1 Tim. 5:1-16

[Pacman]

So i'm rethinking the Apostle Paul. For some context please read this:

https://natsab.com/2019/12/18/im-rethinking-the-apostle-paul/#more-11534

Obviously this perspective is coming from a strong Torah bend but I definitely want the perspective of everyone here not just the Torah pursuant guys and gals.

So the thought is that Paul is teaching levirate marriage in 1 Tim. 5:1-16 and he is doing it in the context of brand new believers who know very little about the Torah. Paul is being intentionally vague because the Greco-Roman civil government would come down hard on the practice of polygyny and being too specific about it in an open letter would draw unnecessary attention. He likely would have been more specific verbally with trusted individuals. If you view it from the perspective outlined in the blog post, everything he is saying here in 1 Tim. 5:1-16 completely fits with the levirate marriage commands in the Torah. The "appointed elders" were filling the role of the family patriarch that these believers no longer had access to. Paul is explaining that the men in the assembly should also take on the levirate marriage responsibility and not just for relatives but for all the widows in the community. Without this practice the widows would be left desolate as a result of being rejected by family for their faith in Yeshua.

Please discuss, support and/or poke holes in the theory. I do ask that we be careful not to turn this into another Torah debate.

 

[PeteR]

Because I've had the benefit of being in the discussion of this topic for a while, I'll refrain and wait for the input of others... but this, to me, is an exciting new insight and framing of Paul, and another evidence that Paul supported Biblical marriage!

Looking forward to seeing what some of your initial thoughts are as we discuss this new insight!

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I would agree that Paul is teaching/supporting levirate marriage in this passage. Ive thought so for some time for multiple reasons. In the instance of a brother in Christ absorbing another brother in Christ’s family and caring for them, it is the exact picture of the levirate marriage in the Old Testament, but focuses on a heavenly bloodline as well as an earthly bloodline. Provided that the same standards were used, I see no biblical issues with it.

I did notice in the article, a reference to the Levites “ministering” to the widows and orphans. I cant say I’ve seen references supporting this, though they may have. If you have them, I’d be interested in checking them out. The instances that I’ve seen have been a landowner “ministering” to the widows, and orphans and strangers specifically in the shemitah and jubilees, as well as Pentecost and other instances.

Job 31:14-23 is a prime example pre Sinai that it was the patriarchs obligation to personally care for these.

As to Timothy or Titus “appointing” elders, IMO this is probably another one of those perspectives that has been corrupted by translation or cultural bias. To me it reeks of Apostolic Succession, as does the Levite charity repository system for widows and orphans. In other words, it bolsters a hierarchy within the assembly and generates a slush fund in the name of supporting the less fortunate.

The “appointment” of elders seems to be more an official acknowledgment of men who are being given double honor for their labors/rule in the home and in their understanding/study of word and doctrine. Once from their own family and again from their peers in the assembly. After all, Timothy specifically is instructed to lay hands on no man suddenly. Why would his role be to assign/appoint someone to leadership when he has limited interaction with that man? OTOH the other men of the assembly would have much more insight into his character, work ethic, home life and rule, and his success or failure with his wives and children. To me, it seems more like a confirmation of eldership than appointment to eldership.

 

[Pacman]

I did notice in the article, a reference to the Levites “ministering” to the widows and orphans. I cant say I’ve seen references supporting this, though they may have. If you have them, I’d be interested in checking them out.

This is a good point. I'm going to search this one out more closely and get back to you.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

For the same reasons you have listed above, I believe Paul is utilizing the same Torah principles (for one who is cut off or an unbeliever) in 1 Corinthians 7:10-17 and Romans 7:1-4 in dealing with the topic of divorce. Also for dealing with the topic of a husband who rejected the faith.

 

[PeteR]

@Verifyveritas76 , the exact quote regarding Levites from the article is,

A quick example was the appointment of deacons to distribute food and necessities to the widows. Again, they were not creating an ‘office’ or ‘position’. In Torah, this was a function of the Levites. The new believers, however, were rejected by family and the synagogue and didn’t have Levitical support. They needed a ‘Levitical’ structure to distribute to and care for the widows and orphans among them.

