• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Any comments are appreciated

Paul not the apostle

Member
Real Person
It seems like the talks with leadership are coming down to debates on how to interpret scripture. I am preparing a letter to the leadership to address the sermons from the last two weeks and how the passages were interpreted. I am planning to stay out of the "one wife" section because right now the biblical polygamy topic has been burned a little, even for me. Of course, it is really hard to not go there right now because from the pulpit today the condemnation of polygamy was expressly stated and was based in the below arguments. The speaker actually quoted the bible as saying "the husband of but one wife". Yes, with that emphasis. Anyone who would like to respond with what their rebuttal would be is greatly admired and your effort is greatly appreciated. I would like to use anything that any of you all have if I don't have it in mine when I am done. I am planning on using 1 Cor. 12 for starters and also a heavy dose of deductive reasoning regarding how it surely cannot apply to women, etc. and the fact that no believer would want to be the opposite of those things. I will try to hold out on the adding and taking away from scripture passages for the "husband of but one wife" comment, but I don't know if I can. My response is going to the four leaders that we had our meeting with on monday night.

Thanks. The comments that were made at the church are paraphrased below.

In the last two weeks, there have been two statements in particular that I believe are misleading and not scriptural. Both of these have come from the 1 Timothy passages about elders and deacons. The two statements are paraphrased below in order to ensure proper communication between parties.

1. Elders and deacons are the leaders of the church and we should all strive to be like them and should therefore strive to have all of their qualities and qualifications.
2. Because of the above statement is assumed to be scriptural and therefore true, then the passage beginning in 1 Tim 3 is meant for every believer.
 
I've made an odd link between this an Uzziah recently. There is a Blog entry at http://teampyro.blogspot.com/ titled King Uzziah and Women that places an interesting and correct between the pride of Uzziah's preistly offering and Women in ministry. He doesn't do anything stupid like equate a priest and pastor (esp as its Baptist, Universal Peristhood and all) but he boils it down to the pride of coveting duties and abilities of others. Or, better stated, trying to be something he wasn't supposed to be.

Now the odd connection here is on the principle that we all have who we are in Christ. Even a King cannot become a priest just for wanting it. That way of looking at things opens a view that while one might desire the office of an elder, they must presently and actually be the things listed to qualify. In such light it is not a list to aspire too, but a means of identification. An honest evaluation shows it IS a means of identifying who can take this position.

That understood if one asks 'shouldn't we all aspire to it?' should give the immidete and resounding 'NO!'. Just as a priest was a good office, those who where not made for it where not allowed to covet or usurp it, we are not allowed to make the pastoral requirements our universal goal. We are not all meant for that office.

The reason he should be husband of one wife, if that interpretation is accepted (and you pretty much have to accept it for the case of this debate) is that polygamists have large families, and have more responsibilities to their family and thus less time to be concerned with the whole church. Its the same reason that to be celibate offers advantages in work for the Lord, but only very great fools would say we should all be celibate. The other side of the coin is that if a pastor is unmarried he does not have a very good way to relate and understand to the opposite sex in his church, having both a pastor and pastor's wife is pretty crucial to a church.
 
I should add on that Gills commentary (which is baptist in origin, so pretty heavy) points out and readily admits that Jewish converts often had polygamy early on (though he derides polygamy itself) and they understood this to be specifically for deacons for the same reason I said (that family takes up a lot of time)
 
The Greek article used in the contested quotes in both Timothy and Titus is "mia". It can be used to mean "a", "first", or "one", and the meaning is oncly discernable from context. As such, translation is arguably subject to translation bias. However, "husband of a wife", and "husband of a first wife" are equally valid. (Some would note that "first wife husband" is the literal translation. I tend to think that this particular rendering is the most likely, given that the longstanding tradition was for teachers and leaders to demonstrate ability to handle their own house, which required that they be married. I tend to think that the added implication that they should STILL be married - i.e., have not put away their first wife - is also valid, but would cause FAR more grief among today's Corporate Church.)

