_THE APOSTLE'S RULE RESPECTING SECOND MARRIAGES; ITS MEANING AND PRESENT
OBLIGATION._
"The husband of one wife."--1 TIM. iii. 2.
The Apostle here states, as one of the first qualifications to be looked
for in a person who is to be ordained a bishop, that he must be "husband
of one wife." The precise meaning of this phrase will probably never
cease to be discussed. But, although it must be admitted that the phrase
is capable of bearing several meanings, yet it cannot be fairly
contended that the meaning is seriously doubtful. The balance of
probability is so largely in favour of one of the meanings, that the
remainder may be reasonably set aside as having no valid ground for
being supported in competition with it.
Three passages in which the phrase occurs have to be considered
together, and these have to be compared with a fourth. (1) There is the
passage before us about a bishop, (2) another in ver. 12 about deacons,
and (3) another in Tit. i. 6 about elders or presbyters, whom St. Paul
afterwards mentions under the title of bishop. In these three passages
we have it plainly set forth that Timothy and Titus are to regard it as
a necessary qualification in a bishop or elder or presbyter, and also in
a deacon, that he should be a "man of one woman" or "husband of one
wife" (=mias gynaikos anêr=). In the fourth passage (1 Tim. v. 9) he
gives as a necessary qualification of one who is to be placed on the
roll of church widows, that she must be a "woman of one man" or "wife of
one husband" (=henos andros gynê=). This fourth passage is of much
importance in determining the meaning of the converse expression in the
other three passages.
There are four main interpretations of the expression in question.
1. That which the phrase at once suggests to a modern mind,--that the
person to be ordained bishop or deacon must have only one wife and not
more; that he must not be a _polygamist_. According to this
interpretation, therefore, we are to understand the Apostle to mean,
that a Jew or barbarian with more wives than one might be admitted to
baptism and become a member of the congregation, but ought not to be
admitted to the ministry. This explanation, which at first sight looks
simple and plausible, will not bear inspection. It is quite true that
polygamy in St. Paul's day still existed among the Jews. Justin Martyr,
in the _Dialogue with Trypho_, says to the Jews, "It is better for you
to follow God than your senseless and blind teachers, who even to this
day allow you each to have four and five wives" (§ 134). But polygamy in
the Roman Empire must have been rare. It was forbidden by Roman law,
which did not allow a man to have more than one lawful wife at a time,
and treated every simultaneous second marriage, not only as null and
void, but infamous. Where it was practised it must have been practised
secretly. It is probable that, when St. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus,
not a single polygamist had been converted to the Christian faith.
Polygamists were exceedingly rare inside the Empire, and the Church had
not yet spread beyond it. Indeed, our utter ignorance as to the way in
which the primitive Church dealt with polygamists who wished to become
Christians, amounts to something like proof that such cases were
extremely uncommon. How improbable, therefore, that St. Paul should
think it worth while to charge both Timothy and Titus that converted
polygamists must not be admitted to the office of bishop, when there is
no likelihood that any one of them knew of a single instance of a
polygamist who had become a Christian! On these grounds alone this
interpretation of the phrase might be safely rejected.
But these grounds do not stand alone. There is the convincing evidence
of the converse phrase, "wife of one husband." If men with more than one
wife were very rare in the Roman Empire, what are we to think of women
with more than one husband? Even among the barbarians outside the
Empire, such a thing as a plurality of husbands was regarded as
monstrous. It is incredible that St. Paul could have had any such case
in his mind, when he mentioned the qualification "wife of one husband."
Moreover, as the question before him was one relating to widows, this
"wife of one husband" must be a person who at the time had _no_ husband.
The phrase, therefore, can only mean a woman who after the death of her
husband has not married again. Consequently the converse expression,
"husband of one wife," cannot have any reference to polygamy.
