Husband of one wife.

[Gideon_70]

Okay, was working on something and came across some interesting information.

Timothy and Titus. I get beat up all the time over these two verses when I talk to people, so I decided to take a little deeper dive into them. Now, this gets strange, but bear with me. I'm not posting greek.

I was looking at a different verse where the three words are reversed. anēr heis gynē is how it's written in Timothy and Titus. Which is more correctly, "heis gyne aner."
So as I was looking, I saw this verse. 1 Titus 5:9 Where the greek reads, "gynē heis anēr." But that's not actually correct because the translator reversed some things. It should be, "heis gynē anēr," or "one man wife and one wife man."

Aner is husband, not man. Man is a different word. Aner is generally a man married.

Now, onwards and upwards! I went back a little to the previous word. "Having been." I thought that an interesting way of saying it then I looked at the usages. I get more out of how it's used, than how it's written or the definitions that sometimes are clearly... made up or edited for clarity. So the word means a lot, kind of, "come to pass, be made, be done, become... then I saw, "be married to." I followed it back to the verses. And BOY did I... just read it... G1096

"So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married G1096 to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married G1096 to another man." Romans 7:3

THERE'S my second witness.

Okay, so here's my conclusion. This phrase does not mean that the man can only have one wife, nor does it mean he is married to one woman. It means that he has not divorced and remarried in a way that was not allowed. Which makes a lot of sense, seeing they had a real problem with that, they would logically make sure that people who had done that were not part of the leadership of the early church.

 

[phaedrus]

I think it's actually a latin idiom written in Greek. "One Man" was commonly used to describe Roman women. It meant that she wasn't promiscuous. Roman men on the other hand were expected to be promiscuous. This wasn't written to people in Israel. Also, it was illegal to have multiple wives outside of the Holy Land, so why write it at all? IMO, he was actually saying something much more important to Roman men: don't sleep around! He was using a common Roman idiom applied to women, applying it to men, and then writing it down in Greek. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[frederick]

Aner is husband, not man. Man is a different word. Aner is generally a man married.

No, have a look in a Greek concordance and you will find it is the word for a mature male, married or single.

E.g. Acts 25:24 And Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men which are here present with us, ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer.
The word men is translated from ἄνδρες, the plural form. Cheers

 

[FollowingHim]

Also, it was illegal to have multiple wives outside of the Holy Land

Interesting point, I'm not sure it's that simple though. Roman society was monogamous, a Roman citizen couldn't have more than one legal wife. However, he could have as many concubines as he liked. I also don't know of any restrictions on polygamy for other subjugated peoples, who comprised the majority of the actual population of Roman provinces, and most "barbarians" were polygamous. I think you're reading too much into Roman law.

 

[paterfamilias]

Interesting point, I'm not sure it's that simple though. Roman society was monogamous, a Roman citizen couldn't have more than one legal wife. However, he could have as many concubines as he liked. I also don't know of any restrictions on polygamy for other subjugated peoples, who comprised the majority of the actual population of Roman provinces, and most "barbarians" were polygamous. I think you're reading too much into Roman law.

What I am reading is that old Italians the a kick in the ass

 

[phaedrus]

Interesting point, I'm not sure it's that simple though. Roman society was monogamous, a Roman citizen couldn't have more than one legal wife. However, he could have as many concubines as he liked. I also don't know of any restrictions on polygamy for other subjugated peoples, who comprised the majority of the actual population of Roman provinces, and most "barbarians" were polygamous. I think you're reading too much into Roman law.

It was illegal to have more than one wife. This is talking about wives according to the modern translation. Not mistresses, prostitutes, or slave girls you bed. They didn't have concubines as we'd know them in the bible. Like I said before, Roman men were expected to be promiscuous. So if you're arguing that Roman men slept around and it would have been common, I agree with you which is why what he is actually saying is so impactful. "Men don't be promiscuous!" would have been a pretty radical thing to say to a Roman.

