by Dwight A. Pryor
Question
Dwight, do you believe that divorce should disqualify someone from serving as an elder in a church, based on the Apostle Paul’s statement that an elder should be “the husband of only one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2 NIV)?
In a word, “no.” But on the other hand, the issue is a complex one and open to alternative interpretations. Let me explain.
Scholars long have disagreed over the meaning of the phrase, “husband of one wife” (as it usually is translated). The terminology is found in the New Testament only in the Pastoral Epistles—applying to elders in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, and to deacons in 1 Timothy 3:12—and its meaning is not self-evident. The text requires interpretation.
The debate over its meaning dates as far back as the second century, when the Western Latin Church held that divorce precluded one from serving the church in a leadership or ministerial role. (Eventually the Roman Church’s requirement became even more stringent, requiring celibacy of its clergy.) Similar views continue in the modern era. For example, some large evangelical denominations today will not grant pastoral ordination to a previously divorced man based on this (dis)qualification.
It is true that scholarly analysis of the text will permit such a reading, and competent evangelical scholars support this interpretation—i.e., that “husband of one wife” means that a church leader must not have been married and divorced previously. (See, for example, J.N.D. Kelly’s robust defense of this view in Black’s Commentary series.) But it is not true that this is the only or even the obvious interpretation of the phrase. An alternative reading is possible and perhaps even preferable. That is why more and more scholars are suggesting that that divorce per se was not the issue in view for the author (probably Paul) of this passage.
Personally, I find the “divorce” interpretation unconvincing as well. Given Paul’s Hebraic heritage and orientation, I believe a different reading of the text is indicated—one that will be consistent with the other qualifications listed, with the larger context of the letter to Timothy, as well as with the witness and the spirit of other scriptures in the Torah and the New Testament.
Context Behind The Text
First, let us talk about the context behind the text, and then look more specifically at the text itself. The early believers in Yeshua assembled as such in homes, in “house churches” if you will. Every Sabbath they heard Moses and the Hebrew Scriptures expounded in synagogue. Then as the seventh day drew to a close, with the beginning of the first day of the week the believers would assemble as the church in homes and add to their Messianic worship the instruction of the Apostles and the fellowship of the saints in prayer and covenant meals. They were a corporate, covenant community operating as an extended family.
The Bible of the early church consisted of the Tanakh (Old Testament) in its Greek translation, called the Septuagint. It was these Scriptures, Paul reminds his disciple Timothy, that are “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching and training in righteousness.” In the teaching of the Torah, we find that the first covenant community was the family (the union of Adam and Eve); and in the best of Jewish tradition, a man’s responsibility to his wife and children was understood to be his first obligation to God, i.e., his first “priestly” responsibility.
So the Apostle Paul makes clear that godly leadership in one’s personal family setting is expected and essential if a man is to be called to leadership in the extended family that is the church. After all, how can a man watch over, care for, and stand before the family of God as a model of Christ-like servant leadership—i.e., function as an “elder” or “overseer”—if he does not do these very things with the immediate family already entrusted to him by God? In the Jewish way of thinking, this is an argument kal v’homer (from the minor to the major): if such a standard is expected of a man in his home, how much more is it required for leadership in the house of God?
An elder candidate’s relationship with his wife, therefore, was very important in and of itself, but equally indicative of his spiritual leadership potential for the larger community of faith. This is the frame of reference behind many of the fifteen qualifications listed for an elder candidate in 1 Timothy 3.2-7—the first of which is that in his relationships and conduct, the candidate should be “blameless and above reproach.” In other words, the overall quality of the candidate’s spiritual life seems to be in view in Paul’s listing of guidelines. To be “above reproach” heads the list and effectively summarizes the whole. With respect to being “the husband of one wife,” therefore, I believe the overall quality of the candidate’s present marital relationship is in view, not the quantity of wives, if you will.
In the surrounding culture of Rome and its provinces, paganism flourished as the social and religious norm. “Loose morals,” by biblical standards, were commonplace. The Apostle Peter, for instance, cautions the elect of God dispersed throughout the Roman Empire against the characteristic conduct of the Gentiles (i.e., Pagans): “living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and Lawless idolatry” … in a “flood of debauchery” (1 Peter 4.3-4).
Roman wives were legally subordinated and socially restricted, effectively quarantined to their homes and valued principally for their child-bearing functions. For the men however, ubiquitous sexual activities were condoned—with an array of partners, including boys, prostitutes and priestesses. Indeed commerce in the Roman world was inseparable from the Imperial Cult, its temples and its idolatrous festivities. It was “business as usual” to have sexual commerce with temple priestesses in celebratory cult banquets that could be characterized as orgies in every sense of the word.
Precisely because of the Torah’s strictures against such idolatry and immorality, adherents to Judaism were exempt from Imperial Cult obligations, by edict of Caesar himself. Jewish leaders in turn agreed to pray for the Emperor in their worship services. Followers of the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua, also considered themselves bound to the Torah’s ethical requirements. Indeed more than once Paul reminds his readers that those who engage in such pagan practices, including idolatry and sexual immorality, have no share in the Kingdom of God (e.g., Ephesians 5.5).
