What does "The husband of one wife" mean in 1 Timothy 3:2?

Robert C. Anderson writes, “For centuries it has been debated whether or not the biblical injunction that an elder or overseer be the ‘husband of one wife’ means that a divorced person may never have any place within the professional ministry” (The Effective Pastor: A Practical Guide to the Ministry. Chicago: Moody, 1985, 5).

The different views on the “husband of one wife” (mias gunaikos andra), literally translated “one-woman man” in 1 Timothy 3:2 reveal the difficulty of being dogmatic in one’s position. “This ambiguous but important phrase is subject to several interpretations” (A. Duane Litfin, Bible Knowledge Commentary, page 736).

Here are various views on “husband of one wife” or “a one-woman man.” Homer Kent in his The Pastoral Epistles (click book to view) gives five different views on the meaning of this qualification for pastors. I will address some of these.

1. Marriage to the church view.

This is a Roman Catholic Church view to protect the doctrine of celibacy for priests. "One Roman Cathlolic view is that the 'one wife' is the church, to which the bishop must consider himself married" (Kent, p. 126). This is not, however, the official RCC view. Another RCC view is that this statement is a prohibition against polygamy. This is also the view of Protestants such as Wayne Grudem as discussed below.

2. Prohibition of remarried widowers view.

Paul admonishes young widows to marry in 5:14. Why is this second view wrong? Because Scriptures allow widows to remarry. “Romans 7:1-6 makes it clear, however, that if a man’s wife dies, he is no longer bound by that union” (MacArthur, Pastoral Ministry, 68-69) (click to view). When I was a young Christian, my pastor’s wife died. After an appropriate time, my pastor started dating a fine Christian widow. One of the men in the church caused a fuss because he believed our pastor should not remarry because 1 Timothy 3:2 forbade him. Although this is a minority view, it is still out there.

3. Exclusion of unmarried overseers view.

Homer Kent explains why he disagrees with this view: Such an understanding does not properly represent the force of the adjective “one” (mias) which is placed first. The overseer must be the husband of “one” wife, not “many.” Paul does not say he must be “husband of a wife.” The latter expression could be easily stated in Greek by the mere omission of “one” (mias). Furthermore, to take this as a demand that the overseer is married logically obligates the interpreter to understand that verse 4 demands that the overseer has children (at least two). Also, according to Titus 1:6, his children must be old enough to believe. So the pastor can’t have a new baby if the pastor must be married. Yet most expositors hesitate to go that far. Finally, we have the example of Paul himself who was an elder (cf. I Tim.4:14 with II Tim.1:6, where Paul is one of the presbytery), and yet was unmarried (Kent, The Pastoral Epistles, page 128-129).

“This cannot be meant since Paul says ‘one’ not ‘a’ wife man’” (D. Edmond Hiebert, First Timothypage 65).

4. Prohibition of divorce or any other marital infidelity view.

This is Homer Kent’s view. Even one act of infidelity or a one-night stand before conversion disqualifies a man from pastoring, according to Kent. After all, he is no longer a “one-woman man” in the sense he has only known one woman sexually (Kent, Pastoral Epistles, pages 129-130). Even though I disagree with this view, it is the strictest and most consistent interpretation of 1Timothy 3:2.

5. Prohibition of polygamy

Grudem argues for this passage being a prohibition of polygamy, not divorce: A better interpretation is that Paul was prohibiting a polygamist (a man who presently has more than one wife) from being an elder. Several reasons support this view: (1) All the other qualifications listed by Paul refer to a man’s present status, not his entire past life. For example, 1 Tim. 3:1-7 does not mean “one who has never been violent,” but “one who is not now violent but gentle.” If we made these qualifications apply to one’s entire past life, then we would exclude from office almost everyone who became a Christian as an adult, for it is doubtful that any non-Christian could meet these qualifications. Paul could have said “having been married only once” if he had wanted to, but he did not. The Greek expression for “having been married only once” would be hapax gegamemenos, using the word “once” (hapax) plus a perfect participle, giving the sense, “having been married once and continuing in the state resulting from that marriage.” (Such a construction is found, for example, in Heb. 10:2, and similar construction is found in Heb. 9:26) (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theologypage 917).

6. Prohibition of divorce on insufficient grounds.

Hiebert represents the view that divorce is forbidden which is on unbiblical grounds (D. Edmond Hiebert, First Timothy, page 65).

7. This is not a prohibition but a positive qualification that demands a pastor be exclusively devoted to his wife.

A pastor may have been a virgin when married and never have committed adultery since his wedding, and violate this qualification by being married to his church or ministry rather than his wife.

MacArthur elaborates on this point: “There are a lot of men who have had only one wife but are not one-woman men (Matt. 5:27-28). They are the husband of one but the lover of two or three more. In its primary aspect, a one-woman man simply means a man who is devoted to the woman who is his wife. His eyes and heart remain focused on her. The issue is not just to avoid getting a divorce at all costs. It is that of continuing faithfulness to one’s wife” (John MacArthur. Pastoral Ministry: How to Shepherd Biblically, page 69).

I would agree with Hiebert’s view but also recognize that the “blameless” qualification not be violated by the pastor with his people. This is not A. T. Robertson’s “one at a time” view abused.

Anderson states: “A divorced person may never have any place within the professional ministry. Personally, I do not think that is what the passages mean. Having stated that, however, let me assert what I say elsewhere in this book, that ‘divorce’ isn’t even a Christian word. I believe in the sanctity of marriage and that true Christian marriage is ‘till death do us part.’ A pastor, as a model for his people, should work the hardest of all people to keep marriage intact and flourishing…. Except in the rarest of cases, if divorce becomes a fact, a pastor should step down from his pastoral position and, if he intends to continue in professional Christian service, should plan to serve in some area other than the pastorate” (page 5).