The point is, in the Torah, one of the duties of the Levites in the various cities was to distribute to widows and orphans from the three year tithe storehouse (if I remember correctly...) The Deacons created and appointed in Acts would have had this oversight function. Deuteronomy 14:28-29.

And, the article postulates that the 'appointment' of elders was a temporary measure until patriarchs grew into that role. Paul wasn't creating a 'new' thing. He was pragmatically establishing a temporary function that would intentionally select the most qualified until the community coalesced and matured, thus producing their own patriarchal 'elders'.

 

[Pacman]

@Verifyveritas76 , the exact quote regarding Levites from the article is,



The point is, in the Torah, one of the duties of the Levites in the various cities was to distribute to widows and orphans from the three year tithe storehouse (if I remember correctly...) The Deacons created and appointed in Acts would have had this oversight function. Deuteronomy 14:28-29.

And, the article postulates that the 'appointment' of elders was a temporary measure until patriarchs grew into that role. Paul wasn't creating a 'new' thing. He was pragmatically establishing a temporary function that would intentionally select the most qualified until the community coalesced and matured, thus producing their own patriarchal 'elders'.

Yes that is the point being made in the article but it may be worded poorly... I think the passage you are thinking of and the tradition of the Levite being the one to distribute to the widow and the orphan is this:

Deuteronomy 26:12-13 NASB
“When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. [13] You shall say before the LORD your God, ‘I have removed the sacred portion from my house, and also have given it to the Levite and the alien, the orphan and the widow, according to all Your commandments which You have commanded me; I have not transgressed or forgotten any of Your commandments.

But this passage simply list them together as ones who received the tithe it doesn't say the Levites received it and then distributed...

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Yes that is the point being made in the article but it may be worded poorly... I think the passage you are thinking of and the tradition of the Levite being the one to distribute to the widow and the orphan is this:

Deuteronomy 26:12-13 NASB
“When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. [13] You shall say before the LORD your God, ‘I have removed the sacred portion from my house, and also have given it to the Levite and the alien, the orphan and the widow, according to all Your commandments which You have commanded me; I have not transgressed or forgotten any of Your commandments.

But this passage simply list them together as ones who received the tithe it doesn't say the Levites received it and then distributed...

Agreed. Looks like from both passages (Deut 14:27-29 and Deut. 26:12-13) the Levites were included with the charity cases.

Looks like it was taken out of the house and distributed at the gates of your house. Kinda sounds like 1 Corinthians 16:2. . . . . Let every one of you lay by him in store

 

[Verifyveritas76]

FWIW, I do know that the Temple was a repository or storehouse for the tenths due the priests and the gifts and offerings from the people. If memory serves me correct, the tenth was paid to the local Levites in their cities, and then they would send a tenth of their tenth to the Temple for the priests.

What they did for the widow and orphan from these funds I do not recall, or if they did anything for them.

 

[PeteR]

Primarily, widows and orphans were to be taken care of by family. Cover until the orphan comes of age, or until the widow marries. In cases of a widow without son, levirate marriage was the immediate solution.

Therfore, there should have been very few uncovered widows. Naomi and Ruth were examples, but they had a kinsman.. or, several. Naomi knew her responsibility was protection for Ruth. See 1 Tim. 5:16! Yes, by being intentional in seeking a man for Ruth, she was protecting property, family lineage, self, etc, but she was caring for one in her household!

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I have seen where an orphaned young man was to have his bride price provided by the community in the Talmud

 

[Mojo]

So the thought is that Paul is teaching levirate marriage in 1 Tim. 5:1-16 and he is doing it in the context of brand new believers who know very little about the Torah. Paul is being intentionally vague because the Greco-Roman civil government would come down hard on the practice of polygyny and being too specific about it in an open letter would draw unnecessary attention.

When you speak of Paul teaching levirate marriage, do you mean requiring it, or letting them know it was an option? As you say, it may have been veiled, but it still seems pretty vague. I am not Torah observant, but I wholeheartedly believe that Paul and Jesus were both Torah consistent.

