“How detrimental to faith, how obstructive to holiness, second marriages are, the discipline of the Church and the prescription of the apostle declare, when he suffers not men twice married to preside (over a Church), when he would not grant a widow admittance into the order unless she had been ‘the wife of one man;’ for it behoves God’s altar to be set forth pure.” –Tertullian, To His Wife, 1.7.^[1]

Although Tertullian’s reading of μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, “husband of one wife,” in 1 Tim. 3:2, 12, and Titus 1:6 has long been the minority view among NT interpreters (especially Protestant), he rightly identified a significant connection between μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα (“husband of one wife”) and its parallel ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, “wife of one husband,” in 1 Tim. 5:9, a descriptor of certain widows to be supported by the church. Whatever a “husband of one wife” is, it likely corresponds with whatever a “wife of one husband” is. 

While the parallelism of these phrases routinely features in attempts to determine their meaning, little effort has been made to explain the conceptual relationship between them. The cultural concept observably behind the phrase “wife of one husband” (univira, understood either as a wife who upheld an ideal of fidelity or a widow who never remarried),^[2] had no obvious male parallel, suggesting the possibility that Paul intended “husband of one wife” to mirror the ideal reflected in “wife of one husband.” In other words, it may be that Paul instructs that overseers exemplify a sexual ethic without the double standard common to Greco-Roman culture and enshrined in Roman law. While some commentators read “wife of one husband” in light of what “husband of one wife” might mean,^[3] this requires reading into the second what we already know culturally about the first. 

But this pursuit led to another question: since an egalitarian reading typically makes use of what may be called the “fidelity” reading—referring to fidelity rather than marital status—is the fidelity reading also the egalitarian reading? Egalitarian interpreters often argue that since “wife of one husband” is the same qualification as “husband of one wife,” then 1 Tim. 3:2 should not be considered gender exclusive.^[4] Thus, egalitarian and fidelity readings intersect. This essay will consider whether or not they are the same. Put another way, since the fidelity reading abstracts the language, is the gendered component “abstracted out” of the phrase? 

The Fidelity Reading of “Husband of one Wife”

“Husband of one wife” (or the more colloquial “one-woman man”) has been interpreted as various (overlapping) elder requirements for church overseers: (1) requiring marriage,^[5] (2) prohibiting polygamy,^[6] (3) barring remarried widowers,^[7] (4) barring candidates who have remarried following a divorce,^[8] (5) barring candidates married more than once whether widowed or divorced,^[9] and (6) requiring exclusive, faithful devotion to  his wife.^[10]

The first view is rare and difficult to defend. Paul’s endorsement of celibacy elsewhere (1 Cor. 7:32-40) challenges the idea that requiring marriage targets the heretical prohibition of marriage (1 Tim. 4:3).^[11] As for the second, polygamy was strictly illegal under Roman Law, although did occur among Jews;^[12] if there is a parallel between 3:2 and 5:9, a prohibition of polygamy would likewise prohibit polyandry, which was too uncommon to need prohibiting.^[13] The reading that remarried widowers would not be admitted to eldership is based on the univira ideal. If widows were praised for not remarrying, and univira is the correct background for the instruction, then this makes sense. As will be discussed below, however, the meaning of univira is not diachronically static, so whether these inscriptions praised widows for not remarrying or for being faithfully devoted depends on whether the inscription is early (first century B. C.) or later (second to fifth century A. D.). Additionally, denying widowers remarriage is inconsistent with Paul’s commending remarriage to younger widows (5:14). 