2. Far more worthy of consideration is the view that what is aimed at in
both cases is not polygamy, but _divorce_. Divorce, as we know from
abundant evidence, was very frequent both among the Jews and the Romans
in the first century of the Christian era. Among the former it provoked
the special condemnation of Christ: and one of the many influences which
Christianity had upon Roman law was to diminish the facilities for
divorce. According to Jewish practice the husband could obtain a divorce
for very trivial reasons; and in the time of St. Paul Jewish women
sometimes took the initiative. According to Roman practice either
husband or wife could obtain a divorce very easily. Abundant instances
are on record, and that in the case of people of high character, such as
Cicero. After the divorce either of the parties could marry again; and
often enough both of them did so; therefore in the Roman Empire in St.
Paul's day there must have been plenty of persons of both sexes who had
been divorced once or twice and had married again. There is nothing
improbable in the supposition that quite a sufficient number of such
persons had been converted to Christianity to make it worth while to
legislate respecting them. They might be admitted to baptism; but they
must not be admitted to an official position in the Church. A regulation
of this kind might be all the more necessary, because in a wealthy
capital like Ephesus it would probably be among the upper and more
influential classes that divorces would be most frequent; and from
precisely these classes, when any of them had become Christians,
officials would be likely to be chosen. This explanation, therefore, of
the phrases "husband of one wife" and "wife of one husband" cannot be
condemned, like the first, as utterly incredible. It has a fair amount
of probability: but it remains to be seen whether another explanation
(which really includes this one) has not a far greater amount.
3. We may pass over without much discussion the view that the phrases
are a vague way of indicating _misconduct of any kind in reference to
marriage_. No doubt such misconduct was rife among the heathen, and the
Christian Church by no means escaped the taint, as the scandals in the
Church of Corinth and the frequent warnings of the Apostles against sins
of this kind show. But when St. Paul has to speak of such things he is
not afraid to do so in language that cannot be misunderstood. We have
seen this already in the first chapter of this Epistle; and the fifth
chapters of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians supply other
examples. We may safely say that if St. Paul had meant to indicate
persons who had entered into illicit unions before or after marriage, he
would have used much less ambiguous language than the phrases under
discussion.
4. There remains the view, which from the first has been the dominant
one, that these passages all refer to _second marriage after the first
marriage has been dissolved by death_. A widower who has married a
second wife ought not to be admitted to the ministry; a widow who has
married a second husband ought not to be placed on the roll of Church
widows. This interpretation is reasonable in itself, is in harmony with
the context and with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage, and is
confirmed by the views taken of second marriages in the case of clergy
by the early Church.
(_a_) The belief that St. Paul was opposed to the ordination of persons
who had contracted a second marriage is reasonable in itself. A second
marriage, although perfectly lawful and in some cases advisable, was so
far a sign of weakness; and a double family would in many cases be a
serious hindrance to work. The Church could not afford to enlist any
but its strongest men among its officers; and its officers must not be
hampered more than other men with domestic cares. Moreover, the heathen
certainly felt a special respect for the _univira_, the woman who did
not enter into a second marriage; and there is some reason for believing
that second marriages were sometimes thought unfitting in the case of
men, _e.g._, in the case of certain priests. Be that as it may, we may
safely conclude that, both by Christians and heathen, persons who had
abstained from marrying again would so far be more respected than those
who had not abstained.
(_b_) This interpretation is in harmony with the context. In the passage
before us the qualification which immediately precedes the expression,
"husband of one wife," is "without reproach"; in the Epistle to Titus it
is "blameless." In each case the meaning seems to be that there must be
nothing in the past or present life of the candidate, which could
afterwards with any show of reason be urged against him as inconsistent
with his office. He must be above and not below the average of men; and
_therefore_ he must not have been twice married.
