1 Tim 3:2—Can an elder be divorced? (Monday with Mounce 28)

This is one of those perennial questions, and it came up again the other day so I thought I would summarize the issues. For more detail, see my commentary (pages 170-173).

Paul urges Timothy to insist that an elder is above approach. What this means is laid out in the following verses, and one of the requirements is that he is "a man of one woman," or, "a husband of one wife," mias gunaikos andra. What does this mean?

1. Some hold that it means an elder must be married. But the force of the construction places its emphasis on "one" (because of its location at the beginning of the phrase), makes Timothy and Paul ineligible for eldership, and runs counter to Paul’s preference for celibacy.

2. Some hold that it is a prohibition against polygamy, i.e., married to one at a time. This argument is stronger than one might suspect from its near universal rejection. However, while polygamy was common in Judaism it was not common in Christianity, so it seems unlikely that Paul would have thought to prohibit something that rarely occurred. Also, because the phrase is so unique, one would suspect it has the same meaning but in reverse when applied to widows (who needed to be a woman of one man, 1 Tim 5:9), and there is no evidence of polyandry.

3. Others think that it means the elder must be faithful to his wife. In the modern vernacular, a "one-woman kind of guy." In fact, I. H. Marshall in his ICC commentary merely lists this as the meaning and moves on, not debating the point.

4. The dominant interpretation places primary emphasis on the "one" and says that being above reproach means he has only been married once. This position divides into two camps, and your position here depends more on your theology of divorce and remarriage than it does on the text in 1 Tim 3.

Some argue this limits an elder whether his first marriage ended in divorce or his wife died. Others say a man is restricted from the office only if he was divorced. From here there are even more qualifications that can be made, such as if he was divorced before he was a Christian. As I recall, Saucy’s article in BibSac 131 (1974) 229-240 was very good.

As far as the Greek is concerned, the genitive is ambiguous. The Greek gives us a range of possibilities, but our theology is going to determine our interpretation. But a couple comments…

The Bible never says a divorced person cannot be an elder. This is an important distinction. A person’s interpretation of a difficult phrase may yield this conclusion, but the Bible clearly does not say the word "divorced." We need to be honest with this fact.

The NIV’s "the husband of but one wife" may be placing emphasis on mias, but to me this is an inappropriate translation and is adding to the biblical text. I was glad to see the TNIV’s correction to, "faithful to his wife" (also the NLT, "He must be faithful to his wife"). The RSV ("the husband of one wife") was changed to "married only once" (NRSV), a surprisingly interpretive translation by an otherwise more reserved translation.

When I was pastoring, one of my joys was writing position papers. This is a practice that I would encourage all pastors to do. It involves not only exegeting the text but then applying it. For example, Titus 1:6 requires that an elder’s children must be "faithful" or "believers."

Once you have exegeted the text, you still have to apply it. I go with "believers" in my commentary, but then what about the elder who has 5 believing children and one child who is wandering. Is he ineligible?

This is what Position Papers are for. I have made a few of my Position Papers available at BillMounce.com/publications. Scroll to the bottom of the page to see the links.

When I wrote the commentary I initially went with Position 4. But when I got to chapter 5, I could not say that a widow had to be married only once in order to be enrolled in widows list since Paul encourages the younger widows to remarry. So I went back and changed my commentary to Position 3.

This allows for a person to be an elder who has been divorced in the distant past—how far in the distance needs to be decided in your position paper. I didn’t come to this conclusion for this reason, but it is one of the ramifications.

But in this debate, let’s be fair. 1 Tim 3:2 is a confusing text, and whatever it says, it does not say it clearly. At least to us; I am sure Timothy had not doubt as to Paul’s meaning.

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek, and general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation. Learn more and visit Bill's blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.

Comments

[ScottL]

This is definitely a debatable verse, or at least what is being specifically implied by Paul. Writing position papers can be helpful as we theologically develop our minds, but, unfortunately, we will not be able to address every pastoral issue that arises. And I think that is beautiful. We can set out general and helpful thoughts and principles, but each individual case would have to be dealt with individually.

Good stuff.

[Dani]

What support do you have for your comment:"While polygamy was common in Judaism . . ." Are you referring to passages in the Hebrew Text or are you referring to the historical situation of the day in 1st century Judaism?

Is it not more likely that Paul is referring to a social context found in the area of Timothy's ministry, which would be Ephesus, Asia Minor and the pagan Greco-Roman society? With much of Timothy's community being Gentile converts, perhaps an additional option should be that polygamy and infidelity were common within the cultic worship of Ephesus and perhaps Paul is calling for a necessary lifestyle change and distinction from the "great is Artemis of the Ephesians" worship, of which Paul is intimately familiar with and has not likely forgotten a recent riot.

[Bill Mounce]

For evidence of polygamy in Judaism see Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. I think for your second comment to be argued you would have to find something in the entire list of elder qualifications that tied uniquely into the Artemis cult. In my commentary I do argue that most of the qualifications are given against a backdrop of what Timothy's opponents were teaching, but for something as specific as you suggest I would think there would need to be a specific tie-in. I have no doubt that infidelity ran rampant in the Ephesian church, perhaps as much as it is true of the modern American church. With the great unspoken sins of the modern church being pornography and sexual abuse (followed closely by gossip), maybe this is why it is so hard to find qualified elders today. Hmmm.

