In an earlier post, I wrote about the translation of Titus 1:6. I want to tie up a few loose ends from that post as well as tangle things up a bit.
I want to summarize the possible meanings for this phrase and evidence for or against them:
‘HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE’ MEANS…
a. “not polygamous”
Unlikely on historical grounds since polygamy is not known to have been practiced outside of Palestine.
b. “never having had a previous spouse” i.e. widower or divorcé.
I’m unaware of any evidence for this interpretation on historical or Scriptural grounds.
c. “not being celibate”
On textual grounds this could be plausible since Paul was concerned in several of his letters with extreme forms of asceticism, some involving prohibition of marriage (1 Tim. 4:3).
d. “not being sexually promiscuous”
This option is possible for similar reasons to the previous option. Paul was concerned with sexual promiscuity, much of it condoned by popular culture.
WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS
Although each of these options has varying levels of plausibility, we can’t really say with certainty what the phrase actually means. When that happens you have two choices:
1. Be vague
It makes sense for us to try to be ambiguous where the original writer was being ambiguous. But I’m sure Paul wasn’t being ambiguous. Unfortunately, the most common result of being ambiguous is that the reader interprets the passage in only one way, and that interpretation may not be correct or even possible.
In English several translations have chosen this method and the result is that most teachers interpret Paul’s words to mean “if you have been divorced you can’t be a deacon.” NIV seems to make an unfortunate choice in this case since they translate Titus 1:6 and 1 Tim. 3:2 as “husband of but one wife” but the equivalent expression in 1 Tim. 5:6 they translate as “faithful to her husband.” They seem to have chosen a culturally acceptable equivalent for the widow passage but are willing to be vague regarding elders which has resulted in this passage either being skipped over since there is no application in our culture for an injunction to monogamy, or has caused it to be used as evidence for excluding previously married men from the ministry.
2. Choose one of the options
This option is only for the brave since if you do choose only one option you are excluding others which may open you up to accusations of interpreting where you should be translating. Also you are open to the accusation of changing the Word of God.
In general I personally favor ambiguity. Perhaps it’s the poet in me, but I feel that communication is complex and language is rich and that when we choose one option we are often excluding other viable alternatives. But in this case I have to say that I favor the choice of “a faithful husband.” In a way it is ambiguous without giving the possibility of a wrong interpretation. In essence, “a faithful husband” includes all the other interpretations listed above and allows churches to use this injunction in a positive way.
What do you think about this phrase?
- Do you have strong evidence for one interpretation?
- Is it better to be vague or to take the plunge and choose the most culturally applicable option?
I look forward to your comments.
I generally take the plunge and pick one, while remaining open to changing my view in the future. Here I choose something like option (d), “not being sexually promiscuous”, but I would probably modify it to “being faithful to his wife”. The determining factor for me is this belief: the issues in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 seem to revolve around the character and leadership ability of the person in question.
I don’t think that this automatically excludes single people from leadership because it is possible that Paul was simply assuming that the person would be married, just like he assumed they would have children. This assumption probably described the norm at that time, as it does even today.
I don’t see how Paul could be reasoning that celibacy is in any way inferior to marriage, especially since he seemingly was celibate and an apostle, and that he actually argued for celibacy where possible in light of the “present distress” (1 Cor. 7… you correctly point out that he did oppose extreme asceticism).
I also don’t see how the character of a widower suffers when he has remarried (same with the widow in 1 Tim 5, where I think that the idea is that the woman had an attitude of devotion to her husband during his lifetime). If he was devoted to his first wife all of her life, a subsequent remarriage does not make him unfaithful to his first wife. He must simply be faithful to his new wife.
Someone who has been divorced, on the other hand, may or may not have been “faithful to his wife”. I think that circumstances matter a great deal here. For example, in 1 Cor. 7 Paul talks about the Christian who is divorced by an unbeliever, presumably because of the Christian’s faith. If that Christian was faithful to that spouse throughout the entire marriage, but was forced to “let them depart”, I see that as a testimony to, not a detriment to, that person’s character. If the person in question broke the marriage covenant (by material/emotional neglect or sexual immorality in my view) and this caused the partner to initiate the divorce, or if they divorced a partner who had not broken the covenant, then this most certainly would bear upon my judgment of their character, and disqualify them according to the spirit of Paul’s writing.
Polygamy, like you said, was probably not in view here since the Gentile churches would probably not have had polygamists.
This is my view in a not-so-small nutshell. I’ve taken the plunge, but I am completely open to criticism.
Jared has some commentary on this post at his blog: http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=605
David, I don’t know which interpretation of this verse I prefer, but I prefer your translation approach #2, with a footnote stating reasonable alternate interpretations. I like the voluminous footnotes of the NET Bible for this reason. Since the original biblical authors seldom intended to be ambiguous, I don’t think we should give the impression that they did by translating ambiguously. My opinion; the mileage of other may vary!
I respect a translation that makes an exegetical decision but is willing to acknowledge there are other possibilities. Footnotes are a good way to do that.
This is one of the attractions for me of the CEV editions. They are very readable but when there is a wide possibility of interpretation they tend to footnote it.
I think it means “a one-woman man” in the sense of one at a time. What this passage says is needed in a spiritual leader is someone who 1) has his sexuality under God’s direction and 2) isn’t wasting lots of time and energy pursuing and pleasing multiple women (that is, he’s got sex in the proper perspective).
blessings,
Louis