A prohibition of post-divorce remarriage for elders makes more sense, particularly of μιᾶς (“one”), than the previous interpretations, especially in light of its similarity to marital requirements for Levitical priests (Lev. 21:7, 13-14). However, the priestly connection is not entirely convincing because Leviticus restricted who a priest could marry (no widows or divorcees), not his marital status. Admittedly we should recall James’ warning that leaders are held to a higher standard (Jas. 3:1). On the other hand, we should not assume a higher standard in this case represents something not indirectly expected of ordinary church members; an elder was to be an example (1 Pet. 5:3; Titus 2:7), and character qualifications imply followers. As Dodd points out, we would not expect ordinary church members to be affirmed in drunkenness if the elder is to be sober, or violent if the elder is to be gentle.^[14] Moreover, since Jesus and Paul allowed remarriage following legitimate divorce,^[15] and since remarriage was a protected right in both Jewish and Roman law^[16] (and legally mandated for widows),^[17] it is more likely “husband of one wife” refers to exclusivity in marriage than marital status or number.^[18]

Remarriage Prohibition in the Early Church: a Guide to Interpretation? 

Prohibition of remarriage following divorce was common in the early church, although this fact is sometimes overplayed.^[19] In the 1980’s Wenham and Heth hypothesized that the church prior to Erasmus was essentially unanimous in opposing post-divorce remarriage; consequently, they termed the “evangelical consensus” on remarriage the “Erasmian view.”^[20] As David C. Jones has demonstrated, however, although Augustine had written centuries earlier than Erasmus that marriage is indissoluble and thus remarriage not permissible (the view that became canon law), he later expressed doubts about his own position, saying of one who remarries post-divorce, “I do not think that he would commit a grave sin.”^[21] For this reason Jones suggested the “Erasmian view” should rightly be thought of as “the final Augustinian view.”^[22] Considering the broad influence of Augustine on western Christianity, it is difficult to assert such a concrete consensus. 

Additionally, the first century church’s primary concerns were persecution and distinguishing themselves from Judaism, sometimes to a xenophobic extent.^[23] The stark difference between the church’s movement away from views of divorce and remarriage common to Judaism^[24] makes sense in such a reactive movement. Extant early church witness does not weigh in on this issue to the extent that some suggest.^[25] The point in bringing up persecution and distinguishing Christians from Jews is simply to point out that no great scholarly attempt was made in the early centuries to study this issue. Most early marital theology based in sacramental theology, not in culturally studying the Jewish background of Jesus’ divorce sayings, which many church fathers misunderstood. It makes more sense that in the overseer qualifications Paul is addressing exclusivity in marriage than marital status or number. The next section will consider the univira background relating to widows before returning to address the intersection of fidelity and egalitarian readings. 

Univira and μόνανδρος (“one-man”) in Marital Ideals

The view that “husband of one wife” refers to one marriage for a lifetime, as stated above, refers to the cultural ideal of the univira, the wife or widow praised as being μόνανδρος (“one-man,” the Greek term in comparable Jewish inscriptions), a wife of only one husband, identified primarily in funerary inscriptions. If the widow to be put on the church roll in 1 Tim. 5:9 is identified with this univira concept, then the “husband of one wife,” it is argued, is a man who contracts only one marriage in his lifetime. After all, numerous instances of univira praise a widow for never remarrying. But, as we will see, the evidence is not that simple. 

As Lightman and Zeisel demonstrate, the meaning of the term changed over time. While numerous scholars who argue for marital status restrictions in the phrase “husband of one wife” cite Lightman and Zeisel, some unfortunately have not taken into account the change in meaning of univira from Republic to Imperial periods discussed in the article. The oldest use, connected with Roman pagan religion, the univira-pronuba, was a one-time-married living woman who served a role in wedding ceremonies who embodied the ideal of elite women.^[26] As the term developed, its explicit religious connection was severed, and it came to be used to refer to exemplary wives who died before their husbands. As Keener points out, “Surviving husbands could not honor wives who had been married only once but who had also been widows before predeceasing their husbands.”^[27] The use of univira to refer to widows who never remarried is a distinctively Christian usage which developed later. Lightman and Zeisel and J. B. Frey both give early examples of women with surviving husbands, lauded as univira in a way that described their married lives.^[28] Conclude Lightman and Zeisel:

