The Divorcee:
 

I was reading about the qualifications of bishops and deacons. As I reflected on this, an interesting question came to mind.

Assuming the requirement of being the "husband of one wife" is to be interpreted as meaning that a man cannot be divorced and remarried...

What rolls, offices, or ministries might the remarried divorcee who wishes to serve become involved in?

Re: The Divorcee:
 

I believe all offices in the church are understood as either bishop/overseer/elder, or deacon/minister/servant. The word deacon means minister or servant. Those who are not elders or ministers (bishops or deacons) are to simply function in whatever capacity Christ has gifted them with. But they are not "deacons" or elders. Everyone has a role, function, or capacity. But elders and deacons are set forth as examples, among other things, and have a certain amount of representational authority. Hence they must be above reproach.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

:thumbsup

What about...?

Apostle
Pastor
Teacher
Prophet
Evangelist

I'm thinking a divorcee shouldn't serve as an apostle or pastor.

Can a divorcee function as a teacher, prophet, or evangelist?

Re: The Divorcee:
 

This is an interesting subject. I believe it should be interpreted as a man who is husband to one wife. As in he did not have more than one. I realize it is not often interpreted that way, but if taken literally, that is what it means.

Many people say that it means never married and divorced, then remarried.

I have also heard it applied to a widower. This interpretation says that if the wife of the deacon dies he is disqualified from being a deacon. Presumably he is no longer husband to one wife.

When you take into account that it was not unusual in biblical times for men to have multiple wives simultaneously, I believe that is what it refers to.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Is the prohibition about divorce ? Polygamy ? Does it mean pastors are required to be married ? Which one is it ? Or is he referring to something else ?

Re: The Divorcee:
 

If the Pastor is the injured party, his wife was unfaithful and she leaves/divorces him, is he unqualified from ministry?

Re: The Divorcee:
 

No

Re: The Divorcee:
 

No, the instruction of husband of one wife meant the guy had to of been married at one point in time. Because ruling over a household was a criteria for the preacher to rule over the church assembly.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

That’s terrible. Who wants to be married? :foottap

Re: The Divorcee:
 

I’m glad my parents got married. I wouldn’t be here. :heeheehee

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Since he had to rule over a household "well" would a divorce indicate he hasn't ruled his household well?

Or, would a divorce indicate he HAD ruled it well by expelling a troublemaker that refused to be reformed?

And would the issue of a divorce be something the local assembly has authority to investigate and render a determination one way or the other, based upon the particular circumstances?

Re: The Divorcee:
 

His NAME is Jesus!

There are many contradicting opinions on this subject.
(Which makes me believe that's why you chose it)

I will preface an answer with this scripture found in Prov 16:6-9:
"These six things the Lord hates,Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look; A lying tongue; Hands that shed innocent blood;
A heart that devises wicked plans; A false witness who speaks lies;
And one who sows discord among brethren."

As regarding divorce, the best scriptures are in Matt 19:3-12. Listen to
this verse: "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with
his wife, it is not good to marry." So if .a man will choose his wife with
his eyes (or a woman a man, likewise), it is better not to marry. However,
celibacy is NOT for everyone, as the Lord stated.

Understand, that fornication and adultery are NOT the same thing

Brother Villa

Re: The Divorcee:
 

It's my understanding that in Rome, polygamy was prohibited about 100 years before Christ. Also, rabbinical sources show that it was denounced by Jewish authorities at this time also.

Christ's emphasis on remarriage after divorce being adultery (some give the exception is there was adultery) would point to remarriage after a divorce.

In the Greek it reads, "man of one woman". Widowers would be such, seeing the first spouse would be deceased. This would therefore disqualify men with concubines, or mistresses, and remarried divorcees.

The focus is being above reproach, to protect the reputation of the church and the honor of Christ's name.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

I'm fine with remarried divorcees being disqualified from official office. No muss, no fuss.

I'm a divorcee. I'm not offended at this teaching. I see the good in it. And it keeps the church from need of examining divorce, because ex's lie, and people tend to pick sides, so their stories are often riddled with inaccuracies. Just disqualify. Life comes with hard knocks sometimes.

But, I'm curious, can a divorcee write spiritual books, prophesy, operate in the gifts, have a supplemental ministry that serves the church and supports the leadership?

If so, please provide examples.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

His NAME is Jesus!

