question on 1 Timothy 3:2

[Harry the Heretic]

2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"


I'm in a debate over marriage and divorce and am curious as to how people interpret "one wife" in this verse.

Basically this individual claims that an unbelieving couple who had been previously married and got a divorce for reasons other than adultery, could not be accepted into the church in their present sinful state.

Is this verse referring to polygamy, or divorced men, and if it is divorced men do you automatically infer that the reason for divorce is adultery?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

The context is most assuredly polygamy when looked at in refence to the time it was written. However a divorce for reasons other than adultery causes the person to be in an adulterous state and therefore they should not be allowed in a ministry position, if they were Christians. However the Pauline Concession allows for the non-believer to leave and the Christian not be bound to them. So we come into an area where things are not clear. We have instructions as Christians on how to handle these things, but if the couple in question were not saved at the time then it is a different matter. When we are saved our past is washed clean, I would take that to include divorce as well. you would have to be able to answer if a marriage of two non-believers is valid in the eyes of God to begin amongst various other questions. The remarriage is what is refered to as the problem, not the seperation. So there are many, many circumstances that would have to be taken into account to even begin to answer the question.

[ChrisB]

Is this verse referring to polygamy, or divorced men, and if it is divorced men do you automatically infer that the reason for divorce is adultery?

A different slant on this would be to say "could single men be bishops?"

[Harry the Heretic]

The context is most assuredly polygamy when looked at in refence to the time it was written. However a divorce for reasons other than adultery causes the person to be in an adulterous state and therefore they should not be allowed in a ministry position, if they were Christians. However the Pauline Concession allows for the non-believer to leave and the Christian not be bound to them. So we come into an area where things are not clear. We have instructions as Christians on how to handle these things, but if the couple in question were not saved at the time then it is a different matter. When we are saved our past is washed clean, I would take that to include divorce as well. you would have to be able to answer if a marriage of two non-believers is valid in the eyes of God to begin amongst various other questions. The remarriage is what is refered to as the problem, not the seperation. So there are many, many circumstances that would have to be taken into account to even begin to answer the question.
I would agree that it is polygamy. if it is looked at in context to its time, most assuredly there were people in congregations with divorces prior to their conversion. As far as mariage between two non believers being recognized, one could point to Pharoh's wife and Pilate's wife as justification.

The arguement I face is a person who "continues to live in his sin". ie a thief should return the stolen property, or at least stop being a thief.

I have tried to use the above verse as proof that there were many types of marriages accepted into the body, and that the "commandment" for divorce applied after that conversion. I also agree that a bishop's past would disqualify him from office, but what of some one not seeking an office, is he disqualified from the body? I would say no, but many I know say that I'm in error.

[Harry the Heretic]

A different slant on this would be to say "could single men be bishops?"
I would say no he should not be.

[Asar'el]

2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"


I'm in a debate over marriage and divorce and am curious as to how people interpret "one wife" in this verse.

Basically this individual claims that an unbelieving couple who had been previously married and got a divorce for reasons other than adultery, could not be accepted into the church in their present sinful state.

Is this verse referring to polygamy, or divorced men, and if it is divorced men do you automatically infer that the reason for divorce is adultery?
This chapter, and the beginning verses, are very important to me - I had to consider them long and hard when I felt called to the ministry. My conclusions (rather contrary to my desires), are that:

It is, indeed, good for a man to desire this office - BUT it is not given unto everyone that desires it, as I believe it was not given to me.

While some argue (quite strongly) that this refers to polygamy ... that is not correct. Since God's decree regarding marriage was, is, and always shall be, for one man and one woman to be married, saying it again here would be superfluous. The husband of one wife, then, forbids the office to those that are divorced and re-married, as well as to single men.

It is clear from the following verses, that a bishop should be a husband and a father, for in verse 4 it says,

One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

The figures of speech used regarding the church are most often (and most striking) those speaking of a bride. It is with good reason that God's appointed bishops (and deacons, as the further verses declare), should embody well this image. Not only are they to be married and with children, but their lives should reflect, as much as possible, the relationship of the church to the Lord, their wives conforming to the scripture also:

Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

Of those in office much is expected - and it is also expected that God will provide such as He requires for the office. If the description does not quite fit ... take comfort in that first verse, for God giving the desire giveth a good thing... but do not take it upon yourself to run when you are not (truly) called.