The Christian appropriation of univira completed a series of transformations which the epithet had been undergoing since the early Republic. At first limited to Roman elite, the term was applied first to living women with living husbands. During the late Republic and Empire it became an epithet given by socially aspiring or elite husbands to their deceased wives. By the Christian period use of the word had spread to all social levels, and the epithet became a social commonplace. Christians adopted the word and expanded its use to include celibate widowhood, a condition to which the newly Christianized society gave almost religious significance.”^[29]

Based on this overview, it appears that those who base an understanding of “husband of one wife” on a reading of “wife of one husband” which reflects a cultural value of widows who never remarried are doing so anachronistically,^[30] not accounting for its diachronic development. This, combined with (1) the fact that remarriage was required of women under Roman law to receive inheritance rights, and (2) that Paul instructed younger wives to remarry, means Paul is likely speaking of widows who had been faithfully devoted to their husbands. 

Egalitarian and Fidelity Readings Intersect

A brief note before considering Linda Belleville’s position: A second intended interlocuter was Cynthia Westfall. Her book, Paul and Gender, is one of the most important works on Paul’s theology of gender in recent years written from an egalitarian perspective. Unfortunately, any discussion of “husband of one wife,” or “wife of one husband,” in 1 Tim. 3:2,12; 5:9, and Titus 1:6, is absent from the book, a very unexpected omission.

Since the fidelity reading abstracts the language of “husband of one wife,” is the gendered component “abstracted out” of the phrase? Linda Belleville is convinced this is the case.^[31] She argues that 1 Tim. 5:9 refers to a “widow [an official leader] who was content to remain a widow that would serve the church with…single-minded devotion.”^[32] While not explicit, she apparently grounds this idea in the univira background, or at least the way it is often understood as described above, which I argue is anachronistic. She agrees with a fidelity reading of “husband of one wife,” not based on its parallel with “wife of one husband,” but on the fact that men were more likely to have extramarital affairs and pursue divorce.^[33] This requirement is present for male leaders and widows, but not for female deacons in 3:11, which suggests Paul only required this ethic where it was needed. Widows were likely to remarry, and married women were less likely to philander than men, so only men and widows are given this specific qualification. Therefore, “husband of one wife” need not be considered gender specific. 

While this agrees with a right reading of “husband of one wife,” the interpretation is built on an unfortunate inconsistency; her claim that the widow in 5:9 is an official leader is based on its parallel to 3:2 regarding overseer qualifications.^[34] In other words, if the qualification applies to overseers, the fact that the same qualification applies to widows must mean the widows are also official church leaders. So, on the one hand, these two phrases present the same qualification, yet the parallel phrases themselves are understood as meaning entirely different things: “‘wife of one husband” means “content to remain a widow,” while “husband of one wife” means “faithful to his wife.” They cannot be the same instruction/qualification if they mean different things. 

It seems this interpretation is based on four unsupported assumptions: (1) that the term ἐπίσκοπος (“overseer”) suggests no distinctive function compared to the widow’s or deaconess’ once the gendered language is dismissed,^[35] (2) that “wife of one husband” in 5:9 refers to widows who refrain from second marriages, which is misaligned with the epigraphic evidence, (3) that γυναῖκας (“wife” or “woman”) in 3:11 definitely refers to female deacons, an often debated point, and (4) that the meaning of “husband of one wife” is not conceptually parallel to “wife of one husband.” These assumptions weaken the overall case for female elders on this basis, although the purpose of this essay is to discuss #2; the evidence is against the likelihood of this meaning for widows in 5:9 and instead points to a qualification that widows who are admitted to the church support role are those who were faithfully devoted to their husbands.

