Paul's "One Woman Man" Requirement

The Monogamy-Only Objection

This objection explores Paul's requirement for church leaders to be a "one woman man" (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6), often interpreted as limiting church leadership to those with only one wife.

The Answer

Some argue that Paul's requirement for church leaders to be a "one woman man" (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα) in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 is a clear prohibition against polygamy or remarriage for church leaders, and by extension, all Christians.

Historical and Cultural Context

1. Greco-Roman Culture: In the first-century Roman world, monogamy was the norm, but divorce and remarriage were common, much like today in the West.
2. Sexual immorality outside of the one legal wife (at a time) was rampant and considered normal.
3. Paul was addressing the issue of church leadership and the moral character expected of those in positions of authority.
4. There has never been any limitation of "one wife only" in the history of God's people and the leaders whether it be Priests, High Priests, Kings or Prophets. In fact, many of these leaders had more than one wife, concubines, and were never condemned for this or ever told to cease the practice.

Linguistic Analysis

The phrase "μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα" (mias gynaikos andra) literally translates to "a one-woman man."

Important Greek Words and Their Meanings

• Heis (G1520): Refers to “One” or “Single,” denoting singularity or the concept of being the only one.
• Mia (G3391): The feminine form of “Heis,” meaning “One” or “First,” also used to mean “a certain” or “one particular.”
• Monos (G3441): Means “Alone” or “Only,” emphasizing exclusivity or being by oneself.
• Protos (G4413): Signifies “First” in terms of time, place, order, or importance, indicating priority or rank.
• Pas (G3956): Translates as “All” or “Every,” expressing totality or completeness, often rendered as “the whole.”

It's crucial to note that Paul used "mias" (μιᾶς) in this context, which is the feminine form of "heis" (one). If Paul had intended to convey the meaning of "one wife only," he could have used more specific terms such as "heis" (G1520) or "monos" (G3441). The use of "mias" suggests a broader interpretation than strict numerical monogamy.

Possible Interpretations

1. The word "μιᾶς" (mias): This Greek word can also mean "a" or "first" and is not necessarily limiting it to one exclusively. Rather it could be Paul saying the man must be married, and to his first wife, or faithful to the covenant(s) that he makes. This would be above reproach, "one at a time" could be a man on his 4th unlawful divorce and remarriage, which would not be above reproach.
2. Marital Faithfulness: Other translations like the NIV interpret this as a call for marital fidelity, rather than a strict numeric requirement, translating it as "faithful to his wife."
3. Prohibition of Remarriage: Some view this as barring men who have unlawfully divorced their wife from leadership, which would make more sense than barring faithful polygynous men who have never been barred from leadership or had the call to repent of their polygyny.
4. Character Quality: It could be describing a character trait of loyalty and fidelity, rather than a marital status.
   • It could be used idiomatically to mean a type of man, the type of man that is faithful, given the audience of Greco-Roman gentile converts, who would be used to one legal wife while they were free to have many women/prostitutes/etc on the side, a "one woman man" would have stood out as something set apart for them.
   • We lose understanding of idioms as time goes by, 2000 years from now if you read "the leader of a company needs to have his ducks in a row", you could easily see people beliving the leader needed to actually have ducks, and line them up in a row, to qualify. But we know it means the leader needs to have everything in order, and be organized.

Theological Considerations

1. How does this requirement align with the overall teaching on marriage and divorce as we see in the scriptures?
2. Is this a universal principle that would apply to all Christian men even if it were a requirement for monogamy for leaders?
   • High Priests were only allowed to marry virgins, they could not marry widows. (Leviticus 21:13-14)
   • Priests could marry widows and virgins, but no divorceed women or harlots. (Leviticus 21:7)
   • There was no restriction on non-priests in marrying widows, divorced women, harlots or virgins.
   • This precedent illustrates that rules for some positions in God's Kingdom cannot be applied to all men and it is a mistake to try to do so and will cause error.
3. If it is about polygyny, could the reproach be that it would be against Roman law, but not God's law? This is a position I could see being made, but that would not make it a moral reproach, or one that would be a reproach for all leaders in all places across all time.

Conclusion

The interpretation of Paul's "one woman man" requirement remains a subject of debate among scholars and church leaders. While it clearly emphasizes the importance of fidelity and moral character in church leadership, the specific application of this principle varies among different Christian traditions and contexts.

It cannot be used to say that all men can only have one wife, as that is a violation of God's commands which allow a man to have more than one wife (Exodus 21:10).

It is not likely that it had anything to do with polygyny based on what I have shown above, my interepration as it stands is that Paul was saying the man must be married, and to his first wife, or not having unlawfully divorced his wife. This would allow a widower to continue to lead as well. It would also allow a man who has 4 wives he has been faithful to to lead. This is the most logical interpretation that aligns with the rest of the scriptures and causes no contradictions.

Everything Paul wrote should be reconciled to the Torah, if it causes contradictions, there are two options I can see, Paul violated the Law in his writings, or your interpretation of his words is incorrect. Peter told us Paul was difficult to understand and that the untaught and unstable twist his words as they do with the other scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

We should heed that warning and not be quick to assume our interpretation of Paul's words is correct, especially when that interpretation affects something as serious as marriage, family, adultery, and divorce.