Job 31:1, thoughts?

[Asforme&myhouse]

I can't explain why "husband of one wife" is there. Certainly it is no sin to be the husband of more than one wife.

My inclination is to believe it has less to do with him being too busy, and more to do with the attitude an Elder is supposed to have.

Which is to say:

Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? 3“You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock.

Something tells me that the man who watches over the flock should be devoted to making the flock grow healthy, and not looking to harvest the young ladies that are under his care for his own use.

Could be I guess, but it kind of seems like a stretch to me. It doesn’t seem to be part of any leadership theme in scripture. G-d didn’t hold anyone in the Old Testament to that restriction, not even Himself, figuratively. If that is what Paul is saying, it’s a new concept, given with no explanation or examples given to explain why. If instead, Paul means “one wife” as a minimum requirement, with the reason given of ruling his own house well, it makes perfect sense. If the plain sense, makes sense, any other sense is nonsense... or something like that

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Is there anywhere in scripture that limits any man to a particular number of women, I mean aside from the three verses in question?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Even the high priests didn’t have a limit

 

[Slumberfreeze]

If the plain sense, makes sense, any other sense is nonsense... or something like that

I know right? The problem I keep running into is that what is plain sense to me is nonsense to just about everyone else.

To put it another way, we are informed the Kingdom is supposed to work differently than the way the nations do. Those who rule the nations lord it over those who are ruled, but in the Kingdom he who would be greatest must be the servant of all.

Whereas in the world I would EXPECT the powerful and influential to gather women to themselves, in the Kingdom I think I would expect the greatest members to limit themselves.

Or again should an Elder exercise temperance only with regard to alcohol?

 

[andrew]

Is there anywhere in scripture that limits any man to a particular number of women, I mean aside from the three verses in question?

Kings were enjoined not to 'multiply' wives. That's about it. Not a hard number, like the four in Islam.

Something tells me that the man who watches over the flock should be devoted to making the flock grow healthy, and not looking to harvest the young ladies that are under his care for his own use.

This is the closest thing I've ever seen to making sense of the restriction to one wife, if that it be. There were two times in my life that I sort of intuited something like that. Once when adding Ginny and Ann to the fam, and again when I was deciding not to add a fourth that would have been a great addition (that we came very close to adding). Just had this sense that it 'wasn't fair' that I should be hording all these women, and if I didn't stop at three, then when was I going to stop? Something very satisfying about considering the set closed.

Doesn't really establish the case for 'one' for elders, but if there's going to be any limit, then it can be any limit, and one makes about as much sense as any other small number.

I still don't think Paul limits elders to one. Lookin at you, Slumber. But I get the sense of that argument better than some of the others I've heard.

 

[Nikud]

I still don't think Paul limits elders to one. Lookin at you, Slumber. But I get the sense of that argument better than some of the others I've heard.

The more I look at it I want to agree. It's all been laid out in another thread but requiring marriage and then limiting it just dosent sound right. Then there's the feeling that says, Kevin, your coming to that conclusion just in case. You know you cant have your cake and to eat it to.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I know right? The problem I keep running into is that what is plain sense to me is nonsense to just about everyone else.

To put it another way, we are informed the Kingdom is supposed to work differently than the way the nations do. Those who rule the nations lord it over those who are ruled, but in the Kingdom he who would be greatest must be the servant of all.

Whereas in the world I would EXPECT the powerful and influential to gather women to themselves, in the Kingdom I think I would expect the greatest members to limit themselves.

Or again should an Elder exercise temperance only with regard to alcohol?

I understand and it does seem to make some sense, but I think one has to read that into the text, it doesn’t read out of the text. Hear is another question, what if an elder “burns”? Is Paul forbidding marriage to an elder even if he “burns”? Should he “step down” (i hate that term) if he does? It doesn’t say anywhere that he should. Also what if an elder is Hebrew and his brother dies and leaves a wife but no sons? Is the elder given an exemption in this verse? What if at one point (ok i know this question is getting out there, but...) the elder had a wife who left and he married another, and many years later she returned and having never remarried wants to come back to him? Is he to reject her? And one more thing, if you will bear with me. What about Yeshua being the Great Shepard and yet we see the 10 vigins, five wise and five foolish, the wise ones going into the marriage? If those verses are really limiting elders to one wife, it is without precedent in scripture, and commanded without any explanation, which doesn’t add up. Everything else in those verses are repeated over and over throughout scripture, but only ONE wife? That’s a completely brand new concept to scripture at that point, and that really isn’t how new doctrine is laid out for us.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I still don't think Paul limits elders to one. Lookin at you, Slumber. But I get the sense of that argument better than some of the others I've heard.