[R Graham]

The question I have is, as you mentioned, how does one interpret in light of all the scripture regarding the covenant of marriage? Much, is spoken of, even to the analogy of the body of Christ being the Bride.
Can an elder, who has been divorced, teach and/or exhort upon the purity of this God given covenant and be seen as above reproach? It seems to me, that this may lead to a poor view of the marriage covenant, and also may hinder ones view of the purity of the church? I would really like to hear your thoughts on this?

[Matthew Henry]

Thanks for this post sir. I too held the same position that you did, until I got to the widow. There was no way that I could believe that Paul was telling younger widows to remarry if it would disqualify them from the church's care. Tough passage that needs to be held in grace.

[Bill Mounce]

As to R. Graham's comments. Let me see.

I want to be careful of going beyond Scripture in my answer. One of the tests I have tried to apply as I have thought about future elders is whether they could stand before the congregation, and I could point my sons to them and say, "That is what a godly man looks like." An argument can certainly be made the requirements for leadership are stricter than for other Christians. Perhaps the admonition that the man's children be believers is an example of such.

On the other hand, as a place of grace along with purity, there is something to be said to the example a person supplies to the church as one who sinned, who has been forgiven, and has been changed by the merciful power of God's Spirit into truly a man of God. Gordon MacDonald is a wonderful example of this.

I have heard the argument that no divorce severs the bonds of marriage (held among others by John Piper). But I have not heard an argument based on the relationship of Christ to his bride. Interesting thought.

[Pat]

I skimmed through your position paper and noticed that you seem to hold the position that only men can be elders. I was wondering if you could elaborate and if that is your position and if so, why?

[Joel]

Just an FYI, John Piper's view is based on Christ and his bride, and that is where he draws the view that "no divorce severs the bonds of marriage."

His book This Momentary Marriage and his sermon series a couple years ago on marriage, are great and speak to the idea that marriage is an image of something much greater and more profound than simply husband and wife.

No need to post this, I just wanted you to know. - Take care

[Bill Mounce]

Thanks for the update on John's position. I had read his article on the "One Flesh" argument but was unaware of this one.

[David Reimer]

You write in response to the request for support for polygamy being “common in Judaism”: “For evidence of polygamy in Judaism see Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology.”

Not precisely a presentation of support! :) In fact, this strikes me as a strage claim. While under Jewish law, “polygamy” was permissible under certain conditions, it was more often contested, and explicitly rejected by various Jewish documents, as ancient as the Damascus Document!

For an initial foray, one could consult the older Jewish Encyclopedia article on polygamy, readily available online.

Daivd Reimer

[Bill Mounce]

"Not precisely a presentation of support! :)" I am coming to love smiley faces. It is so easy to misinterpret blog posts. Okay. Let me go get the book (since I was too lazy to get it earlier). Page 917 nn22-23 in the new edition. If you have an earlier edition, it should be in the index.

[VIA]

POLYGAMY:
The problem with Grudem's statement, and the citation of him is two fold:

A) His quote of Josephus is an obscure reference in which he states, almost parenthetically, that "it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time" when talking about Herod, Antipater and the aristocratic practice. Josephus himself seems to provides a context as to why this was an "excepted" case: "Now, the king made those espousals for the children, out of commiseration of them now they were fatherless, as endeavoring to render Antipater kind to them by these intermarriages." [Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1996, c1987). The works of Josephus: Complete and unabridged. (Ant 17.15). Peabody: Hendrickson.] Does that context support the comment that "polygamy was common in Judaism," in that most first century Jews accepted and practiced polygamy? While polygamy is a part of the Jewish (and therefore Christian) history, to blanket all of Judaism as adherents to this "common practice" seems dubious based on Josephus' statement. I would want stronger support from a wider range of sources.

B) The reference to "rabbinic legislation" is problematic, for the writings of the rabbis are often in disagreement with each other. Citing Rabbinic Legislation as a source seems akin to citing American Politics as a source when discussing various positions and practices in American culture. Though there may be sources to suggest that certain strains held positions and practices, it's not accurate to call it "common" with that citation alone.

I would suggest that there needs to be stronger evidence for the "common practice of polygamy" other than an obscure reference in Josephus and the rabbinic discussion (for reasons above) for conclusions regarding the actual matrimonial behaviors and practices of the Jewish people of the first century.

ARTEMIS CULT:
Regarding your statement, "you would have to find something in the entire list of elder qualifications that tied uniquely into the Artemis cult," I would suggest that this may be "stacking the deck" against any and all interpretation that attempts to use historical context. It doesn't seem logical to necessitate an "all or nothing" rubric. Based upon what logic? If we applied that reasoning to the rest of the letter, then neither 1 Timothy, nor Ephesians could have ever alluded to the Artemis cult, simply because the entire letter itself doesn't "specifically allude to some aspect" of the cult. This doesn't seem reasonable. Was not Paul ingenious in being able to subversively allude to various aspects of the contemporary culture to make a point, or to draw the readers to a conclusion; and that without paralleling the entire letter?

While I'm unsure if the "one wife" comment is tied to the Artemis cult, I had difficulty with your reasoning as to why not.

(With grace and a smiley face :-) ).

[Anthony Baker]

Sir, I would like to ask if the tense of the whole list of "qualifications" has any bearing on the matter. As I see it, how many of the "must be's" could have been under par in the past, at some point? How many men of God have always been vigilant, sober, well-behaved, patient, hospitable, and never a novice? Have any of us never done anything worthy of blame? On the other hand, we have made things right; learned from mistakes; become men of reputation; learned to rule our households well.

It seems to me that the real issue is not what he has done, but what he IS.