Given this pervasive pagan social setting in which the church found itself, and considering the Torah’s contrasting and compelling priorities for marriage and family, we begin to get a clearer understanding of what Paul meant by the statement to Timothy and the church that an elder (or deacon) must be “the husband of one wife.” Let us look now at the text itself.
The Text Itself
Notice first that the actual Greek word order—mias gunaikos aneir—literally reads a “one-woman-man,” or derivatively, a “one-wife-husband.” The word divorce is not present in the passage; it is an inference drawn by interpreters claiming to take the text literally. Actually, if we wanted to be super literalists, we would understand the text to require one to be married before serving as an elder—i.e., that he must be the husband of a wife. But this reading would disqualify Paul himself from such service! Something else must be in mind here.
Some have suggested that polygamy is in view—i.e., that an elder could have no more than one wife at a time. Polygamy was rare in Second Temple Judaism, however, and eventually banned altogether by the Rabbis. Nor was it commonly practiced in the Gentile world to which Paul was an apostle, and certainly not among the social classes that constituted the earliest church. So this reading of mias gunaikos aneir is possible but not plausible it seems to me.
In view of the tenor and teaching of the whole of Scripture, it seems equally implausible to me that a past divorce would automatically disqualify one from leadership in the community. The Torah permits divorce under certain circumstances, as does Jesus and as does Paul himself. (Of course, what exactly constituted justifiable grounds for divorce was debated then in Judaism and today in the church.) Divorce never was considered God’s original intent nor His ideal for marriage—“the altar of God sheds a tear every time a divorce is granted” noted the Sages—but it was allowed in view of the human condition and under extenuating circumstances.
Scholars have noted that the Greek syntax of mias gunaikos aneir (“one-woman-man”) emphasizes the word one. If a quantitative connotation is assumed, then the conclusion follows that an elder can have “only one wife” (NIV)—i.e., divorce would not be acceptable, nor perhaps even remarriage after the death of the “one” wife. But if a qualitative interpretative approach is taken, as I believe the context dictates, then the phrase “one-woman-man” would emphasize the character of the marriage and the husband’s leadership in it. Are he and his wife truly one? Is he dedicated to, loyal to, and loving of his wife in the manner of Christ to the church? Unlike in the surrounding culture, does the man love, esteem, build up and humbly serve his wife, keeping himself from all others for her alone, because their union is kiddushin (sanctified) in the eyes of God?
One as Echad
I believe the Torah and Paul’s rabbinic background may give us the key for interpreting the word one in this way. As has been documented widely in the scholarly new perspective on Paul’s theological worldview, this Jewish apostle to the Gentile world operated fully within and drew extensively upon his Hebraic heritage from the Hebrew Scriptures and the Sages of Israel. In light of this, I would suggest that Paul’s use of one here alludes to the Torah’s account of the creation of man and woman.
The biblical, Jewish and Christian ideals of monogamy all stem from God’s declaration in Genesis 2.24 that ’ish and ’isha (man and woman) shall become ’echad (one). The Greek word for one in “one-woman-man” is the very word used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word ’echad in Genesis 2.24.
I am suggesting therefore that the biblical ideal of marriage as God created it and intended it is in Paul’s Jewish mind here. A godly Christian marriage, in stark contrast to the prevailing Roman norm, should be characterized by the oneness of husband and wife, with the man demonstrating servant leadership devoted to the care, provision, and exclusivity of the covenantal union. This is the standard, and the indicator, by which an elder candidate should be evaluated according to the author of 1 Timothy.
Conclusion
I suggest the following, therefore: That in this passage the Apostle Paul is saying that someone who serves as an elder/leader in the family of God should first demonstrate that he is a faithful husband, a good “family man” and a spiritual leader in his home as well as in his dealings with the outside world. That he must be above reproach in every respect, and not involved in any disreputable behavior, sexual or otherwise. That he truly must be a ‘one-woman’ man and a model for other men and women in the community of faith. And that his marriage must reflect authentic, as-God-intended-it monogamy—where husband and wife have become one in the Lord. This is a first priority for godly leadership in the Body of Christ.
You may ask, then, “Should divorce ever be a consideration in evaluating an elder candidate?” And I would reply, “By all means!” Along with other factors, it should be considered and carefully examined, but in a case-by-case manner, not as an automatic disqualification. Circumstances can vary greatly, as well as attitudes toward them. Even if one made a terrible mistake in the past, perhaps before becoming a Christian, surely the New Testament teaches that after authentic repentance one can be restored to fellowship with God and even to leadership in the community of faith. If that can be the case with murder (consider Paul’s own past) or with adultery (consider King David’s past), is it then godly wisdom to deny without exception that possibility for a divorced person?
Finally, when it comes to church polity, let us be cautious about basing a major doctrine on an uncertain text. Regarding this problematic text, there is no magical hermeneutical key, either in Greek or Hebrew, that will decisively resolve its intended meaning. Good and godly scholars who study the matter simply come to different conclusions about the meaning of the phrase one-woman-man (or, one-wife-husband). Would it not be prudent, therefore, to be respectful of differing views and reluctant to impose our interpretation on others in a doctrinaire way? Surely it honors God in such matters to be tolerant of differing views for the sake of loving kindness. For with the measure with which we judge, we shall be judged.
==============
Want to study this subject in-depth? We recommend In His Image.
Take me back to the library. Or if you prefer, back to the topic Godly Living.