Interestingly, a web search of the pro-polygyny sites will turn up several articles which cite the Timothy/Titus verse as a compelling NT ("Brit Hadasha") argument IN FAVOR OF polygyny. After all, if our Savior had ALREADY prohibited polygyny in the general case (He did NOT, of course), or there were any other general prohibition whatsoever in Scripture - there would be no need for Paul or anyone else to issue a SPECIAL CASE prohibition!


(I have even heard a history-based argument that turns this 'prohibition' on its head: The claim is made that in the first century, being an elder was NOT a particularly sought-after position, and Paul was offering men with more wives, and thus more family responsibility, a "free pass" to avoid the undesirable duty! I don't find this argument particularly compelling myself, but it is certainly more reasonable, and honorable, than deliberately distorting the Scripture to deceive, as your "teacher" did.)

Blessings,

Mark



PS> If you would like to REALLY curl a few of these folks hairs, give them a copy of J.W. Stiver's book, Eros Made Sacred.
I've posted the link elsewhere before, but here it is again:

http://web.archive.org/web/200503141011 ... eface.html

Stivers' thesis essentially amounts to a compelling argument that the "monogamy-only tradition" is in fact a direct outgrowth of pagan goddess worship, and is completely idolatrous. Sometimes you can see it in their eyes...
 
I also have a selection of several articles on this topic, but they make for fairly bulky files. If the management would like to suggest a way to do so in an archive, I'd be happy to upload a couple. (Most are multiple files, making up an html package.) The largest and most comprehensive of these is called" The Meaning of Husband of Mia Wife" by Andy Woods.

I also have another by Jeffrey Brian White, which came from Zulluwith, and another by Pastor Don Milton, who has been a contributor here before. This link may work for his article:

http://www.christianmarriage.com/home/i ... cle&sid=50

Finally, the first such article I remember seeing was written by Pastor Steve Butt, and appeared on the Bfree site as a Q&A a number of years ago. If I can find that one (or if Nathan remembers it) perhaps we can post it.

And - really finally - I just saw this short piece from Sam Chapman:

=========================================================================================================

"One" Wife

When first faced with a direct presentation of the Scriptural basis of Biblical Polygyny, fellow believers often try to refute this truth by referring to what are known as the three "one wife" verses.

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 one [3391] 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 Timothy 3:1-5, The Scriptures)

Let attendants be the husbands of one [3391] wife, ruling children and their own houses well. (1 Timothy 3:12, The Scriptures)

If anyone is unreprovable, the husband of one [3391] wife, having believing children not accused of loose behaviour, or unruly. (Titus 1:6, The Scriptures)

These three "one wife" verses, of course, are only instructions to overseers (bishops), attendants (deacons) and elders, and not to any others in the assemblies, or indeed to anyone else at all. Nevertheless, they certainly could be seen as a restriction that prevents multiple wives, or even divorce and remarriage, for those in leadership. Yet each of these verses suggest that having a family (wives and children) gives one experience in how to rule or manage or govern. These Scriptures might simply be saying that these leaders should be husbanding a wife and children, not necessarily ONLY one wife.

In each of these "one wife" references, the word translated as 'one' is actually the Greek word 'mia' (Strong's #3391). This same Greek word (#3391, 'mia') can also be found in other Messianic Scriptures, where it is translated differently:

Now after the Sabbath, toward dawn on the first [3391] day of the week, Miryam from Magdala and the other Miryam came to see the tomb. (Matthew 28:1, The Scriptures)

When therefore it was evening on that day, the first [3391] day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the taught ones met, for fear of the Yehudim, Yahushua came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace to you." (John 20:19, The Scriptures)

Reject a divisive man after the first [3391] and second warning (Titus 3:10, The Scriptures)

The word mia can be translated to mean either "one thing", "a thing" or "first thing", depending on the context of its usage. Here is the definition of the Greek word mia, according to the Strong's Concordance:

3391. mia, mee-ah; irreg. fem. of 1520; one or first:- a (certain), + agree, first, one, x other.

