor because the office of pastor should not to be entered into lightly. A shepherd must know that there are qualifications for the office, and must not become offended if he becomes disqualified. Thanks!
I know this is 3 months too late, but here it is. I do not claim to be a scholar, but as I read this discussion, especially Bart’s thoughts on the “univira”, I began wondering about one thing. If we continue reading in 1 Timothy 5, we see Paul advise younger widows to remarry, have children, and manage their household well. If Paul was indeed invoking the concept of the “univira”, why would he then counsel younger widows to marry, thereby disqualifying them from ever being put on the list if their second husband died? Are we again going to write this off to the value of women in the society? Are we to think their best way to serve God was to make babies even though Paul encourages it is better for all to remain single as he is? I just find it odd that Paul would purposefully disqualify a group of women from being put on the widows list ever just because they happen to be under 60. It would seem to me that if the argument is the list was on the same level as the work of the deacon except for women, wouldn’t women who had been widowed, remarried, and widowed again, all the while being faithful to their husbands, be better equipped and prepared to minister in such a way? Maybe I am being naive, but I am trying to grasp how this concept works in light of the immediately following verses.
I forgot the last part, possibly most heinous. If the list is, as some translations claim, a list of support, why would Paul automatically disqualify certain widows from that future support? I understand that he has counseled them to have children, but what if she doesn’t because she is infertile? What if she has children with her second husband, but they all die, leaving her alone? Would Paul really be implying that such a woman should not be put on a support list?