I signed up for the memes!

[IshofNesei]

Welcome! It's nice to have you here. It's also especially nice to hear from a pastor that understands these things (and is honest enough to admit it).

I will pray for you, your wife,.and the church you pastor. May the Lord Himself bless you all.

I've got a couple questions if you are willing. The first one is about patriarchy. I really consider polygamy to be an implication or extension of patriarchy, a sub-topic of patriarchy, with patriarchy being the more important principle. It sounds like you understand polygyny within the the larger Biblical framework of Covenant and male female relations. Am I correct in assuming that?

The second question pertains to you potentially taking a second wife. Do you consider polygyny to be acceptable for an elder/church pastor?

I understand polygyny to be lawful for men in general, but am not 100% certain about polygyny for church elders, based on the "husband of one wife" passages from 1st Timothy and Titus.

I think the main point is that the man is to be a faithful covenant keeping husband, and not a man who breaks faith with the wife of his youth.

I do wonder however if perhaps there might be another aspect. The elders lead the family of God, and perhaps wouldn't be able to do that and also have the time and ability to lead a large multi-wife, many child, patriarchal family of their own.

I do know several pastors that have large (6-7 child) monogamous families. Who knows but perhaps two wives with a similar number of children might potentially be easier? I can't really see a man with three wives and fifteen or more children leading well both his family and the church. I'm just wondering.

Also, I'm curious about your particular church background (Baptist, Assembly of God, Presbyterian/Reformed, Nazarene, Methodist, Charismatic, Lutheran, etc) if you were willing to share.

I totally understand if you prefer not to at this time. Discretion is important, especially in your situation.


Once again, welcome

Thank you for the welcome and especially for the prayers!

As you noted, discretion is important. So forgive me for my unwillingness (at least right now) to give specifics.

Now, to your questions, first, I'm not entirely understanding the distinction which I think you're making between polygyny as extension of patriarchy and "polygyny within the larger Biblical framework of Covenant and male female relations." Would you mind unpacking that for me?

To the second, polygyny's neither commanded nor forbidden in the Scriptures in the sense that a man MUST have more than one wife or ONLY have one wife if he's to have a biblical marriage. That said, I do not think 1 Timothy 3's "μιᾶς γυναικὸς" for 'overseers' can be understood as forbidding clergy from polygyny unless we also change this same epistle's instructions for how widows are to be "covered" by their families or the congregation's elders (for whom the same μιᾶς γυναικὸς seems to grammatically-apply); now admittedly, this particular aspect I've only begun to think about over the last few weeks, so I could be completely wrong; Mr. Rambo, @FollowingHim , @frederick are probably better equipped to answer this point.

Nevertheless, even assuming that clergy also have this liberty, you bring up a point that I think is absolutely vital. As you rightly pointed out, "I can't really see a man with three wives and fifteen or more children leading well both his family and the church."

So while I think that patriarchy is non-negotiable, polygyny is optional (still assuming the above). Hence, to my mind, wisdom here is vital, and,for myself, to be honest, I'm really not sure if that would be a wise decision. So at this time, I'm content to simply let my request be made known to God as I continue to think thesw things through.

 

[IshofNesei]

...to briefly clarify real quick, Paul's use of μιᾶς γυναικὸς in 1 Tim & Titus seem to require that both overseers and elders be-currently, faithfully-married in the way of, 'if he cannot rule his own household how will he rule a congregation?'

 

[Bartato]

That has been discussed at length somewhere in these forums.
Suffice it to say that “mia” is also translated as first in other passages, so that argument doesn’t hold any water

Yeah, I'm aware of that argument, and it seems plausible. I'm just not 100% on it.

 

[steve]

Yeah, I'm aware of that argument, and it seems plausible. I'm just not 100% on it.

The fact is that it can be used either way.
What grounds would you have to require it to be only translated one way?

 

[PeteR]

Yeah, I'm aware of that argument, and it seems plausible. I'm just not 100% on it.

'mia' can be translated as 'a', as in 'has a wife' or 'first', as in 'covenant keeper w wife of his youth'.. regardless, Christendom's translation as 'one' would exclude Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David, etc from being elders... laughable when most are listed in Hebrews 11 and some are authors of Scripture... imagine, - to David, 'Sorry, you can't be an elder, but we'll use your writings to sing and preach from..'

 

[Mc_B]

Welcome!!

 

[IshofNesei]

'mia' can be translated as 'a', as in 'has a wife' or 'first', as in 'covenant keeper w wife of his youth'

Yup. In other words, a married man as opposed to single.

 

[FollowingHim]

Personally I feel that "first" is the most meaningful likely meaning of "mia", because it directly relates to an important character quality that would be good to see in a man who should be a church leader - someone who has proved themselves faithful. There seems to be a definite purpose in saying that they must have their "first wife", while if it means that they must have "a wife" or "only one wife" those options both seem more arbitrary and pointless. Each should act in accordance with their own understanding, and those who honestly believe "only one wife" is the correct interpretation (an entirely reasonable position to hold) should not take a second wife and be a church leader. But likewise, given the ambiguity, they should not judge those who disagree with them and act differently.

To the second, polygyny's neither commanded nor forbidden in the Scriptures in the sense that a man MUST have more than one wife or ONLY have one wife if he's to have a biblical marriage. That said, I do not think 1 Timothy 3's "μιᾶς γυναικὸς" for 'overseers' can be understood as forbidding clergy from polygyny unless we also change this same epistle's instructions for how widows are to be "covered" by their families or the congregation's elders (for whom the same μιᾶς γυναικὸς seems to grammatically-apply); now admittedly, this particular aspect I've only begun to think about over the last few weeks, so I could be completely wrong; Mr. Rambo, @FollowingHim , @frederick are probably better equipped to answer this point.