In light of all the other Scriptures permitting polygyny, those "one wife" verses could simply establish the principle that bishops, deacons and elders should not be divorced, and they should still be married to their "first" wife, namely the "wife of their youth" (Malachi 2:14,16). Clearly, translating mia as either "first" or "a" fits the context better, while bringing it into harmony with all the other Scriptures. For example, Revelation chapter 6 tells us about seven seals:

And I saw when the Lamb opened one [3391] of the seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying, like a sound of thunder, "Come and see." (Revelation 6:1, The Scriptures)

Revelation 6:3 states that the Lamb "opened the second seal". Revelation 6:5 states that He "opened the third seal". Revelation 6:7 states that He "opened the fourth seal". Revelation 6:9 states that He "opened the fifth seal". Revelation 6:12 states that He "opened the sixth seal". Revelation 8:1 states that He "opened the seventh seal".

Considering that seals two through seven were all descriptively mentioned by number, and that seal one was referred to as mia, which can be translated either as "one" or "first", perhaps a better translation of the word mia within the context of Revelation 6:1 would be "first", since this would be consistent with the manner that the other seals were described when they were opened. Revelation 6:1a might therefore better read, "And I saw when the Lamb opened the first seal".

There are many other places in Scripture where the word mia is translated as "first" or "a", but the point is that those "one wife" verses could just as easily be translated as "first wife" or "a wife" instead of "one wife". Considering the reference to family (wives and children) in each of these verses, it seems that the plain sense meaning in these Scriptures is that the man must have been married.
 
While I'm thinking of it, this old argument of mine occurred to me. (I particularly enjoy a somewhat 'tongue-in-cheek' form of Q&A under certain circumstances; this might be one such.)

I start with a challenge for the Biblically-literate: "You cannot show me a single place in Scripture where polygyny is prohibited, but I can show you where it is REQUIRED."

Now, many folks have heard this one, and can immediately cite "the Law of the Levirate", which essentially says that 'when brothers dwell together -- if one dies without an heir" the surviving brother is to take the widow to wife, and the firstborn heir will be named for the deceased brother. There IS no caveat ("unless he's already married"), of course.

But there is another!

Show them Paul's admonition in I Corinthians 7. If a wife "departs" here husband (EVEN though Paul specifically and clearly tells her NOT to!) -- that abandoned husband is not only "not under bondage", he is free to remarry. The rebellious wife is expected to remain celibate. If she eventually decides to return to her husband -- who in the meantime is told NOT to divorce or put her away! -- he is of course to take her back. After all, she remains his wife.

It doesn't take wod-twisting with article adjectives like "mia" to show that this husband should honor his Covenant with the new wife.
Ask them to do the math for themselves.

I'd probably tell them that if I was an elder in such a situation, I offer to step down. ;)
 
Show them Paul's admonition in I Corinthians 7. If a wife "departs" here husband (EVEN though Paul specifically and clearly tells her NOT to!) -- that abandoned husband is not only "not under bondage", he is free to remarry. The rebellious wife is expected to remain celibate. If she eventually decides to return to her husband -- who in the meantime is told NOT to divorce or put her away! -- he is of course to take her back. After all, she remains his wife.


Ok, I am not getting this one. in verses 10 and 11, isn't he talking about the believers? And he says not I but the Lord? The other part is about unbelieving spouses, and he says "I, not the Lord?"

Better still, with scripture being inspired and written by God through men, why is the "I, not the Lord" part in there? If you can clear this up for me I would appreciate it greatly. I need all the help that I can get.

Thanks
 
I hope I understand the question and confusion correctly, Paul.

(BTW, this is the same part of the text where Paul clearly says "I, not the Lord" suggest celibacy, as opposed to marriage at all. This is the place where I take those who trot out the "polygyny is not God's preferred plan" argument. Well, Paul says that monogamy isn't his preference.)

Paul is simply making it clear that in this case he is expressing only a personal opinion, and is NOT speaking for Him.


Back to the example --

Study the text carefully for yourself, so that you are comfortable and confident with the specifics. Start by recognizing that in the chapter he is talking about several different issues, related to marriage, and in other verses, several different categories of people. The admonitions for husbands and wives, of course, are different as well.

We are of course, talking nothing but utter legalism here (even though many folks who try to read Paul legalistically here will get VERY agitated at hearing that term used. Go figure.) Since Paul was a consummate Torah scholar, and knew the specifics of what God says about marriage intimately, it is a major mistake to try and interpret these passages via the modern monogamania mandate

The commandment that Paul says is from "not I, but the Lord" is that the wife is not to depart from her husband. Period.