"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

God may repent of the evil to befall an individual or a nation (He shows
mercy, and mercy delays and impedes His judgment), but He does not repent
of His goodness and blessings upon individuals or nations. So yes: ANYONE
can "write spiritual books, prophesy, operate in the gifts, have a supplemental
ministry that serves the church and supports the leadership". But make no
mistake: a person's or nation's fault(s) will be found out...even displayed in
those things (like Adam in the Garden hiding from the Lord) by which the
individual or a nation might want to be justified.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked..."

Brother Villa

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Amen!

Re: The Divorcee:
 

I think divorcees who feel a call, or who are blessed with spiritual gifts, sometimes feel uncertain about what they can do in regards to ministry in the church.

I was once asked if I were interested in eldership training. In our fellowship elders are like pastors. They were shocked when I declined. I felt guilty. Like I offended them or something. I have no desire to lead. But I sometimes feel that familiar drawing to minister in the Word. But I think, I'm not entitled to such things. Obviously my life hasn't been perfect. I'd much rather support the big dogs in prayer. I've learned that prayer is a ministry unto itself. And seeing the results of your prayers only adds the fuel of expectation to pray even more! But sometimes I feel like I don't have a place, or like I'm invisible. Sometimes its nice to be an observer, sometimes it feels like your have no contribution.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

I think when we come through hard things, God uses us to encourage others who are suffering similar things, and that becomes part of our testimony.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

How does this apply to divorce and remarriage that occurred before conversion? A former murdering drug lord is qualified to pastor but a Cornelius type whose wife left him for another man and he remarried , all before conversion, is not qualified to lead?

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Sadly just as God had to do in Jeremiah 3:8.

But I teach that we stick together, that divorce is never a fix. God told a prophet to marry a prostitute, and to buy her back at the worst point of her life. To raise her children. I don't believe in people leaving a church for the wrong reasons, meaning if they are upset with a church family, they need to work it out. Also friendships, should never break up, but should be repaired through love.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Bump

Re: The Divorcee:
 

First, let's look at the passage:

1 Timothy 3:1-7 King James Version (KJV)
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

It isn't that a divorcee can't be qualified to lead. He may very well be qualified to lead. Perhaps even the best qualified in the congregation. But is he, blameless?

The focus is on being blameless and above reproach. Sure, an ex-wife might have been the cheater... but if she's a cheater, she's also a liar. And who's to say what kind of outrageous accusations could fly out of her mouth about him, especially if she hears that he's now behind a pulpit somewhere? She might accuse him of abuse or neglect, claiming that his abuse and neglect led her to seek solace, safety, and provision in the arms of another. She could accuse him of some perversion that left their private lives wrecked and her unfulfilled and searching for love. She might claim that they were in an open marriage and that he was fully aware and consenting to her escapades. Wrangling over custody of children, she could hypercriticize his parenting and provision for his kids, or even accuse him of abusing the kids. When a divorce takes place, it can be a war that lasts until all kids are grown, or even longer. Imagine a church being drug along in this drama. Is the church capable of truly determine if his claims of innocence are true? Can it determine as to if all her accusations are false? That alone could tie the congregation or leadership up in countless, and seemingly unending, investigations and interviews with the divorcee pastor. Or... it could lead to shame and embarrassment among the congregants. It can also soften their convictions against divorce.

Would those outside of the church have a good report of him? Does half of their neighborhood or friends remember the drama that unfolded when he caught her being unfaithful? Do they remember doors slamming, the sound of plates shattering? Do they remember her screaming accusations in return? Are family and friends who have heard an "ear-full" absolutely persuaded that he did no wrong in spite of his ex-wife's efforts to assassinate his character and make him look bad or abusive?

I've never seen a divorce wherein one party was entirely innocent.

I mean, these things happen. They really suck. But it's drama the office of pastor doesn't need. The man holding that office should be blameless and above reproach.

Then you have the issue of how so many see remarriage after divorce as "adultery". Some allow for remarriage if a spouse was unfaithful, others don't. What if half the people in the community are whispering about the pastor who is guilty of adultery because he remarried?

And so, I have to ask the question... Can a man who has been divorced and remarried truly be considered "blameless" or above reproach?

I vote no. And, I'm not someone with a happy marriage who has never been divorced articulating reasons to disqualify those "dastardly divorcees". I'm one of them. I'm a divorcee. And yes, it's a bitter pill to think I'd be disqualified from anything over being divorced. But I believe it is what is best for the body of Christ over all.

The question isn't about a divorcee being qualified or not. The question is, can a divorcee truly be, "blameless" and "above reproach"?

