Constable listed several possibilities in the “Husband of one wife” debate. Source:
Constable, Thomas. “Dr. Constable’s Expository (Bible Study) Notes.” Sourced from Plano Bible Church https://planobiblechapel.org/constable-notes/. Exact page is https://www.planobiblechapel.org/tcon/notes/html/nt/1timothy/1timothy.htm
This view sees as disqualified all unmarried men.[216] Those who hold this view usually appeal mainly to the context of the passage for support.
Pro
If a man is going to oversee a local church, he must have successful experience overseeing a family household (v. 5).
Con
The emphasis on “one” in the Greek text suggests a contrast between one or more wives rather than one or no wives.
Paul could simply have said the elder needed to be married if that is what he meant.
In order to be consistent, verse 4 would require that the elder have children (plural) too.[217]
Jesus put no stigma on a man remaining single to serve the Lord (Matt. 19:12), and Paul said that it is possible for a single person to serve the Lord more effectively than a married person can (1 Cor. 7:7-8).
This view sees as disqualified men who remarry for any reason such as remarried widowers and remarried divorcees.[218] Those who hold this view often put much emphasis on church history, specifically, that the early church, according to the writings of some church fathers, discouraged remarriage.
Pro
Paul urged the unmarried and widows to remain unmarried (1 Cor. 7:8).
The early church looked down on remarriage for any reason.[219]
If a man does not remarry, he provides a better example for the church of what it means to be Spirit-controlled and totally dependent on God’s grace.
The phrase “wife of one man” (5:9), which is identical to “husband of one wife,” except for the switch in sexes, in its context seems to mean married only once.
Con
Paul urged the younger widows to remarry (5:14; cf. 1 Cor. 7:28).
Remarrying did not disqualify widows from receiving regular support from the church (5:9).
There is nothing essentially sinful about remarrying when the marriage bond has been broken (1 Cor. 7:9; cf. Rom. 7:2-3).
Since this appears to be the only moral qualification for the elder office, it is unlikely that Paul viewed remarriage as the worst possible moral offense that would disqualify a man.
A variation of this view that some interpreters prefer is that divorcees who remarry are disqualified, but widowers who remarry and not.[220]
Pro
There is nothing morally culpable about being a widower, but there may be about being a divorcee.
Con
Not every case of divorce renders a man morally culpable (blameworthy).
This view sees as disqualified any man who is married to more than one woman at a time. This would include bigamists, polygamists, and perhaps remarried divorcees, depending on the circumstances of their divorce.[221] Advocates often emphasize the syntax of the passage in Greek.
Pro
The emphasis on “one” wife in the Greek text contrasts with more than one wife. Jewish, Greek, and Roman cultures practiced polygamy at this time.[222]
Con
If this is all that Paul meant, he hardly needed to mention it, since polygamy was inappropriate for all Christians, not just elders (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2).[223]
This view sees as disqualified any man who is or has been morally unfaithful to his wife (or wives if he has remarried).[224] Some interpreters view any divorce as infidelity, others regard only divorce in which the husband has been unfaithful as infidelity. Those who argue for this view often emphasize the theological issue that God requires high standards for leaders.
Pro
This is an idiomatic use of the phrase “husband of one wife.” It means a one-woman man. One paraphrase reads “committed to his wife.”[225]
Paul seems to use “wife of one man” in the same way in 5:9 to describe a faithful wife.
Since this is the only moral qualification for an elder, we should probably interpret it broadly as forbidding immorality.
Con
Paul could have said something like “faithful to his wife,” if that is all that he meant.
Since God commanded all Christians to be morally pure, Paul must have meant more than that here.
One variation of this view is that the man must be a faithful husband presently, even though he may have been unfaithful in the past (before and/or after his conversion).[226]
Pro
This interpretation is consistent with the other qualifications for elders all of which deal with the man’s present condition.
God forgives all sin and so should the church.
Con
All the other qualifications for elders view the man’s total record of behavior, not just his present condition.
A presently faithful husband may have established a record of previous unfaithfulness that would make him a bad example as an elder.
The consequences of sin usually follow, even though God does forgive the guilt of all sin. For this reason immorality in marriage disqualifies a man.
A second variation of this view is that the man must have proved himself faithful in the past (either all his life or since his conversion) as well as in the present.[227]
Pro
Paul must have had the man’s record of behavior in view since the other qualifications require that we take the past into consideration.
If Paul had meant that God wipes away the consequences of sin, as well as its guilt, he did not need to give any qualifications. Almost any Christian presently walking in fellowship with God could qualify.
Con
The church should forgive all sin completely since God does.
The qualification “the husband of one wife” seems to preclude the possibility of women holding this office. Paul could have said “the partner or mate of one spouse.” The fact that all the qualification words in verses 2 through 7 are masculine in gender supports this conclusion.