An Analysis of 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6.
“1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” – 1 Timothy 3:1-13
“To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” Titus 1:4-9
There has been no small controversy about the meaning and application of “husband of one wife,” in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that it requires ordained officers of the Church to be married men – married to the Church, that is, with a singular devotion thereto. Some Protestant commentators interpret the phrase as a requirement for ordained officers to be married to a wife, thus prohibiting unmarried men from ordination. Other commentators see it as an idiomatic expression against being a “skirt chaser,” visiting prostitutes or as against fornication in general.
We shall begin our exegesis of this expression in the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 17:17, it is commanded concerning Israeli kings, “Neither shall he (the king) multiply wives to himself.” If we take this passage at face value and in isolation, it is prohibiting the kings of Israel from engaging in polygamy. This commandment, however, is not what it appears reading it in isolation.
Now, there are multiple ways of interpreting Scripture. There’s a point of view- a very shallow and ill-informed point of view – that says “we can either interpret Scripture literally OR symbolically.” As if those are the only possibilities! I’ve been questioned in the past if I’m a “literalist” or if I allow for symbolic or allegorical interpretation of Scripture. My answer is neither. I am a contextualist. (There is also the issue of idiomatic expressions, but that’s another conversation!)
As in all human communication, every statement of Scripture has a context – no, make that contextS, plural. First, there’s the historical context. Events and human communication, including those of Scripture, do not occur in a vacuum but within a historical context. There’s also a situational context, as in, “What’s going on here?” Linguistically, there’s the immediate grammatical context of a word or phrase or sentence. There is also the proximate or near context of a book or specific section of a book of Scripture in which a statement occurs. And then there is the overall context of Scripture. Scripture is unique in this regard. We regard the scriptures, the Bible, as the inerrant, non-contradictory word of God. The entire Bible is a coherent UNIT. Therefore, we expect and demand absolute consistency from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
So, summarizing, we have at least five types of context in which statements occur:
Historical context,
Situational context,
Immediate (grammatical) context,
Proximate (near grammatical) context and,
Overall context of Scripture.
The proximate grammatical context of Deuteronomy 17:17 begins in verse 14 and continues through verse 20. The passage lays down commandments concerning any future kings of Israel.
14 “When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: ONE FROM AMONG THY BRETHREN SHALT THOU SET KING OVER THEE: THOU MAYEST NOT SET A STRANGER OVER THEE, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.”
This passage is addressing the king in his official capacity as king, not as an individual. This law is addressed to the nation of Israel in its corporate capacity: “When thou art come into the land.” Clearly, it is civil polity being dealt with here. There are four prohibitions. The first is to the nation in general: they may not appoint a king who is not an Israelite, a member of the covenant nation. The second, third, and fourth prohibitions are directed to the king himself as the representative of the nation:
1) he may not multiply horses
2) he may not multiply wives and
3) he may not greatly multiply silver and gold.
Fortunately, most commentators do correctly recognize that the prohibition against multiplying horses has at least some military significance. This injunction does not forbid the king from owning horses, or even a vast number of them, for his personal industry—as a breeder, for example. What is in view here is the excessive militarization of the nation. The king cannot conscript the entire nation or an unreasonable portion of the population. It should be observed that this law presupposes the moral validity of a national military force. What it limits is its extent and purpose. There is no such thing as a Christian Sparta.
The third prohibition, against greatly multiplying silver and gold, likewise concerns the State. It does not prohibit the king from the legitimate acquisition of wealth. It is not a violation of this law for the king to have millions or even billions of dollars in his personal bank account. It is taxation and the royal treasury which is in view here. It is excessive taxation which is forbidden to the king. The State is to be of modest size and limited jurisdiction.
The commandment against multiplying wives is sandwiched in between these two prohibitions. This injunction, like the other two, refers to the official functions of the king. It does not outlaw polygamy, as such. What is being spoken of here is treaty marriages, entering into covenants or alliances with heathen nations via marriages to foreign officials’ daughters, sisters, nieces, etc. It is of the same nature as the previous prohibition forbidding the people to appoint a stranger (foreigner) as king; marrying such a woman would involve having a queen (or queens) who were foreign, idol worshippers, precisely what this law speaks against.
This law does not forbid the king from marrying more than one Israelite woman. Proof of this is in the rationale explicitly given for the prohibition: “that his heart turn not away.” It is not Israelite women (unless they were apostate) who would turn away the king’s heart from following the LORD, but foreign, idol worshipers.
This is further corroborated in 1 Kings 3:1.
And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David…
And 1 Kings 11:1-
But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:
2 Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.
5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord, as did David his father.
7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
9 And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,
It is to be noted in those passages that God compares Solomon negatively with David in I Kings 11:4. Solomon’s polygamy with foreign princesses resulted in his idolatry, whereas David, who married multiple Israelite women, never had his heart turned away after false gods. Solomon’s polygamy was not the issue. The issue is who his wives were: heathen idolaters. David never violated Deuteronomy 17:17, because Deuteronomy 17:17 does not outlaw polygamy,
The reason I preface our exegesis of 1 Timothy 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6 with analysis of Deuteronomy 17:17 is that it is very instructive regarding interpretation of Scripture in general, and also instructive in regard to our present topic in particular. It should be obvious to the reader now where I am going with this: a strict reductionist interpretation of Scripture, in which we interpret a passage in isolation, can lead us astray as it certainly does in Deuteronomy 17:17. If we take Deuteronomy 17:17 in a strictly literal sense and also wrench it out of its context, only then can we read it as a prohibition against polygyny for the kings of Israel. As we have seen, that understanding of the passage is simply impossible. Deuteronomy 17:17 is a ban against treaty marriages with heathen, idol-worshiping nations, not polygyny per se. The proximate context, and the overall context of Scripture (i.e., laws allowing polygyny and the history of Solomon’s violation of that law) make this clear.
The literal language of the Greek in I Timothy 3:2 is MIAS GUNAIKOS ANDRA, meaning “ONE woman man,” OR, alternately, “FIRST woman man.” Both translations are valid. The ambiguity is not an issue of translation but is a feature of the original Greek. So which is it – and does it lead to a different conclusion, anyway?
Context comes to our aid here. First, historical context. Monogamy is all there was in Greco-Roman culture. There was no polygyny. (Significantly, the Israelites, on the other hand, practiced polygyny.) As any historian of Greece and Rome will tell you, polygamy was illegal for Roman citizens and the Greeks regarded polygyny as barbaric. There had been no polygamy in Crete or Ephesus where Timothy and Titus lived for several hundred years (see Divorce & Remarriage; Recovering the Bible View, by William F. Luck, pg. 264).
A Roman citizen, whether male or female, could have only one spouse in marriage at a time, but they were allowed to divorce and remarry. THIS is the historical context and reality of the world of Timothy and Titus. There simply was no polygamy. So what is this rule about? Was Paul laying down a rule about something that was non-existent? No, it’s about serial monogamy, that is, divorce and remarriage, the exact same problem that Jesus addressed in Matthew 19. An elder or a deacon must have shown fidelity to his first marriage with no history of marriage – divorce, REmarriage – divorce, REmarriage – divorce. All considerations taken into account, this is the only thing this rule can mean. Why would Paul issue a rule against a non-existent practice? That’s nonsense. And he wasn’t upgrading the Law of Moses to “Moses 2.0.” (See Matt. 5:17-19.)
If this rule is interpreted as a prohibition against ordaining polygamists, then it is doing so in a context in which such was a non-existent practice, and it is doing so in contradiction to the entire corpus of biblical laws and commandments to the contrary.