(_c_) This agrees with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage. His
statements are clear and consistent, and it is a mistake to suppose that
there is any want of harmony between what is said in this Epistle and
what is said to the Corinthian Church on this subject. The Apostle
strongly upholds the lawfulness of marriage for all (1 Cor. vii. 28, 36;
1 Tim. iv. 3). For _those who are equal to it_, whether single or
widowed, he considers that their remaining as they are is the more
blessed condition (1 Cor. vii. 1, 7, 8, 32, 34, 40; 1 Tim. v. 7). But so
few persons are equal to this, that it is prudent for those who desire
to marry to do so, and for those who desire to marry again to do so (1
Cor. vii. 2, 9, 39; 1 Tim. v. 14). These being his convictions, is it
not reasonable to suppose, that in selecting ministers for the Church he
would look for them in the class which had given proof of moral strength
by remaining unmarried or by not marrying a second time. In an age of
such boundless licentiousness continency won admiration and respect; and
a person who had given clear evidence of such self-control would have
his moral influence thereby increased. Few things impress barbarous and
semi-barbarous people more than to see a man having full control over
passions to which they themselves are slaves. In the terrific odds which
the infant Church had to encounter, this was a point well worth turning
to advantage.
And here we may note St. Paul's wisdom in giving no preference to those
who had not married at all over those who had married only once. Had he
done so, he would have played into the hands of those heretics who
disparaged wedlock. And perhaps he had seen something of the evils which
abounded among the celibate priests of heathenism. It is quite obvious,
that, although he in no way discourages celibacy among the clergy, yet
he assumes that among them, as among the laity, marriage will be the
rule and abstaining the exception; so much so, that he does not think of
giving any special directions for the guidance of a celibate bishop or a
celibate deacon.[49]
5. Lastly, this interpretation of the phrases in question is strongly
confirmed by the views of leading Christians on the subject in the first
few centuries, and by the decrees of councils; these being largely
influenced by St. Paul's language, and therefore being a guide as to
what his words were then supposed to mean.
Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, of course Tertullian, and among later
Fathers, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and Cyril, all write in disparagement
of second marriages, not as sin, but as weakness. To marry again is to
fall short of the high perfection set before us in the Gospel
constitution. Athenagoras goes so far as to call a second marriage
"respectable adultery," and to say that one who thus severs himself from
his dead wife is an "adulterer in disguise." Respecting the clergy,
Origen says plainly, "Neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon,
nor a widow, can be twice married." The canons of councils are not less
plain, either as to the discouragement of second marriages among the
laity, or their incompatibility with what was then required of the
clergy. The synods of Ancyra (_Can._ 19), of Neocaesarea (_Can._ 3 and
7), and of Laodicea (_Can._ 1) subjected lay persons who married more
than once to a penalty. This penalty seems to have varied in different
Churches; but in some cases it involved excommunication for a time. The
Council of Nicaea, on the other hand, makes it a condition that members
of the Puritan sect of _Cathari_ are not to be received into the Church
unless they promise in writing to communicate with those who have
married a second time (Can. 8). The _Apostolic Constitutions_ (vi. 17)
and the so-called _Apostolic Canons_ (17) absolutely forbid the
promotion of one who has married twice, to be a bishop, presbyter, or
deacon; and the _Apostolic Constitutions_ forbid the marriage of one who
is already in Holy Orders. He may marry once before he is ordained: but
if he is single at his ordination he must remain so all his life. Of
course, if his wife dies, he is not to marry again. Even singers,
readers, and door-keepers, although they may marry after they have been
admitted to office, yet are in no case to marry a second time or to
marry a widow. And the widow of a cleric was not allowed to marry a
second time.
All these rigorous views and enactments leave little doubt as to how the
early Church understood St. Paul's language: viz., that one who had
exhibited the weakness of marrying a second time was not to be admitted
to the ministry. From this they drew the inference that one who was
already in orders must not be allowed to marry a second time. And from
this they drew the further inference that entering into a marriage
contract at all was inadmissible for one who was already a bishop,
presbyter, or deacon. Marriage was not a bar to ordination, but
ordination was a bar to marriage. Married men might become clergy, but
the higher orders of clergy might not become married.