Re: The Divorcee:
 

This is one of the best posts I think I've read of yours. :yourock

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Now, please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that a divorcee can't have a ministry in the church. I believe that a divorcee can:

Write books, papers, tracts, periodicals, etc.

Start up a prayer group.

Start up a Bible study group.

Speak, teach, or preach on occasion when asked by the pastor.

Teach Sunday School.

Teach new covert classes.

Start up neighborhood evangelism.

Start up charitable efforts.

Sing or play an instrument.

Usher or help with church security.

Provide technical support for the church and/or it's members.

Visit shut-ins.

Use talents relating to arts and crafts as a ministry.

And perform an innumerable number of other services in the Kingdom in addition to these. All is not lost.

We shouldn't feel entitled to anything. We should be more concerned with what is best for the body. Even at our own expense when necessary. And so, I feel that remarried divorcees do well to understand that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife. Not the husband of an ex or more, and a current wife. Let's protect the reputation of church leadership. I vote that we divorcees support our leadership and local fellowships in ways that build up the body, while protecting it from unnecessary drama.

That's my take on it.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Can a former gang member like Nicky Cruz be "above reproach"? By your definition, no. All of his past victims might come smear him and bring reproach on the name of Christ, right? Ah, but we have to be worried about what the adulterous ex-wife of Cornelius might say about things he did that negatively effected their marriage BEFORE he was converted? I appreciate what you are trying to do but it makes no sense.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

I'm not sure that the Gomer story fits here. If a brother-in-Christ was about to marry a hooker, we would be bound to show him Paul's admonition "be not unequally yoked with unbelievers".

Re: The Divorcee:
 

I see the divorcee a little differently. With regards to a divorcee... the issue of being blameless is tied to how he managed his home, marriage, children, etc.

With a gang member, one must ask - Did he pay his debt to society? Has he given restitution? And then examination begins to look at his management of his home, his marriage, his children, etc.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Again, I think you are taking all of this needlessly out of context. Even if a man who is at fault in his unsaved past can prove himself blameless over a period of time and pass the smell test with his church elders. Thus a man who was NOT at fault for a divorce in his unsaved past should not be automatically disqualified for a church leadership role, nor is this the context of Paul's instructions. After all, there might even be witnsses and court records that completely exonerate the man as being at fault in his divorce. Your interpretation creates a second class citizen within the Kingdom of God.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

I feel you. I'm a divorcee. I know that there are cases wherein a divorcee might be able to be found "blameless" and be more than qualified. What I'm saying is that the Scriptures appear to be clear...

1 Timothy 3:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Since polygamy wasn't legal in Rome, and was even denounced by Jewish authorities by the time of Christ, I don't see how this would have been a shot at polygamy. There were "concubines" during this time. It might be a denunciation of married men who had concubines (or what we might call mistresses today). But that isn't explicitly stated. However, there was a rather big problem beyond concubines in 1st Century Rome and Judaism. Divorce and remarriage. It was even a hot button issue brought before Christ.

Regarding divorce and remarriage, Jesus stated:

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Based on these texts, remarriage after divorce is adultery. These texts provide no wiggle room or exception whatsoever. The marriage bond appears to be indissoluble. But some believe that there is an "exception clause" in Matthew's Gospel:

Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Now, what I'm about to say might seem harsh. But up front, I want to try to explain that I'm not condemning anyone, and I know there are other interpretations of this. But my studies have led me to see what I'm about to explain. Understanding my position on this might help you understand my position on I Timothy 3:2, even if we disagree on the best interpretation of the text.

My issue with these "exception clauses" is that they don't read, "except it be for adultery". It reads "fornication". Which is a sin that is classically understood as being a sin committed by the unmarried. When the married sleep around, it is "adultery".

So why did Jesus use the term "fornication"? In ancient Judaism the betrothal was just as legally binding as a marriage. In fact, a betrothed woman was called a "wife" and the betrothed man a "husband". In addition, if one of them were unfaithful, it required a divorce decree to terminate the betrothal. However, if one was unfaithful during the time of betrothal, it was not called "adultery"... it was called "fornication". Why? Because the marriage wasn't official yet. We see this in the story of Mary and Joseph. When Joseph discovers that Mary is with child during their betrothal, he desires to "put her away" (meaning divorce her):

Matthew 1:18-20 King James Version (KJV)
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Notice, Joseph would have had to get a divorce decree to end the betrothal. And had Joseph put Mary away for "fornication" (because the marriage wasn't official yet), he would have been able to marry another without committing adultery.