I should be so lucky if all the people that disagree with me at least see where I'm coming from!

Hear is another question, what if an elder “burns”?

Then he's in the wrong profession! In the same verse that Paul talks about burning, he equates it to a lack of "self-control" (ἐγκρατεύομαι). Later, when telling Titus about the qualifications of an elder he says an Elder must be "Self-controlled" ἐγκρατής. Not exactly the same word, but one is a root of the other. Without commenting above my pay-grade on the particulars of Greek, I think it safe to say that a man who is married and yet "burns" for more women is simply not Elder material. There's no dishonor in not being an Elder if you love women, but there is dishonor in being Elder if you are incapable of making a covenant with your eyes.

It doesn’t say anywhere that he should. Also what if an elder is Hebrew and his brother dies and leaves a wife but no sons? Is the elder given an exemption in this verse?

A hard question! And one that I cannot help but answer wrongly! My gut says they should step down and enjoy their new wife.

What if at one point (ok i know this question is getting out there, but...) the elder had a wife who left and he married another, and many years later she returned and having never remarried wants to come back to him? Is he to reject her?

I think the raw chaos that this would cause in his home life would make it a good idea if he stepped down and sorted out his household. It sounds simple on paper, but I think in reality that this situation does not go down without (metaphorical) bloodshed.

What about Yeshua being the Great Shepard and yet we see the 10 virgins, five wise and five foolish, the wise ones going into the marriage?

I totally get that. For the purpose of the parable the Lord is poly. But any analogy breaks down if you push it too far.. In reality, Our Lord died celibate, was resurrected celibate, and has not yet been wed. When He does wed, it will be to His bride. We are assured that

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all
(which maybe I shouldn't have added but the convention is that the Church is the true identity of the bride)

and we are also told that The Spirit and the Bride say "come"

If Jesus Himself is actually poly, why does only one of His brides say "come". Is one of His brides sullen, and refuses to extend the invitation?

I would hope that by Revelation 22 all that would have been sorted!

 

[eye4them]

Concerning the possibility that elders really are prohibited from having/taking more than one wife...
I remember reading someone speculating that, iIrc, since the elders would be over Gentiles (Romans? Greeks?) who claim to be monogamous, having more than one wife might result in the elders being less fit to minister to them, seeing as how they (officially) eschew such things as polygyny. I recall the author using the phrase "stumbling block".

 

[Mojo]

Concerning the possibility that elders really are prohibited from having/taking more than one wife...
I remember reading someone speculating that, iIrc, since the elders would be over Gentiles (Romans? Greeks?) who claim to be monogamous, having more than one wife might result in the elders being less fit to minister to them, seeing as how they (officially) eschew such things as polygyny. I recall the author using the phrase "stumbling block".

Interesting thought.

I'm just checking in today, and have no time to reference my bible, but I can't recall other instances where limits like those were suggested. I fully expect there could be, and will feel stupid if it's an easily recognizable one.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

We will have to find out the difference between the two words used for self control before entering that as evidence.

Then he's in the wrong profession! In the same verse that Paul talks about burning, he equates it to a lack of "self-control" (ἐγκρατεύομαι). Later, when telling Titus about the qualifications of an elder he says an Elder must be "Self-controlled" ἐγκρατής. Not exactly the same word, but one is a root of the other. Without commenting above my pay-grade on the particulars of Greek, I think it safe to say that a man who is married and yet "burns" for more women is simply not Elder material. There's no dishonor in not being an Elder if you love women, but there is dishonor in being Elder if you are incapable of making a covenant with your eyes.

I wouldn’t say that is “safe to say” at all!
If having more than one wife makes a man “not elder material” than it would seem that G-d made a lot of poor choices in guys like Abraham and Moses. A line of theological reasoning that says Abraham, Moses, and David are unfit to be elders in the ecclesia seems a bit ludicrous. If there were only one way those verses could be interpreted than i would agree with you, but there are perfectly good ways to translate the verses in question that get rid of all the inconsistencies.

I think the raw chaos that this would cause in his home life would make it a good idea if he stepped down and sorted out his household. It sounds simple on paper, but I think in reality that this situation does not go down without (metaphorical) bloodshed.

