1 Tim. 5:1-16

[Verifyveritas76]

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.

I think this fine tunes my thoughts on something that was half formed in my mind.

I’m not sure that Paul was writing his letters to be disseminated at large among the Greek culture. This may be a cultural bias from how we view scripture availability today.

Also that he cared what the secular world thought about the subject, or even the believers within the church. This may be a result of the seeker friendly bias most of Christianity operate under today.

 

[PeteR]

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

Polygyny was outlawed by the Greeks in 731 BC if memory serves. Have to check my sources. The reason was to eliminate power and wealth consolidation by patriarchal families. The Jews were the only ones allowed to continue openly. By enforcing monogamy only, not only was a power base destroyed (patriarchy) but every man, regardless of his income or abilities could secure a wife thus ensuring loyalty to the state.

I think I have all of this in a book on my night stand...

 

[PeteR]

Here are some page shots from The Western Case for Monogamy over Polygamy. The author, John Witte, Jr., is finest enough to show the roots of both sides yet argues primarily from sociology and Greco-Roman law for the superiority of monogamy. Smh.

 

[PeteR]

So, as I previously said, Paul would have run afoul of social norms and Roman law pretty sharply with open recommendation of polygyny as a solution to the uncovered widow issue. He, wisely, chose not to give his enemies legal ammunition by openly promoting poly. He neatly set the stage with an unsolvable problem, then commands widows to be married...

 

[rockfox]

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.

Because he didn't have 'limited interaction'. These were new assemblies that Paul and Timothy had a very intimate role in founding. They'd been through the trenches with those people, sometimes for significant periods of time.

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

So is it your contention that this is speaking about marrying her and not simply provision of food & clothing?

 

[Pacman]

It’s important to note that even in the Torah polygyny isn’t specifically spoken about in the context of levirate marriage. So Paul not mentioning it explicitly in 1 Timothy 5 is in no way a compromise or cop out. It’s simply the only answer when there are more available women than available men...

 

[Pacman]

So is it your contention that this is speaking about marrying her and not simply provision of food & clothing?

Yes it’s a command to marry her assuming she has no male children already... If she does have male children then it’s at the discretion of the man. But if she is young she should be married...

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Yes it’s a command to marry her assuming she has no male children already... If she does have male children then it’s at the discretion of the man. But if she is young she should be married...

I’m not certain its quite that simple.

I think that there are a lot of assumptions made if one is looking only in the Deuteronomy 25 passage. It does contain quite a bit of information, but one should be careful what is assumed from lacking information in the passage. It definitely does not answer all pertinent questions on the topic.

For example, a woman is bound to her husband only until his death per Torah. Assuming she has no choice (in Levirate marriage) contradicts this principle. There is also the assumption that she had no choice in the matter of her first marriage and as such has no choice in his replacement. There is also the possibility of returning to her fathers house as we see in Genesis 38:11 (yet another passage that generates a lot of assumptions)

There are several reasons why a widow without a child would want to be married to a brother. If she remained single, she would have to be able to find another husband on her own which would no doubt be a daunting task and could be very dangerous without a protector like her father or brother to intercede for her. She would also be ineligible for any kind of asset inheritance due to Numbers 27:8&9. If she didn’t have her own money/inheritance, she would be penniless other than her ketubah (about 200 zus). Thus it seems that she would be better served by marrying again within the family because she had no security unless she provided someone to inherit. According to Numbers 27, that could be either a boy or girl from her deceased husband. A woman deciding to be part of Levirate marriage rather than returning to her fathers house would most likely be doing so out of a desire to continue her deceased husbands name thru a son.

There could also be many reasons why a widow without a child would refuse to have a child with any of her husbands family. A phrase that is grossly overlooked is the first qualifier. If brethren dwell together . And one of them die. And have no child . . . . These are the qualifiers for the specific instance of Levirate marriage mentioned in Deuteronomy 25. However, there are obviously other instances that could be addressed that would also fall under the category of Levirate marriage. Such as, the brethren do not dwell together, or there have been children born to the deceased husband. There is nothing wrong with a brother bringing his sister in law into his household and fulfilling the obligations IF that is the understanding between him and the widow. And there is nothing wrong with doing so if the situation does not match the exact one listed in Deuteronomy. The possibilities are unlimited as to how a brothers household could be structured (including platonic provided there is no son) and still qualify as a Levirate setting.

This is a prime example of “should” does not necessarily equal “must”

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So, as I previously said, Paul would have run afoul of social norms and Roman law pretty sharply with open recommendation of polygyny as a solution to the uncovered widow issue. He, wisely, chose not to give his enemies legal ammunition by openly promoting poly. He neatly set the stage with an unsolvable problem, then commands widows to be married...

I’m not sure that promoting polygamy was a chargeable offense. In Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 he does a pretty good job of painting a poly picture in Greek. We just don’t see it that well due to translator’s bias.

I agree on the rest of it, though I’m not sure he cared about social norms.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Because he didn't have 'limited interaction'. These were new assemblies that Paul and Timothy had a very intimate role in founding. They'd been through the trenches with those people, sometimes for significant periods of time.

I’d agree with that in part. Even in Acts 14:21-23, they did not ordain elders until the return trip. I’m not sure at what point Timothy joined the Paul team, but it seems that by the time Timothy and Titus are written, that they are traveling evangelists visiting assemblies that they have a peripheral relationship with.

 

[Mojo]

My main contention (and it's just my personal preference) is that we not go looking for polygyny in passages like the mono only crowd does. We call them out for their eisegesis and in questionable passages like this, we would most likely get a sideways stare in disbelief.

I agree with @Verifyveritas76 that these epistles were likely written for internal purposes and their English interpretations have probably been worded to avoid the Jewishness of the NT but this passage speaking of polygyny is still speculative in my mind. We have enough proof verses besides this.

I do remeber one OT speculation that someone brought up and it seems plausible. Gomer was most likely a sister wife. I think the language there has been deliberately altered in translation.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I think I’d sum it up like this. If you are practicing Levirate marriage, you are by definition providing for your widows. But this is only a small subset of the widows that you may be responsible for

Once I understood levirate marriage, I couldn’t read this passage without seeing it.

It is not solely speaking of levirate marriage but by definition must include it as an option.