Matthew's Gospel took this Jewish custom into consideration. The other Gospels, written to more general audiences among the Gentiles, don't. And so this is why the texts from Mark and Luke don't contain the exception clause. It only applies during betrothal, as was in accordance to Jewish custom. However, once a marriage is official, to divorce and remarry is adultery.

That's my take on it. I could be wrong. But that's the most consistent interpretation of the issue I've studied out and so it is the one I've chosen to embrace. With that in mind, I hope you can see why my take is what it is regarding I Timothy 3:2. With divorce and remarriage running rampant through their culture, I feel Paul's admonition regarding bishops/pastors/elders as relating to divorce and remarriage.

1 Timothy 3:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

So, I believe that men who are divorced and remarried are disqualified from the office. I don't condemn anyone to Hell over this. And I'm a big boy, I can accept disagreement! LOL And a divorcee is a pastor and they are "blameless" and "above reproach", I don't begrudge them their ministry. I will celebrate it with them. Because the entire premise is to prevent reproach and bringing shame to Christ's name and His body. But, this is what I believe the Scriptures to teach based on my studies.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Aquila,

I think you are meaning well with the information that you have presented. I have a little different take.

You seem to be correct that Romans and Greeks practiced monogamy. However the Jews did not. It is my understanding that when the Romans conquered the Jews that they made a pact with them that they could worship their own God, and have their own legal system. Their law was limited in that they could not LEGALLY impose capital punishment, hence Jesus was crucified (a Roman punishment) and not stoned as the Jews practiced. (If this is the case then the stoning of Stephen as well as the attempted stoning to death of Paul would have been an act of vigilantes.) The Sanhedrin court was Jewish and the comparison would be to our Supreme Court.

Having said that, the Jewish law said that if your married brother died without children, you were to take his wife to be your own and raise up children to your brother. The first born son would bear your deceased brother's name. To NOT fulfill your duty to your deceased brother was a very shameful thing. God killed the brother in law of Tamar (Genesis 38:1-10) because he tried to shirk this duty. There is no obvious exception made in the case of being married already, hence if you were already husband to one wife and your brother died, you inherited another wife (polygamy). Here is the passage of scripture . . .

Deuteronomy 25 5-10 KJV

[5] If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
[6] And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
[7] And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
[8] Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
[9] Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
[10] And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

We also have the hypothetical example of the Pharisees to Jesus of the seven brothers who married the same wife until they all died. This story illustrates that this law was still being observed in the New Testament. So in spite of the fact that the Romans and the Greeks were not practicing polygamy, I would have to conclude that the Jews still were.

I believe that the scripture you are referencing, as is the case with all scriptures should be interpreted literally first, unless it obviously meant to be interpreted figuratively as in the case of allegories or types in the Bible.

Having said that, you are a divorcee. You have divorced at least one wife. So is she still your wife? I would say probably not. Maybe you should ask her? My guess is that she could likely clarify the situation for you.

I believe Vaugn Morton is a man that continued to pastor after a divorce. I think most would consider him to be blameless and above reproach, possibly even qualified to marry again. It is complicated, but words have meanings and husband of one wife does not mean to me that you have never been divorced.

I admire your attitude but I think you may be wrong on this. It appears that by your definition, even a widower would be disqualified from being pastor if he remarried. Just because his wife died doesn't mean that he is a one woman man if he remarries. I understand that he is allowed to remarry according to scripture, but he still would not be qualified to pastor according to your definition.

It's complicated, and I may well be wrong but I thought I'd try to make it even more confusing.

I sure don't want to be known as the man who had his shoe loosed; Who could bear the shame?

Re: The Divorcee:
 

:nod

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Tithe,

Good points. You've given me some things to think about.

I'll share my initial thoughts, but obviously this is worth me looking at the issue again. So, bear in mind, these initial thoughts may prove to be in transition.

If the Jews were still practicing polygamy, which is permitted by the Torah, by permission from Rome, why would Paul prohibit it among Christian leaders? Why wouldn't Paul permit polygamy in accordance to Torah?

I believe the story of the woman with seven husbands who had died was only a hypothetical to demonstrate a point about the resurrection, not evidence that polygamy was still being practiced.

My ex would definitely deny still being my wife. Lol But I'm more concerned about what God might think.

I believe that death terminates the marriage bond. Widowers would be eligible, remarried or single.