I'm no Greek scholar and would defer to others, but presuming you're referring to 1 Timothy 5:9 I note that the phrase describing widows is "ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή", while describing elders in 3:2 the phrase "μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα" is used. The first is "one man woman" and the second is "one woman man", so they look quite similar in translation - but 5:9 uses "heis" for one, while 3:2 uses "mia". This distinction is lost in Strongs Concordance which gives both words the same reference.

I would assume this means that a widow to be supported by the assembly (which is intended to be an exceptional occurrence to begin with as we are strictly instructed that widows are to be provided for by their extended families) must have been the wife of only one man. I think the implication is that a woman should marry once, if widowed while middle-aged should remarry, but if widowed in her old age (or if unable to remarry earlier) may instead choose to devote her life to God and be formally supported by the church in her old age to carry out the particular ministry of an older woman to the church. I see this as the establishment of a good institution of "nuns" that was perverted by the Catholic church by extending it to young women, but in itself should be a good thing. The practical in-the-background ministry provided by such women is crucial to many churches and they deserve this recognition and support.

If she had remarried instead, so was no longer a "one man woman", even if widowed a second time she should by now have acquired such a large extended family that there would be no need for the church to support her, just encourage her many family members from both marriages to do so. And she would likely have so many commitments to helping them that she'd have no time to be devoted to service to the church.

This is a bit speculative perhaps, and my brain is foggy today so I might have messed something up, but makes sense of it to me. I think those phrases although superficially similar are describing very different situations for very different reasons.

 

[frederick]

I would like to briefly comment, if I may, but I don't want to derail this thread.

Yup. In other words, a married man as opposed to single.

Any conclusion to the meaning of the passages regarding being 'a husband of one wife' (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6) will not be correct if such conclusion excluded Jesus Christ Himself and those He chose to build His church. He is the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4) and all those who serve God's flock are 'under-shepherds' and ought to manifest His character and nature. Jesus Christ was not in a marital relationship and, quite likely, neither was Paul when he wrote the epistles to Timothy and Titus. Therefore to draw a conclusion that would exclude both must be erroneous.

There is no definite Greek article used with the two nouns in these verses in 1 Timothy and Titus.
“The two nouns [for ‘woman’ and ‘man’] are without the definite article, which construction emphasizes character or nature.” – Wuest
“Sometimes with a noun which the context proves to be definite, the article is not used. This places stress upon the qualitative aspect of the noun rather than its mere identity. An object of thought may be conceived of from two points of view: as to identity or quality. To convey the first point of view, the Greek uses the article; for the second, the anarthrous construction is used.” – Dana & Mantey
The qualitative force of a noun is “best brought out in anarthrous nouns.” – Robertson
“…when the article is not used, the thing emphasized is quality of character.” - Summers
We also observe in both passages that it is a positive quality as opposed to something he is not. That is; he is to be (literally) a man of one woman. Later, in both passages we read of who he is "not' to be; e.g. Titus 1:7, '...not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of dishonest gain.'
Our conclusion as to the meaning of these verses will therefore focus on who the man 'is'; i.e. positive quality or character traits of the man, under consideration and not his present (or past) marital status.

 

[IshofNesei]

I would like to briefly comment, if I may, but I don't want to derail this thread.

No worries! I truly take no offense.

Therefore to draw a conclusion that would exclude both must be erroneous.

You bring up an interesting point here, although it's one I've never given thought to. Thanks! I'll have to chew on that for a while.

Our conclusion as to the meaning of these verses will therefore focus on who the man 'is'; i.e. positive quality or character traits of the man, under consideration and not his present (or past) marital status.

I agree that the anarthrous nouns 'woman' and 'man' should be taken as qualitative; that Paul was inspired to say, 'This KIND of man.' However, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding, I'm not following how this then excludes his present martial status. Would you mind explaining it to me?

 

[frederick]

However, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding, I'm not following how this then excludes his present martial status.

Hi, sorry for not being clearer in my comment here. It doesn't exclude his marital status in the sense of who this (married or unmarried) man is to be, but rather it excludes concluding he must be married or must not be divorced, etc. A better question might be; Is he of faithful or good moral character in a relationship with a woman? Or perhaps; 'What is his character around a woman?' is the consideration not, 'Is he divorced or a polygamist?' Hope this helps. Shalom

 

[IshofNesei]

If she had remarried instead, so was no longer a "one man woman"

I would disagree. The nouns here, as Frederick also pointed out above, are qualitative rather than quantitative. I would argue therefore that Paul has in mind a woman who was faithful to her husband, regardless of the number of marriages she was in; so an unrepentant serial adulteress would be excluded.

But this also swings back-around to the point I was poorly attempting to make above. That in view here, as well as with the overseers and elders, is sexual fidelity.

 

[IshofNesei]

Hi, sorry for not being clearer in my comment here. It doesn't exclude his marital status in the sense of who this (married or unmarried) man is to be, but rather it excludes concluding he must be married or must not be divorced, etc. A better question might be; Is he of faithful or good moral character in a relationship with a woman? Or perhaps; 'What is his character around a woman?' is the consideration not, 'Is he divorced or a polygamist?' Hope this helps. Shalom

No apologies necessary! Yes, that's very helpful! I'll need to think more about this but thank you.

 

[FollowingHim]

I would disagree. The nouns here, as Frederick also pointed out above, are qualitative rather than quantitative. I would argue therefore that Paul has in mind a woman who was faithful to her husband, regardless of the number of marriages she was in; so an unrepentant serial adulteress would be excluded.

You may be correct about that.

 

[NickF]

Welcome to the forum, hope you find it edifying. I see you scholars have already met and started derailing threads LOL

 

[MeganC]

Welcome to our wonderful little corner of the Internet!