Ok I’m with you on that one! Lol

I totally get that. For the purpose of the parable the Lord is poly. But any analogy breaks down if you push it too far.. In reality, Our Lord died celibate, was resurrected celibate, and has not yet been wed. When He does wed, it will be to His bride. We are assured that

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all
(which maybe I shouldn't have added but the convention is that the Church is the true identity of the bride)

and we are also told that The Spirit and the Bride say "come"

If Jesus Himself is actually poly, why does only one of His brides say "come". Is one of His brides sullen, and refuses to extend the invitation?

I would hope that by Revelation 22 all that would have been sorted!

I agree that parables have limits, however, Yeshua said that in His Father’s house are many rooms. Why is that? How many rooms or mansions does ONE bride need? Could “one body” etc. be speaking of unity, and not necessarily the numeral one?

This is my opinion, but i think it stands to reason that an elder should be able to mentor and give good advice to younger men in the church. If an elder only has one wife, it would seem that he would have a difficult time relating to and giving good advice on handling more than one marriage at a time.

 

[rockfox]

1. An elder needs a wife and children to prove out that he is a capable spiritual leader.

2. He may be enjoined from multiple wives because that would distract too much from his shepherding (1 Cor 7:32-35):

But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate andto secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

3. Another practical reason is that there is a tendency in social groups towards hero worship and all the young women wanting the top man in the group (pastor, worship leader, etc). It would be really easy for one to multiply wives. And if he is 'on the hunt' it creates a conflict of interest in overseeing the group. We see this today, even without poly, where the leader paints himself as more spiritual and above reproach while beating down all the men in the congregation.

4. Now we all know that the word 'one' in the elder requirements could be translated 'a' or 'first'. But we also need to consider that the qualifications were given by Paul in the context of his ministry to the Greek's. They only ever had 1 wife so their cultural assumption would have been to not even think about multiple wives. At most they would have had concubines, a practice which the NT is silent on, not even using the Greek word for concubine.

5. Now the requirements for elders list 'respectable in 1 Tim 3:2; so one could make the case that in the interest of 'becoming all things that I might win some' the elder is to avoid scandal by limiting himself to 1 wife; even though it may not be sinful.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Abraham, Moses, and David are unfit to be elders in the ecclesia

According to my understanding, none of these men ever served in an eldership capacity. Abraham is a good guy, but never served as an elder (although his monogamous nephew Lot did, to the annoyance of the Sodomites)
Moses was not elder material. Outbursts of wrath were kind of his thing, and he absolutely did not have a good reputation with those who were outside. He was a man called by God to lead (singularly and answering only to God) a nation, which included elders who followed his lead (and complained about him), but he himself was no Elder. He was part of no council of peers and sat down at no gates. David was like Moses, called by God to singularly lead a nation, but answered only to God, and the elders of Israel were under him. He himself was unfit to serve in eldership capacity. (By a lot. His first wife hated him and his children went to war against each other because one of his sons raped one of his daughters. His ability to rule a household was somewhere around the "pretty terrible" level.)

This is my opinion, but i think it stands to reason that an elder should be able to mentor and give good advice to younger men in the church. If an elder only has one wife, it would seem that he would have a difficult time relating to and giving good advice on handling more than one marriage at a time.

in my view, Christian Elders are not primarily counselors. There are certain works that they must do. Teaching and Preaching. Fasting and Praying. Arguing about doctrine with the other Elders and coming to a consensus to disseminate to the households in their city. Responding to crises brought about by rogue apostles. Visiting the sick and anointing them with oil on an 'on call' basis.

If they can delegate the business of distributing aid to income-less widows to others, they could easily delegate the horribly time consuming task of marital counseling to teachers who specialize in that sort of thing.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I would be cautious in speaking ill of G-d’s servants in the Old Testament, especially when G-d speaks of, Moses at least, like this:

Numbers 12:6-9
Then He said,
“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision;
I speak to him in a dream.
Not so with My servant Moses;
He is faithful in all My house.
I speak with him face to face,
Even plainly, and not in dark sayings;
And he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant Moses?”
So the anger of the Lord was aroused against them, and He departed.

Yikes!


There are a lot of things that can be pushed into or assumed into the qualifications verses, but the fact remains that Paul did list a reason in the verse and it is not a reason that would limit it to only one. Is a man with two wives always lacking in self control? Is he mismanaging his household? Is he automatically painting himself as being more spiritual and above reproach and beating down the men around him? To be more specific let’s take the qualifications in the verses themselves.

An elder must be blameless. Can a man with two wives not fall into this category?

With faithful children who cannot be charged with dissipation or rebellion. Can a man with two wives never satisfy this requirement?

