3:2 ‘The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money. 3:4 He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. 3:5 But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?’

The difficulty of interpretation is evidenced by the variety of translations:

AV, NET, ESV, RSV, NASB – ‘the husband of one wife’
NIV (1984) – ‘the husband of but one wife’
NRSV – ‘married only once’
NLT, NIV – ‘faithful to his wife’

Various interpretations have been suggested:

(a) a prohibition against polygamy?  So many older commentators, including Chrysostom, Calvin, Poole.  But polygamy was unusual in the Jewish and Greco-Roman world of the time, and especially uncommon amongst Christians.  It would hardly be necessary for Paul prohibit something that was virtually unthinkable amongst believers.  And a similar expression is used of women (1 Tim 5:9), but there is no evidence of polyandry.

(b) a requirement that an overseer be married?  But ‘the force of the construction places its emphasis on “one”’ (Mounce).  Moreover, this would render both Paul and Timothy ineligible.  Note also Paul’s commendation of the single state (1 Cor 7:1, 32–35).

(c) a prohibition against remarriage after divorce?  This is the view favoured by F.F. Bruce (Answers to Questions, p115).  According to Guthrie, Tertullian thought that this verse prohibits second marriages.  Mounce comments that the wording allows this meaning, but does not require it.  Indeed, Scripture nowhere explicitly states that a divorced man cannot be a elder.

(d) a prohibition against remarriage after the death of a previous spouse?

JFB:

‘It must mean that, though laymen might lawfully marry again, candidates for the episcopate or presbytery were better to be married only once.’

(d) an idiomatic way of saying that he must be a faithful spouse?  So Marshall (ICC), Yarbrough (Pillar), Fee (UBNT), Lea (NAC) and Mounce.

After reviewing a number of alternatives, Marshall concludes:

‘It can undoubtedly be assumed that the marriage would have to conform to the standards of acceptability within the church (i.e. monogamous and if a remarriage, then a legitimate one).’

Fee elaborates:

‘In this view the overseer is required to live an exemplary married life (marriage is assumed), faithful to his one wife in a culture in which marital infidelity was common, and at times assumed. It would, of course, also rule out polygamy and divorce and remarriage, but it would not necessarily rule out the remarriage of a widower (although that would still not be the Pauline ideal; cf. 1 Cor. 7:8–9, 39–40)…The concern that the church’s leaders live exemplary married lives seems to fit the context best—given the apparently low view of marriage and family held by the false teachers (4:3; cf. 3:4–5).’

Towner, after eliminating unlikely interpretations, concludes:

‘The point of the phrase is probably not how often one can be married, nor precisely what constitutes a legitimate marriage (that the marriage of the candidate is legitimate is assumed), but rather how one conducts oneself in one’s marriage.’

Gundry:

‘“A man of one woman” probably means a man who, if married, is known to have been sexually faithful to his wife (compare “a woman of one man” in 1 Tim 5:9).’

Stott:

‘The accredited overseers of the church, who are called to teach doctrine and exercise discipline, must themselves have an unblemished reputation in the area of sex and marriage.’

Croteau, Urban Legends of the New Testament, chapter 31, also supports this view.

This last view appears to me to be the best.