Conclusion

“Husband of one wife” and “wife of one husband” are conceptually connected, yet many interpreters seem to miss a likely point of connection: calling on men, through the example of church elders, to a sexual ethic which mirrored women who were praiseworthy for their single-minded devotion to their husbands. Since other interpretations of “husband of one wife” fall short in fully explaining this unusual phrase, it seems to best to ground our reading in its parallel (“wife of one husband”) for which we have more explanation. The living out of a proper view of the marital covenant in her past marriage meant the widow on the church roll would strengthen this facet of relationality within the church, as well as serve as a reminder that the church serves a covenantal function with God for the good of the world.^[36] The same is true for elders. The covenant is the central organizing structure of God’s dealings with the world; it should be the central organizing structure for church leaders. Paul’s instruction effectively states that elders were to model a sexual ethic that calls men to reject the double standard that valued women’s fidelity in the home but allowed men prostitutes. Such a lifestyle mocks the marital covenant, and thus mocks the Gospel (Eph. 5:32). And if this is the purpose of Paul’s use of the parallel phrases, then “husband of one wife” is intentionally, and unavoidably, gender specific.

---

^[1] Tertullian, To His Wife 1.7, in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885).

^[2] Majorie Lightman, “Univira: An Example of Continuity and Change in Roman Society,” Church History 46, no. 1 (1977): 19-32; J. B. Frey, “La Signification des termes μόνανδρος et univira: coup d’oeil sur la Famille Romaine aux Premier siècles de Nore ère,” RSR 20 (1930): 48-61; Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum, Vol. 1, §§81, 158, 392, 541 present inscriptions containing the term. While “ἑνός ανδρός γυνή” is not found outside the NT, μόνανδρος, the Greek parallel to univira, is similar enough to ἑνός ανδρός to suggest a conceptual parallel. 

^[3] E.g., Linda Belleville, “Women in Ministry: An Egalitarian Perspective,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, Revised edition, Stanley N. Gundry and James R. Beck, eds., Counterpoints (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 49, suggests widows in ch. 5 serve an official ministerial role based on 3:2’s list of elder qualifications.

^[4] Linda Belleville, “1 Timothy,” in 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, ed. Philip Wesley Comfort, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005), 68.

^[5] Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia–a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 52. “The author wished to commend marriage to the ‘bishop.’” This overlaps with #5, so they are cited on two views.

^[6] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1856; repr., Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 76–77; 158; although Calvin’s reading is based on the notion that polygamy was “toute commune,” (“entirely ordinary”) among the Jews. For evidence that monogamy was more the norm, especially among the common population, see David W. Chapman, “Marriage and Family in Second Temple Judaism,” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, ed. Ken M. Campbell (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 217-219. 

^[7] C. J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: With a Revised Translation, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR.: Wipf and Stock, Pub., 1998), 57; Ceslas Spicq, les Épîtres pastorales (Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1947), 78-79.

^[8] Gerald L. Bray, Pastoral Epistles: An International Theological Commentary (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2024), 186.

^[9] Dibelius and Conzelmann, 52; Kelly, 75–76; J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 1963), 75-76; Andrew Cornes, Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principles and Pastoral Practice (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1993), 274-275; Cf. “married only once,” in NIV and NRSV, and the slightly nuanced “faithful to his one wife” in NEB.

^[10] Raymond F. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary, 1st ed, The New Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 81-82; Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2006), 185; Ian Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, ed. Philip H. Towner (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 186-187; John Stott, Guard the Truth: the Message of 1 Timothy & Titus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 92-94; Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2018), 195-196, 480. C. H. Dodd, “New Testament Translation Problems II,” The Bible Translator 28, no. 1 (January 1977): 101–116.

^[11] Towner, 250-251.

^[12] It is permitted in the Torah (Exod. 21:10; Deut. 21:15-17), Mishnah (m. Yeb. 4:11; Ket. 10:1), and Talmud (b. Yeb. 65a). While it occurred, particularly among royals, there are good reasons to suggest it was not the norm for most, especially as Jews were increasingly Hellenized. Cf. Chapman, 217-219.