But the next verse (11) is interesting, because it is virtually the only place I am aware of in all of Scripture where anyone says "Don't Do This...BUT...IF you do..." I have often heard the compelling argument that God does not prohibit something (like polygyny) and then give instructions on how to do it. If He prohibits, He prohibits. Since He gives guidelines for a man who "takes him another wife", the implication is clear. There is much grist for further discussion in this irony, I maintain. :)

However, further examination shows that this is not a "concession" to sin, but a restatement of the unchanged "law". Bear in mind that v. 5 admonishes each spouse not to "defraud one another", and that any cessation of marital relations must be "with [mutual] consent", and "for a[n agreed] time" -- and he gives a reason why. So, the rebellious wife (since she IS in fact in rebellion to God, and her Covenant) is to be celibate, since any other action on her part is adultery. Obviously, if she is "reconciled", she returns to her husband and her Covenant.

For his part, the commandment to the husband is simple, and unequivocal. He is not to "put away" his wife. (I have written and discussed this wording many times before, and will not belabor that difference how. Suffice it to say that since he is precluded from "putting her away", he obviously cannot additionally divorce her.)

The "under bondage" terminology is illustrative, but not controlling here. Think of it this way: What is the husband to do? He has been abandoned, he has been warned that this very situation (and the "temptation" of v. 5) was to be avoided. Unlike the situations far more frequently addressed, in this case it is not the wife who not been unjustly "put away" by a treacherous husband, but a rebellious wife who has unjustly departed.

He was, and is, certainly free to take himself a[nother] wife. There is no prohibition whatsoever otherwise. (And in today's anti-Biblical society, he may even be prohibited from contact with her. In such a situation he must cover her only by prayer; he may not even ultimately know whether she is alive or dead.)

The only real "eye-opener" here is the what happens next, since 'the world' is generally so blind to what the Bible actually says. If he remarries, and cares about what God has to say, both the man and his subsequent wife should be aware of the fact that the celibate, repentant, departed wife may someday return. (She might even ask him to "take away my reproach".)

Welcome to "New Covenant polygyny". :o
 
'I and not the Lord' is in there because Jesus may not have specifically addressed the issue, but Paul is speaking as a Spirit-filled Christian, inspired by the Holy Spirit, (see I Corinthians 7:40).

As to your post question - when dealing with people who like to misinterpret scripture, I pray and ask for wisdom before speaking or writing, (just as I do with any issue I am addressing). Anything that is not coming from the wisdom of God is ultimately coming from the devil and you will likely NOT be able to convince those people if they profess to be Christians, since they have shown by their ignorance that they would rather listen to Satan and work in support of the kingdom of darkness than for God and His kingdom, (James 3:13-18). You will most likely be asked to leave and take your beliefs elsewhere. Rejection is usually what I get from 'Christians' when I discuss the issue. However, you can try and see if you get a different result.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray
 
'I and not the Lord' is in there because Jesus may not have specifically addressed the issue, but Paul is speaking as a Spirit-filled Christian, inspired by the Holy Spirit, (see I Corinthians 7:40).

Well-stated, Dr. Ray. Your comment leads me to add a clarification of my own, since my own reply seemed to imply something OTHER than that Paul was inspired by the Ruach Hakodesh in those comments, which was not my intent. I should have included some terminology implying 'commandment' in there; Paul is not speaking for Him in the sense of making a commandment.

Paul does say something similar himself by way of clarification at the end of the section, when he adds that such folks have not sinned, but would have 'trouble', and he would 'spare' us.

Blessings,

Mark
 
I also have settled on that "mia gune" here just means "must be married", the husband of a wife. I do leave room for the word first though. Another argument I have never seen any where, but from Bob Hallstrom has to do with positive and negative statements. Note that in Paul's list there are several positive statements such as "must be blameless" and then negative statements such as "not a novice". To put negative limits on a positive statement turns it into a negative statement as the old NIV version had done, not following their own Greek text, "but one wife". http://www.christianpoly.org/hallstrom.php Unfortunately I don't remember which lesson has the positive - negative information.

Tim
 
Back
Top