I think it’s safe to say that any of the three are possible, but one thing we can know for certain, whether it means “one wife”, “first wife” or “a wife”, is that there certainly is a WIFE in the equation. None of the possible translations allow for “no wife”. At the very least, we’re talking about a husband with a wife.
My own take on these passages is that the man being considered for these leadership roles should be married, have children, and have his family in order. I do not believe the passages could be interpreted to mean “one and only one” wife unless the interpreter starts with that assumption. To have a family, you need to start with at least one wife. One thing I’ve noticed is that all three of the “one wife” passages have this reference to family.
1 Tim. 3:1-5: “Trustworthy is the word: If a man longs for the position of an overseer, he desires a good work. An overseer, then, should be blameless, the husband of mia wife, sober, sensible, orderly, kind to strangers, able to teach, not given to wine, no brawler, but gentle, not quarrelsome, no lover of money, one who rules his own house well, having his children in subjection with all reverence, for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he look after the assembly of Elohim?”
1 Tim. 3:12: “Let attendants be the husbands of mia wife, ruling children and their own houses well.”
Tit. 1:6: “If anyone is unreprovable, the husband of mia wife, having believing children not accused of loose behaviour, or unruly.”
Look at these passages. In all three cases, the man is also required to have believing children that behave properly in reverence. If we apply the same logic that the man MUST be married, then he also MUST have children that behave. Each time “mia wife” is mentioned in Scripture, it is followed by also having well-behaved children. I think the reason is clear in 1 Tim. 3.
“for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he look after the assembly of Elohim?”
The answer appears to be contained right there in the same passage. The intent is that a prospective leader should have established experience in leadership. If he can’t lead his own family properly, how can he lead the local body? Having a family that is in order demonstrates good leadership qualities.
I don’t see this is a concrete set of requirements that allows for no flexibility, but rather a set of guidelines to help them choose the leadership wisely. An unexperienced man may do just as good a job as an experienced one, but it is unlikely. I believe Paul mentioned these to help them select good leadership from among the elders, but I don't see any hint that these criteria are grounds for removal from leadership if not perfectly maintained. Anyway, just my two cents for what it’s worth.
Love in Him,
David