^[13] Towner, 250-251.

^[14] Dodd, 115-116.

^[15] Considering background factors, this allowance is implicit in Matt. 5:31-32; 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:10-14.

^[16] E.g., Gittin 9:3, “R. Judah says, “…Let this be from me your writ of divorce…that you may marry anyone you

want.” Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 485. See also David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s, 2002), 117-125; Susan Treggiari, “Divorce Roman Style: How Easy and how Frequent was it?” in Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. Beryl Rawson, (Oxford: Canberra Clarendon Press, 1991), 32–35, 51. 

^[17] Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage, 227, identifies this as part of the Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus of 18 B. C.; Treggiari, 48, 55-56, clarifies women remarried more often after being widows than following divorce.   

^[18] Sydney Page, “Marital Expectations of Church Leaders in the Pastoral Epistles,” JSNT  50 (1993): 109-110. 

^[19] A version of this paragraph appeared previously in Michael Durso, “What is Historical Theology?” (class paper, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Fall 2024), 2, 4. 

^[20] Gordon J. Wenham and William E. Heth, Jesus and Divorce (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2010), 11-15, 19-44. Heth has since published an article detailing the reversal of his position on this issue: William A. Heth, “Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 6 no. 1 (Spring 2002).

^[21] Augustine, On Faith and Works, trans. Gregory J. Lombardo (New York: Newman, 1988), chap. 19, quoted in David C. Jones, Biblical Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), 187. 

^[22]Jones, 187. 

^[23] Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3^rd ed, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 8-10; The Didache 8.1, directs fasting to be done on days opposite to that of τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, “the hypocrites,” referring to the Jews.

^[24] Such as viewing material and sexual neglect as grounds for divorce and remarriage based on Exod. 21.10-11 (m. Ket. 5:6-8; j. Ket. 5:7; b. Ket. 64b).

^[25] Cornes, 275, Bray, 186, and Kelly, 76, make such an appeal to early church history. 

^[26] Lightman and Zeisel, 18-19.

^[27] Craig S. Keener, And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 98.

^[28] Lightman and Zeisel, 23–24; Frey, 51, 54-55. A few noteworthy early funerary inscriptions Frey reports clearly praise deceased wives: “Hic sita sum Veturia … nupta bis octo per annos, unicuba, uniiuga,” (“Here I lie, Veturia…married for twice eight years, faithful to one bed, faithful to one husband.”); and another to a wife described as “Iustae matri[caris]simae omnium feminar[um sanc]tiori univiriae, quae vixit mec[um annos” (“most matronly of all women, most virtuous in her univira life, who lived…[] years with me.”); and another, “unovirae (sic) incomparabili coniugi vixit ann(os) XXIIII” (“she lived 24 years as a univira, an incomparable spouse”). These inscriptions clearly describe marital conduct rather than number of marriages. 

^[29] Lightman and Zeisel, 32, quoting Frey, 58. 

^[30] E.g., Kelly, 75-76; Cornes, 274.

^[31] A second intended interlocuter was Cynthia Westfall. Her book, Paul and Gender, is one of the most important works on Paul’s theology of gender in recent years written from an egalitarian perspective. Unfortunately, any discussion of “husband of one wife,” or “wife of one husband,” in 1 Tim. 3:2,12; 5:9, and Titus 1:6, is absent from the book.   

^[32] Belleville, “Women in Ministry,” 63.

^[33] Ibid. 

^[34] Belleville, “1 Timothy,” 68. “Although the expression ‘faithful to his wife’ is commonly thought to make the role of ‘overseer’ an exclusively male one, the standard is not exclusively so. It also is a qualification of widowed leaders (‘faithful to her husband,’ 5:9)” (emphasis added).

^[35] Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), 110, argues similarly, supposing a marriage requirement taken literally would nullify Paul’s teachings since he was unmarried, which imagines a similar collapsing together of different roles. 

^[36] Yarbrough, 278.