bishops, deacons,
husband of one wife

Bishops and Deacons must have one wife - an unusual greek phrase

1Tim.3:2 is an “unusual construction” in the original text and an "unusual construction" in ANY language is a dead giveaway of an idiomatic expression and such expressions are seldom meant to be understood in a strictly literal sense.

Greek scholars, faced with this idiomatic phrase, have suggested 1Tim.3:2 could be understood in a number of ways. Bishops and Deacons...
1. must not be divorced.
2. must retain their first wife.
3. must be married.
4. must have one wife only.
5. must be faithful in marriage.
6. must be faithful to the first wife.
7. must not frequent commercial or temple prostitutes.

Some churches will not elevate any man to office who has been divorced, since he does not have his first wife; he has not been faithful in marriage.

The phrase brings out some reasonable questions.
If monogamy was already established as the "Christian norm; ideal" why would Paul bother emphasizing this for the Bishops and Deacons?

If polygamy was common, then was Paul limiting the leadership to one wife because of the burdens of office?

It was Solomon who gave advice about the wife of your youth and if Paul is writing about the first wife, this might have been in mind.
Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Prov.5:18.

Likewise the prophet Malachi noted,
And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. Mal 2:13-14 .

It would be way outside Scripture to argue that Solomon, with 1000 wives and concubines, and the prophet of a polygamous nation were demanding monogamy by referencing the wife of our youth. Yet without Scripture context or clarity, when Paul is possibly referencing the same first wife he is somehow demanding monogamy.

When Paul demands the leadership be the husband of one wife he could be looking back at Christ who decried the illegal and liberal divorce for any reason attitude, see Matt.19 & Mk.10. The Lord reminded those who tested him of the original creation design, male and female and the two shall be one flesh, these creation criteria were not to be breached with illegal and frivolous divorce. Perhaps Paul was demanding the leadership be the husband of their first or one wife because they were to avoid or repudiate divorce.

Many scholars have considered the cultural context in their understanding and the fact is, Israel, a polygamous culture, existed among the Greek and Roman cultures who were monogamous. Eventually, the "church" moved from Israel as its center to the Roman empire as its center, from polygamy centered to monogamy centered.

Polygamy simply did not exist among the Greeks and was regarded as barbaric. It was ILLEGAL for Roman citizens and had not existed in Ephesus and Crete for centuries where Timothy and Titus ministered. However, divorce and remarriage was allowed and was common. (See “Divorce and Remarriage” by William F. Luck pg. 264-265.). Not only so, commercial and pagan temple prostitution was widespread. A documentary on Pompei after the eruption of Vesuvius, revealed brothels on nearly every street corner. Furthermore, homosexuality in various forms was not uncommon. Older men with adolescent boys, homosexual prostitutes and public performances by gays reflected its presence in those societies.

The Roman and Greek culture had monogamy as the ideal yet allowed divorce and remarriage, homosexuality and closed the eye to harlotry. Does this sound familiar to our "western cultured" readers? This is the backdrop of Timothy and Titus.

Seeing this situation, that is, a church with a polygamous upbringing ministering in a culture where polygamy was considered barbaric and illegal, we understand that this idiomatic phrase is open to more than one consideration and is highly unlikely to be addressing polygamy where it was non-existent.

Was Paul limiting the leadership of a pro-polygamy church culture to monogamy because of the monogamous culture around them? Possibly!

Was Paul laying down an [anti] polygamy law for a nonexistent practice? Hardly!

1 Timothy 3:2, Harmonization and Context

As any trained theologian worth his salt will tell you, suggesting a PLAUSIBLE interpretation of a passage of Scripture is only Step Number One in the interpretation process. Then it must be shown that that interpretation is consistent with all OTHER passages of scripture which touch upon the same subject. It is not sufficient for us, as believers in the inspiration of Scripture, to interpret a passage in isolation.

Demanding 1Tim.3 and Titus mean monogamy only is interpreting an isolated passage without reference to other Scriptures.

We believe that Scripture is the product of one mind, of God Himself. Coming from God, the Scripture cannot contradict itself. Any given interpretation of scripture must not only pass the PLAUSIBILITY test, it must also pass the HARMONIZATION test. Unbelieving reprobates, ironically, understand this intuitively. That is why they spend so much time trying to convince everybody that the scriptures are contradictory. Many Christians, inexplicably, seem not to understand this necessity. They are content reading Scripture as if it consists of isolated bits like little pieces of tiles of a mosaic without seeing if the pieces fit in with the whole picture.

This is where the monogamy-only interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2 degrades from plausible to not possible.

Paul is not demanding Christianity adopt monogamy only, Paul is enforcing the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, where we find multiple admonitions against illegitimate DIVORCE [that is divorce for any reason] but not a single word specifically about or against polygamy. Lastly, Jesus did not come to do away with the Law of Moses (see Matt. 5:7-19).

The apostle Paul was not “upgrading” the Law of Moses to “Moses 2.0” by abrogating all the Law had declared regarding polygamy. 1Tim.3 and Titus are not expositions about marriage structure, they are lists of qualifications for leadership. Paul does not change the law from polygamy and monogamy acceptability to monogamy only in a single, idiomatic phrase which is translated as "the husband of one wife."

Whether the proper translation is “ONE woman man” or “FIRST woman man” is kind of a red herring anyway. Why? Because even if we bias the interpretation toward “ONE woman man,” the concern of ILLEGITIMATE DIVORCE, of divorcing your first wife for a different woman, falls into the category of being more than a one woman man. Is a serial monogamist, marrying and divorcing multiple times, a one woman man?

Augustine Quotes:
“For by a secret law of nature, things that stand chief love to be singular; but things that are subject are set under, not only one under one, but, if the system of nature or society allow, even several under one, not without becoming beauty. For neither hath one slave so several masters, in the way that several slaves have one master. Thus we read not that any of the holy women served two or more living husbands; but we read that many females served one husband, when the social state of the nation allowed it, and the purpose of the time persuaded it: for NEITHER IS IT CONTRARY TO THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE. For several females can conceive from one man: but one female cannot from several men (such is the power of things principal) AS MANY SOULS ARE RIGHTLY MADE SUBJECT TO ONE GOD.” —from “A Selected Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church ,” Ed. by Philip Schaff, Vol. III, pg. 407-408

1Tim.3 and Titus do not demand monogamy only for the leadership or the faithful.

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Tim.3:2, 12

That's why officials must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage. CEV

An elder must be such a good man that no one can rightly criticize him. He must be faithful to his wife. ERV.

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Tit.1:6

One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 1Tim.3:4, 7

"bad consequences" are not the result of marriage structure, there are unhappy monogamous and polygamous marriages

Israel practiced polygamy up to the 11th Century, for 3000 years they failed to grasp they shall be one flesh meant one man one woman only