This guy does a solid break down of my opinion on the Greek itself: https://www.bereanpatriot.com/is-polygamy-polygyny-biblical-does-god-allow-it/

1. Search for "Husband Of One Wife”. 2. Then go to "Click here to expand a ~2000 word more detailed/technical explanation".

 

[MemeFan]

Interesting point, I'm not sure it's that simple though. Roman society was monogamous, a Roman citizen couldn't have more than one legal wife. However, he could have as many concubines as he liked. I also don't know of any restrictions on polygamy for other subjugated peoples, who comprised the majority of the actual population of Roman provinces, and most "barbarians" were polygamous. I think you're reading too much into Roman law.

Except people were getting Romanised whole time. Cultural factor.

And percent of people getting Roman citizenship and therefore getting under Roman law was increasing. Legal factor.

So combination neans that in 3th or 4th century someone having two wives was social buffon. And don't foget fiery zeal of then Christians. Having wife and concubine could be dangerous.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Now this is the kind of thread we’re looking for! Great post @Gideon_70 !

 

[Bartato]

People love to quote these passages in defense of "monogamy only".

I don't think Paul had polygamy in mind here, and even if he does, these passages do not prohibit the practice for those who are not elders or deacons.

We should not look to later revelation (such as the pastoral epistles) for basic or completely new moral instruction. Moral instruction related to marriage and sexuality go all the way back to creation itself, and were clearly explained early on in the books of Moses.

God's moral Law clearly and consistently treats polygamy as legitimate marriage, not adultery or sexual immorality.

These moral instructions are confirmed by the prophets who called Israel out for breaking them. The prophets understood polygyny to be legitimate.

Christ, His apostles (including Paul), and the historical narratives all confirm the basic moral instructions for sexuality given through Moses.

In Timothy and Titus, I think Paul is saying that elders and deacons should be faithful husbands. The elder and the deacon should keep the covenant made with the wife of his youth (and wives in general).

If Paul had polygamy in mind here (and I don't think he does), then the prohibition against the polygamist must be a practical qualification, not a moral one (since the Law generally permits it).

 

[phaedrus]

If Paul had polygamy in mind here (and I don't think he does), then the prohibition against the polygamist must be a practical qualification, not a moral one (since the Law generally permits it).

Furthermore, if Paul meant a prohibition against polygyny for elders, he is also saying that there is a prohibition against single men being elders. So Paul himself would have been unfit to be an elder in a local church. We would also need to remove men from eldership if their wife died.

If we are to take this scripture at its face value, the knife would cut both ways and only men actively married to a single woman would be allowed to be church leaders.

 

[frederick]

If we are to take this scripture at its face value, the knife would cut both ways and only men actively married to a single woman would be allowed to be church leaders.

And the sad truth is such a conviction would disqualify the vast majority of exemplary men given in the O.T. Scriptures who were great leaders and polygynists. In fact, most of the men given as examples of genuine living faith, in Hebrews Chapter 11, would be denounced as fornicators and adulterers in modern assemblies, and forbidden from even gathering with them (as some of us have been).

 

[NickF]

The monogamy onlyists think “mia” means “only one”. What they’re missing is the fact that “mia” isn’t “monos”.

So if the instructions were “only one” then why didn’t God inspire the correct word used?

 

[Mark C]

Furthermore, if Paul meant a prohibition against polygyny for elders, he is also saying that there is a prohibition against single men being elders...

If we are to take this scripture at its face value, the knife would cut both ways and only men actively married to a single woman would be allowed to be church leaders.

Don't forget divorcees. THAT's the real reason, I argue, why you won't hear any of the arguments expressed in this thread...THERE.

 

[MarkH]

I often loved the looks I'd get by stating "Oh, so an elder can have sex with as many women as he wishes as long as he doesn't marry and divorce any of them." I then would follow up with, "Well, you only ask him if he has been divorced, not how many women he has had sex with."