Not arrogant. Are all men with two wives arrogant?

Not prone to anger. Men with two wives are always prone to anger?

Not a drunkard. Men with two wives are all drunkards?

Not violent. Men with two wives are always violent?

Not greedy for gain. Men with two wives are always greedy for gain?

He must be hospitable. Men with two wives are inhospitable?

Devoted to what is good. Men with two wives are never devoted to what is good?

Sensible. Men with two wives are not sensible?

Upright. Men with two wives are wicked?

Devout. Men with two wives are not devout?

Self-controlled. Men with two wives have no self-control?

These seem to be the types of reasons given by many in the church to say that only bad things come from polygyny. I think a man could have two wives and still fulfill the other requirements in those verses. If you don’t think that is true, what reasons can you give that would justify any christian man engaging in the practice?

 

[Nikud]

I would be cautious in speaking ill of G-d’s servants in the Old Testament, especially when G-d speaks of, Moses at least, like this:

Numbers 12:6-9
Then He said,
“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision;
I speak to him in a dream.
Not so with My servant Moses;
He is faithful in all My house.
I speak with him face to face,
Even plainly, and not in dark sayings;
And he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant Moses?”
So the anger of the Lord was aroused against them, and He departed.

Yikes!


There are a lot of things that can be pushed into or assumed into the qualifications verses, but the fact remains that Paul did list a reason in the verse and it is not a reason that would limit it to only one. Is a man with two wives always lacking in self control? Is he mismanaging his household? Is he automatically painting himself as being more spiritual and above reproach and beating down the men around him? To be more specific let’s take the qualifications in the verses themselves.

An elder must be blameless. Can a man with two wives not fall into this category?

With faithful children who cannot be charged with dissipation or rebellion. Can a man with two wives never satisfy this requirement?

Not arrogant. Are all men with two wives arrogant?

Not prone to anger. Men with two wives are always prone to anger?

Not a drunkard. Men with two wives are all drunkards?

Not violent. Men with two wives are always violent?

Not greedy for gain. Men with two wives are always greedy for gain?

He must be hospitable. Men with two wives are inhospitable?

Devoted to what is good. Men with two wives are never devoted to what is good?

Sensible. Men with two wives are not sensible?

Upright. Men with two wives are wicked?

Devout. Men with two wives are not devout?

Self-controlled. Men with two wives have no self-control?

These seem to be the types of reasons given by many in the church to say that only bad things come from polygyny. I think a man could have two wives and still fulfill the other requirements in those verses. If you don’t think that is true, what reasons can you give that would justify any christian man engaging in the practice?

That's the reason I keep looking at mia and see it say first over one. An Deacon, elder, or Bishop must not be divorced.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

That's the reason I keep looking at mia and see it say first over one. An Deacon, elder, or Bishop must not be divorced.

I leaned that way for some time, but the more i have pondered it and re-read the verses and tried to only read what it is saying without adding ideas to it, the more I lean towards it meaning “a wife” as in a married man. How’s that for a run-on sentence

 

[Nikud]

I leaned that way for some time, but the more i have pondered it and re-read the verses and tried to only read what it is saying without adding ideas to it, the more I lean towards it meaning “a wife” as in a married man.

By translating mia as a, one, or first we are adding a new a idea.

A: must be married, either monogamous or polygamous
(in a part of scripture that is limiting eligibility, this is the most all inclusive of the three choices)

One: must be married but monogamous
(in a part of scripture that is limiting eligibility, this is the most all exclusive of the three choices)

First: must be married but not divorced but may be monogamous or polygamous
(in a part of scripture that is limiting eligibility, this is the middle ground of the three choices)

There are many versus' about marriage. The majority of them connected divorce and how divorce is a bad idea to say it mildly.

In the long run we will each follow where the L-rd leads us, and it's one of those versus that is hard to gauge.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Perhaps Job was the first Pharisee?

I would say Eve was the first Pharisee, wanting to be like God in that she would have the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Mojo]

I see your point.

 

[rockfox]

Self-controlled. Men with two wives have no self-control?

Given that several early church fathers thought the 'if he burns let him marry' of 1 Cor 7 was an assent to polygamy, IF necessary, one could make an argument that it did show a lack of self control and that the requirement was for 'a wife' (as in one and only one).

However if I recall correctly, there was also much discussion over this particular verse on whether or not widowers qualified; particularly those who remarried. Which frankly strikes me as quite silly.

Sensible. Men with two wives are not sensible?

Many would argue a man with even 1 isn't very sensible.