Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 2
Bercot argues the “wife of one man” requirement for widows (and “husband of one wife” for overseers) was understood by early Christians as “married only once,” not polygamy or “not divorced/remarried”; what picture of God’s original intent for marriage is being assumed here, and where does that assumption collide with how Christians today talk about remarriage after a spouse’s death?
Another way to ask: Early Christians took “wife of one man” to mean “married only once.” What does that assume about God’s plan for marriage, and how does it clash with how Christians today talk about remarrying after a spouse dies?

Direct Answer Bercot says the early Christians assumed God’s original intent was “one man, one woman for everybody,” so remarriage after a spouse’s death might be allowed but still seen as less than the original ideal—colliding with today’s tendency to treat remarriage as fully normal and spiritually equivalent in every leadership or ministry setting.

Support from Transcript:

  • He connects the widow qualification to the overseer one: “she has to be the wife of one man…parallels 1 Timothy 3:2…‘the husband of one wife.’”
  • He rules out polygamy: it “was not a common practice in the Roman world,” and women didn’t have “more than one husband at a time.”
  • He rejects “divorced and remarried” as the meaning, saying Jesus calls that adultery and “such a person was put out of the church.”
  • He states the early Christian view: it meant “you had been married only one time.”
  • He adds the key assumption: “The scriptures allow a person to remarry when his or her spouse dies, but it wasn’t God’s original plan…one man, one woman for everybody.”
  • He emphasizes this was a historical understanding: “It’s not my interpretation…I’m telling you how this was historically understood.”
Discussion Follow-ups How does treating remarriage as permissible-but-not-ideal affect how we view leadership qualifications? Does our culture’s view of “personal fulfillment” reshape how we read these texts?