food for thought...
This is an excerpt from an article I am writing titled Divorce: The Unpardonable Sin?
There are four different traditional explanations for husband of one wife: marriage as a requisite to office, one wife in a lifetime (even if the wife dies), no divorce, and faithful to one’s wife (one-woman kind of man).
Marriage as a Requisite to Office
This position says the passages above imply that, to be ordained, one must be married. The advantage to this position is that it takes a very literal interpretation of the English passage. At first blush, this seems like a very legitimate position. However, Scripture interprets Scripture and Paul had quite a different thing to say in 1 Corinthians 7:8, 25-33. In particular, look at 1 Corinthians 7:32-33:
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:32-33)
Here Paul is encouraging celibacy. He tells the believers in Corinth that they should only get married if they have to. He tells them that they can serve better if they stay single so that they are not distracted with married life. For this reason the passages in 1 Timothy and Titus can not mean that only married men may become leaders in the church. After all, they would be more distracted with the things of this world than their single brothers.
One Wife in a Lifetime
This view basically says that a man can only have one wife, ever, in his entire life. This means that, even if his wife dies, he can not remarry. He must remain a single widow. Again, this is a reasonable interpretation of the English passage. However, Paul has already told us elsewhere that, once a spouse dies, the one left is free to remarry.
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (Romans 7:1-3)
We must keep in mind that the passages in 1 Timothy and Titus do not say, specifically, “an elder must be married only once” or “an elder cannot remarry.” And either one of these wordings are possible in Greek. If Paul would have said, “having had only one wife” (ἔσχωνμιᾶςγυναικὸςμονῆς) it would have stopped all arguments. Instead, he said, literally, “one woman man” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα).
No Divorce
This is the main independent, fundamental Baptist position today. This view holds that divorce is a sin and Paul is stating in these passages that it is a sin that disqualifies one from holding these offices. There are really a lot of problems with this view. First, divorce is not a sin – putting away your wife is the sin (if there is a sin) and divorce is the way to correct the problem. Second, if Paul had meant a divorced man can not hold these offices then he could have easily said just that.
He could have said “not divorced” or, even, “not separated from his wife” (μὴἀπολελύμενον) just like he said “not given to wine” (μὴπάροινον) or “not a striker” (μὴπλήκτην). But Paul brings this up in the positive attributes part of his list, not the negative. Another thing to notice is that every other item in the list deals with a current character trait and not a past event in the person’s life. It would make more sense, then, that this would be a current character trait and not a past event in the life of the person.
But, to restate, the main problem with this interpretation is that divorce is not a sin.
Faithful to One’s Wife (A One-Woman Kind of Man)
This view claims the best interpretation of μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is one-woman man and not husband of one wife. The main advantage of this view is that it treats this phrase like every other phrase in the list of requirements – like a current character trait and not like a past event. The other views treat this phrase as though it is completely different in makeup than all the other requirements in the lists. The other views claim this is a past state of being whereas everything else in Paul’s list of requirements are current character traits.
Also, this view holds that Christ’s blood is sufficient to cover all sins. There is nothing you could do in years past (either before or after you were saved) that would disqualify you as a leader in the church provided you are saved and you reflect the characteristics listed in 1 Timothy and Titus at the time period you are seeking the position.
Really, the only disadvantage to this position is the entrenchment of the divorce view in fundamental circles today.
raying: