Does Paul’s instructions in First Timothy 3:2 forbid divorced men to be Elders or Deacons?

 

The phrase mias gunaikos andra (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6) is admitted by most commentators[1] to be a rather ambiguous statement not given to a simple, dogmatic explanation.[2]  The interpretation of First Timothy 3:2 however, has stimulated great controversy, especially in modern churches, due to the high number of divorces and remarriages present in our churches. Although many interpretations of the passage exist only five will be briefly dealt with here.

The first interpretation holds the phrase to mean “husband of one wife” and implies that a person that holds the position of elder or deacon must be married. Single men are ineligible. Some that hold this view also hold that the elder or deacon must have children (1 Tim. 3:4) so that his ability to manage a household may be evaluated before he attempts to manage a church. The basic problem with this view is that it contradicts First Corinthians 7:8, 25-33 where Paul encourages celibacy as a lifestyle given to greater effective service for the Lord.

The second interpretation under consideration also translates the phrase “husband of one wife” but understands the statement as an imperative against polygamy.[3] This view has the support of commentators in the early church.[4] Although Greeks and Romans at this time did not practice polygamy some Jews still did.  It is because of them that Paul makes this statement. Although this interpretation is grammatically acceptable and would be this author’s second choice, it is rejected on the contextual grounds that the qualities Paul describes appear to be more related to individual character than this interpretation permits.

The third view understands “husband of one wife” to mean “one wife in a lifetime”. Even the death of the spouse does not free the husband to remarry if he desires to be an elder. This view obviously contradicts Paul’s statements in Romans 7:1-6. If a woman is free remarry without guilt should her husband die, wouldn’t the man be likewise?

Fourth, one of the most common views held in the church is that “husband of one wife” means that the man must not be divorced. Those who hold this view are divided in regards to the issue of whether it is permissible provided the divorce occurred prior to salvation. Some hold that the divorced man is exempt while others hold he is not. Often the issue comes down to the understanding of the divorce and remarriage issue as a whole. Some hold that remarriage is permissible if the previous partner had committed adultery, whereas others hold there is no clause for divorce. It is obvious that this issue would have impact on how one sees divorce in this passage. Duane Litfin gives a general explanation of the latter view:

“Many others (Bible students) hold that the phrase further prohibits any who have been divorced and remarried from becoming overseers. The reasoning behind this view is usually that divorce represents a failure in the home, so that even though a man may be forgiven for any sin involved, he remains permanently disqualified for leadership in the congregation. The most strict interpretation and th one common among the earliest commentators (second and third century) includes each of the above but extends the prohibition to any second marriage, even by widowers. Their argument is that in the first century second marriages were generally viewed as evidence of self-indulgence . . .”[5]

 

It is this author’s view, grammatically and contextually, that 1 Timothy 3:2 is not referring to divorced people.

            The fifth view translates mias guvaikos avdra  “a one-woman man”. This translation emphasizes the man’s character and not his marital status. The man is not woman chaser, but is stable in his relationship with his wife, or girlfriend, if he has one. He is  a man who is not given to sexual impulses, but rather shows maturity in relationships. He is a “one-woman type of man”. This view is both grammatically and contextually the better interpretation. Contextually, each of the requirements in First Timothy 3 are directed towards the man’s personal character, they deal with his attitudes and not his past life. Grammatically and literally the phrase says “one-woman man”. Glasscock[6] recognizes that gunaikos can be translated either woman or wife but is usually translated woman. andros is usually translated man three times to one over husband (KJV). Glasscock understands gunaikos as a genitive of quality, giving a characteristic to the name it modifies. The noun which it modifies is andra, an accusative singular of anhr.

            This view is also most consistent with the New Testament teaching of forgiveness. It seems ludicrous to state that Christians are totally forgiven, are to be totally sold out to the ministry of Christ and then tell divorced believers that they are an exception. If Paul is referring to divorced people why does he not bring up thieves, murderers, adulterers, etc. IF we are forgiven for past sins why should the past sin of divorce be held against a person more than the past sin of murder, for instance.

 

Conclusion:

            At the outset it was stated that this passage is a controversial and difficult passage. Convictions run high. Although this author holds that it does not refer to divorce and it does refer to ones personal character as a man faithful to one woman, he is ready to concede upon better evidence. I challenge churches to be very conscious in their interpretation here, because this passage along with others concerning divorce and remarriage, when decisions are made and set (which they must be) strongly impacts so many of the people who have already struggled with the issues in their personal life. Further condemnation by the church should be taken into consideration with extreme care.