If the claim is that this is a proof verse for Paul's support of polygyny in the Early Church, then I would say it's not a slam dunk. If it's leaving room for the possibility that Paul is instructing those more versed in Torah to think about that possibility as outlined in Torah, then it has more legs for that stool to stand on.

This section of verses has been discussed here before and it has been noted that the younger widows are clearly encouraged to marry.

 

[PeteR]

When you speak of Paul teaching levirate marriage, do you mean requiring it, or letting them know it was an option? As you say, it may have been veiled, but it still seems pretty vague. I am not Torah observant, but I wholeheartedly believe that Paul and Jesus were both Torah consistent.

If the claim is that this is a proof verse for Paul's support of polygyny in the Early Church, then I would say it's not a slam dunk. If it's leaving room for the possibility that Paul is instructing those more versed in Torah to think about that possibility as outlined in Torah, then it has more legs for that stool to stand on.

This section of verses has been discussed here before and it has been noted that the younger widows are clearly encouraged to marry.

The Pauline slam dunk is 1 Cor. 7:2. Everything after that is supporting evidence. No time right now, but 1 Tim. 5:1-16 had several very solid pointers to levirate marriage.

 

[Mojo]

The Pauline slam dunk is 1 Cor. 7:2. Everything after that is supporting evidence. No time right now, but 1 Tim. 5:1-16 had several very solid pointers to levirate marriage.

Slam dunk? Not sure about that, but will wait for your explanation.


Just to clarify, I generally break up biblical polygyny apologetics into two categories. And that's where I'm coming from when dealing with these support verses.
1) Converting the Churchian
2) Reinforcing the beliefs of those who have seen the light.

I'm open to the possibility that both these verses are speaking directly and even explicitly to polygyny, but I would never use them as proof verses to the unconverted. As has been mentioned, too vague.

 

[PeteR]

The Greek for 1 Cor. 7:2 is the slam dunk. Idios v heautou. Exactly comports with all relevant Torah passages..

The 'heavy lifting' proof verses are in the OT. Paul just affirms them.

 

[Mojo]

The Greek for 1 Cor. 7:2 is the slam dunk. Idios v heautou. Exactly comports with all relevant Torah passages..

The 'heavy lifting' proof verses are in the OT. Paul just affirms them.

I get what you're saying but the skeptic might concede that Paul (as a good Hebrew) is not going against Torah, but stops short of promoting the lifestyle to the church.

The heavy ammo is indeed in OT, and where I think the focus needs to be. I just see the concept and promotion of polygyny as being largely silent in NT. It just wasn't part of Helenized culture. The heavy ammo that the NT carries is that it's never spoken against or rescinded, unless you twist things (which includes husband of one wife).

When a skeptic pushes back against Torah and promotes Grace, I welcome it. Grace isn't supposed to add new laws where none are present.

I'm not arguing against any of the conclusions anyone is drawing. It's just my personal valuation of the effectiveness.

 

[Pacman]

In my view it’s not about proof texting for polygyny, it’s about demonstrating that Paul consistently taught and upheld the Torah. The more we demonstrate that fact the less foundation the mono only crowd has...

 

[PeteR]

I get what you're saying but the skeptic might concede that Paul (as a good Hebrew) is not going against Torah, but stops short of promoting the lifestyle to the church.

I disagree. I think polygyny is illegal in Hellenized world and Paul is subtly pointing to it as a solution for the abundance of widows they had, likely due to persecution among other things. Had Paul openly puomoted it, his enemies would have had ammunition in the Roman courts, but he carefully puts it between the lines. Here's how: family members must care for the widows. Widows must be married. Must be married in the faith. D'uh! There's a shortage of men.

He 'creates' the same impossible situation we have today... and, tells 'em to get married."

 

[steve]

I think polygyny is illegal in Hellenized world

I’m curious as to how you would support this belief.

 

[Mojo]

Paul wasn't afraid to call a spade a spade either. He called out male homosexuality and iirc, the Roman and Greek world wasn't so afraid of it, even loved to explore it.