Regarding 1 Tim 3:2 (by the way, a similar phrase is used in 1 Tim 5:9; a widow must be a “one-husband wife”), it is very interesting that Paul didn’t write, “he cannot have been previously married” or “he cannot have been divorced.” What he did say is that he must be a one-wife husband or a one-woman type of man. Paul was clearly concerned with one’s character when a man is being considered for this high office; Paul was not calling into review such a person’s preconversion life.
It seems to me (for what’s it’s worth) that the issue here is sexual purity, not marital status. “a one-woman man” is one who is completely devoted to his wife and who maintains sexual purity in thought and in deed.
Another good point is the other qualifications are “character traits,” so it’s likely this one also is (leading to the sexual faithfulness view).
The absence of the definite article gives more strength to the sexual faithfulness view (character is in view).
The word “woman” in Greek is a “genitive” case. The type of genitive in 3:2 is probably a genitive of quality (a reference to a moral character trait). So, if this is the case, the entire expression in Greek is to explain what kind, or to qualify the noun (“man”) by attributing to him this character.
Hellenistic Greek did not have a word to express the concept of faithfulness in marriage. So, Paul was in a position where he had to invent either a word or an idiomatic expression (which he did in 1 Tim 3:2).
A good translation of this phrase in 3:2 would be a “sexually pure man.”
All three of the journal articles I have in my “1 Timothy” file hold the sexually pure view (an article by Mark D. Owens in Faith and Mission, summer 2005, an article by Ed Glasscock in Bibliotheca Sacra, July 1983, and an article by Bill Mounce that he wrote March 2009).