If 1 Timothy 3:2 is a prohibition against polygamy, it only applies to bishops and deacons. Wouldn't this imply that polygamy would be acceptable for those uninterested in the office of Bishop or deacon?

But you're post gives some good food for thought. I'm going to study it out more.

Would you be willing to elaborate on your take regarding 1 Timothy 3:2?

God bless,

Chris

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Interesting point. And I see the logic.

But that doesn't explain why such a broad and universally applicable exception wouldn't be mentioned in any Gospel except Matthew, which was written to a Jewish audience.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

As far as the seven brothers, I do believe that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. His response to them was NOT that they were pontificating about a law that was outdated. It is for this reason that I believe it was still being observed. My post was perhaps a little TIC but it does provide food for thought doesn't it?

As for the verse you are referencing, I believe it is a prohibition for bishops to be polygamous, just like it says. It may mean never divorced but I don't believe so. BTW deacons are held to the same standard regarding polygamy later in the chapter. It is perhaps significant that these instructions appear to be specific to leadership. This is further proof that all are NOT held to the same standard. To whom much is given, much is required.

Just another thought. The Originalist, I believe referred to the trend that someone in their past life can be a drug dealer, alcoholic, horse thief etc. and still be a pastor. (I am ad-libbing, maybe not his exact words.) If however, he has been married before he is not qualified. Somehow it seems that he is not a "new creature". I'm pretty sure there is something wrong about this inequity. Not saying what, just something.

If you really are interested in having the TRUE true answer, you might ask Esaias. I'm pretty sure he knows everything.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

:thumbsup

Re: The Divorcee:
 

I'll Amen that :thumbsup

Re: The Divorcee:
 

I do believe that the Law was applicable all the way up to the death and resurrection of Christ. Of course, the Jews continued on in obeying the Law even after Christ fulfilled it for the sake of the elect. So, I can see your point regarding Jews practicing polygamy throughout the period. I had read about rabbinical opinion prohibiting polygamy at one point. However, upon revisiting that, I discovered that it was far later (like between the 1000's and 1200's) that this was the case. Side note, in revisiting this I discovered that there is actually a movement right now among certain rabbinical scholars to revive polygamy in modern day Israel. Their logic is that single women outnumber men significantly, and marriages to Arab men appear to be rising. They're concerned that they will lose their homogeneous identity if the trend continues. Their logic is... by allowing Jewish men to marry more than one woman, and encouraging the practice, they can reduce the number of single Jewish women who have no other option than to marry non-Jewish partners. In addition, it will boost distinctly Jewish birth rates Of course, traditional Jewish authorities are aghast at the notion. I just thought it was interesting seeing that demographically some have voiced concern over birthrates among Americans rates and the growing Islamic demographic presented by Muslim immigrants. Wouldn't it be ironic if having a couple side-chicks saved Western civilization? LOL

I assume you realize that this interpretation implies that polygamy (and even perhaps concubinage) could be acceptable among the laity. I've heard the case for Christian polygamy, but I'm in disagreement. According to my interpretation being the husband of one wife (Greek: "man of one woman") would rule out:

Polygamy
Concubinage/Mistresses
Remarried Divorcees

So, I believe the more expansive interpretation guards from more than one abuse of power and protects the reputation of the church by keeping leadership above reproach.

In contemplating this, I've noticed that general crimes (drugs, theft, and even murder) do not involve a one flesh relationship with another human being. I'm sure this can be elaborated upon, but I do see it as a unique element to having more than one wife (sequentially or currently) that distinguishes it from other sins such as theft and even murder.

:heeheehee

Re: The Divorcee:
 

If Pauls' statement is a ban on polygamy, all the chatter about divorce is a moot point. May I point out, he does not specifically mention divorce.

Or does Paul mean deacons must be married and have a family ? In that case, divorce is also moot.

What did Paul mean ? Did he mean something else we have not discussed ?

Re: The Divorcee:
 

Well, I don't know. My opinion is that the Greek is key. In the Greek it reads, "the man of one woman". This will no doubt rule out polygamy, concubinage, etc. However, given Christ's admonitions against divorce and remarriage, it could also include remarried divorcees. Thus the language would address all those issues in one fell swoop. In addition, such an understanding would be consistent with historic interpretations of the text, and it's practical application in most theologically conservative churches today.

Re: The Divorcee:
 

The Greek reads much the same as it does in English. It provides no additional insight.

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα

"faithful to his wife" NIV

"the husband of one wife" is how many other translations translate it.

I really don't think it has anything to do with divorce.