 

[phaedrus]

I often loved the looks I'd get by stating "Oh, so an elder can have sex with as many women as he wishes as long as he doesn't marry and divorce any of them." I then would follow up with, "Well, you only ask him if he has been divorced, not how many women he has had sex with."

equally as valid a point. lol

 

[Fledgling]

One tentative theory I had recently: this might mean "is united with a woman", similar perhaps to "live with your wife with understanding".

The same word for "one" here is also used for "one flesh". In the Old Testament, that word can sometimes give a sense of unity, or a collective whole. "Baseball team" as opposed to "baseball player", as one person summarized it to me.

Perhaps it's talking about the quality of the relationship, as opposed to (just) its existence.

Could the Greek grammar support this, though?

 

[NBTX11]

I often loved the looks I'd get by stating "Oh, so an elder can have sex with as many women as he wishes as long as he doesn't marry and divorce any of them." I then would follow up with, "Well, you only ask him if he has been divorced, not how many women he has had sex with."

And what was their reply.

 

[MarkH]

They have usually been dumbfounded and silent. Watching me to see if I'm serious or just joking. A few started the same old argument with "Yeah, but . . "

 

[Gideon_70]

Okay, was working on something and came across some interesting information.

Timothy and Titus. I get beat up all the time over these two verses when I talk to people, so I decided to take a little deeper dive into them. Now, this gets strange, but bear with me. I'm not posting greek.

I was looking at a different verse where the three words are reversed. anēr heis gynē is how it's written in Timothy and Titus. Which is more correctly, "heis gyne aner."
So as I was looking, I saw this verse. 1 Titus 5:9 Where the greek reads, "gynē heis anēr." But that's not actually correct because the translator reversed some things. It should be, "heis gynē anēr," or "one man wife and one wife man."

Aner is husband, not man. Man is a different word. Aner is generally a man married.

Now, onwards and upwards! I went back a little to the previous word. "Having been." I thought that an interesting way of saying it then I looked at the usages. I get more out of how it's used, than how it's written or the definitions that sometimes are clearly... made up or edited for clarity. So the word means a lot, kind of, "come to pass, be made, be done, become... then I saw, "be married to." I followed it back to the verses. And BOY did I... just read it... G1096

"So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married G1096 to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married G1096 to another man." Romans 7:3

THERE'S my second witness.

Okay, so here's my conclusion. This phrase does not mean that the man can only have one wife, nor does it mean he is married to one woman. It means that he has not divorced and remarried in a way that was not allowed. Which makes a lot of sense, seeing they had a real problem with that, they would logically make sure that people who had done that were not part of the leadership of the early church.

Okay, update. This verse had me flommoxed, until I looked at 1 Timothy.

Okay, was working on something and came across some interesting information.

Timothy and Titus. I get beat up all the time over these two verses when I talk to people, so I decided to take a little deeper dive into them. Now, this gets strange, but bear with me. I'm not posting greek.

I was looking at a different verse where the three words are reversed. anēr heis gynē is how it's written in Timothy and Titus. Which is more correctly, "heis gyne aner."
So as I was looking, I saw this verse. 1 Titus 5:9 Where the greek reads, "gynē heis anēr." But that's not actually correct because the translator reversed some things. It should be, "heis gynē anēr," or "one man wife and one wife man."

Aner is husband, not man. Man is a different word. Aner is generally a man married.

Now, onwards and upwards! I went back a little to the previous word. "Having been." I thought that an interesting way of saying it then I looked at the usages. I get more out of how it's used, than how it's written or the definitions that sometimes are clearly... made up or edited for clarity. So the word means a lot, kind of, "come to pass, be made, be done, become... then I saw, "be married to." I followed it back to the verses. And BOY did I... just read it... G1096

"So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married G1096 to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married G1096 to another man." Romans 7:3

THERE'S my second witness.

Okay, so here's my conclusion. This phrase does not mean that the man can only have one wife, nor does it mean he is married to one woman. It means that he has not divorced and remarried in a way that was not allowed. Which makes a lot of sense, seeing they had a real problem with that, they would logically make sure that people who had done that were not part of the leadership of the early church.

I abandoned this thread and started a new one on this topic.