A little thought will show that neither of these inferences follows from
St. Paul's rule; and we have good reason for doubting whether he would
have sanctioned either of them. The Apostle rules that those who have
shown want of moral strength in taking a second wife are not to be
ordained deacons or presbyters. But he nowhere says or hints that, if
they find in themselves a want of moral strength of this kind _after_
their ordination, they are to be made to bear a burden to which they are
unequal. On the contrary, the general principle, which he so clearly
lays down, decides the case: "If they have not continency, let them
marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." And if this holds good
of clergy who have lost their first wives, it holds good at least as
strongly of those who were unmarried at the time of their ordination.
Those Churches, therefore, which, like our own, allow the clergy to
marry, and even to marry a second time, after ordination, may rightly
claim to have the Apostle on their side.
But there are Churches, and among them the Church of England, which
disregard the Apostle's directions, in admitting those who have been
more than once married to the diaconate, and even to the episcopate.
What defence is to be made of an apparent laxity, which seems to amount
to lawlessness? The answer is that there is nothing to show that St.
Paul is giving rules which are to bind the Church for all time. It is
quite possible that his directions are given "by reason of the present
distress." We do not consider ourselves bound by the regulation, which
has far higher authority than that of a single Apostle, respecting the
eating of blood and of things strangled. The first council, at which
most of the Apostles were present, forbad the eating of these things. It
also forbad the eating of things offered to idols. St. Paul himself led
the way in showing that this restriction is not always binding: and the
whole Church has come to disregard the other. Why? Because in none of
these cases is the act sinful in itself. While the Jewish converts were
likely to be scandalized by seeing their fellow-Christians eating blood,
it was expedient to forbid it; and while heathen converts were likely to
think lightly of idolatry, if they saw their fellow-Christians eating
what had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, it was expedient to
forbid it. When these dangers ceased the reason for the enactment
ceased; and the enactment was rightly disregarded. The same principle
applies to the ordination of persons who have been twice married.
Nowadays a man is not considered less strong than his fellows, because
he has married a second time. To refuse to ordain such a person would be
to lose a minister at a time when the need of additional ministers is
great; and this loss would be without compensation.
And we have evidence that in the primitive Church the Apostle's rule
about digamists was not considered absolute. In one of his Montanist
treatises Tertullian taunts the Catholics in having even among their
bishops men who had married twice, and who did not blush when the
Pastoral Epistles were read;[50] and Hippolytus, in his fierce attack on
Callistus, Bishop of Rome, states that under him men who had been twice
and thrice married were ordained bishops, priests, and deacons. And we
know that a distinction was made in the Greek Church between those who
had married twice _as Christians_, and those who had concluded the
second marriage before baptism. The latter were not excluded from
ordination. And some went so far as to say that if the first marriage
took place before baptism, and the second afterwards, the man was to be
considered as having been married only once.[51] This freedom in
interpreting the Apostle's rule not unnaturally led to its being, in
some branches of the Church, disregarded. St. Paul says, "Do not ordain
a man who has married more than once." If you may say, "This man, who
has married more than once, shall be _accounted_ as having married only
once;" you may equally well say "The Apostle's rule was a temporary one,
and we have the right to judge of its suitableness to our times and to
particular circumstances." We may feel confidence that in such a matter
it was not St. Paul's wish to deprive Churches throughout all time of
their liberty of judgment, and the Church of England is thus justified.
FOOTNOTES:
[49] As the _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_ (vol. i. p. 324) has
given its sanction to the view that "St. Paul _required_ the
presbyter-bishop to have had the experience of marriage and with at
least a preference for those who had brought up children (1 Tim. iii. 2,
4), and extended the requirement even to the deacons of the Church (1
Tim. iii. 11, 12)," it seems to be worth while to repeat the declaration
of Ellicott and Huther, that "the strange opinion of Bretschneider, that
=mias= is here the indefinite article, and that Paul meant that a bishop
should be married, hardly needed the elaborate refutation which is
accorded to it by Winer, _Grammar of New Testament_, III. 18 (Eng. Tr.,
p. 146)." Would any Englishman ever say "a bishop must have one wife,"
when his meaning was "a bishop must have a wife"?
[50] _De Monog._, xii.
[51] See Döllinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_ (pp. 129-147 Eng.
Trans.) for a full discussion of the question.