QMCO5
New Member
I am creating a separate post on this subject since it’s a bit long rather than adding a comment to an existing thread.
One of the objections raised against polygamy is Paul’s instruction that ministers have one wife, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 & Titus 1:6. The clause “husband of one wife” is actually ambiguous in the Greek text, which has led to much disagreement among expositors over its meaning. For the sake of discussion I will confine comments to the first reference, since the other two are essentially redundant.
FIVE COMMON INTERPRETATIONS:
1. Marriage as a requirement for ministry. 1 Timothy 3:2 starts the list of qualifications by saying the overseer “must be…” The requirement is supported by Paul’s command to be married in 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 1 Timothy 5:14. However, this could not be an absolute requirement since 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, 25-33 recommend remaining unmarried during a time of distress. Scripture also records a number of people who were servants of God with no indication of being married (e.g., Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, John the Immerser, Yeshua).
2. Polygamy restriction. Polygamy did exist among first century Jews and Jewish believers likely included polygamous men. Therefore, Paul sought to minimize competition for a minister’s time and service. Early Church Fathers favored this view. Later the Church went further and prohibited priests to be married. However, in the Jewish context being limited to one wife (ishshah) does not preclude having a wife of second degree, i.e., a pilegesh or concubine. It should be noted that Christians continued to practice concubinage after the first century until banned by the Council of Trent.
3. Only one wife in a lifetime. This position would preclude widower ministers from remarrying. The rationale is based on the potential burden of caring for a double family, posing a serious hindrance to ministry. The view seems to be reflected in the New Revised Standard Version, the New Century Version, God’s Word Translation, Good News Translation. However, the verse simply does not say, “an elder must be married only once.” Acts 6:3 lists only three qualifications for the first group of deacons, none of which related to marriage.
4. No divorce. This is a very common view among conservative Christians. Since the rule pertains to ministry qualifications, some contend that remarriage after divorce disqualifies from ministry. Some also contend that divorce on other than biblical grounds (variously defined) disqualifies from ministry. Some extend the restriction to include a previously unmarried man who marries a divorced woman. This position implies that divorce is a sin without redemption and relegates divorced persons to second-class citizens in the kingdom. As with the previous interpretation the verse does not say “an elder can never have been divorced and remarried.”
5. Marital fidelity. This view is based on taking the phrase literally as “man of one woman” or “a one-woman man.” This view emphasizes the character of the man rather than his marital status. This view seems to be reflected in the Complete Jewish Bible, the New Living Translation, The Message, The Contemporary English Version and Today’s New International Version.
LEXICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Greek words in the clause
Mias (numeral “one,” “alone,” “unity”), an adjective, derived from mia, feminine form of heis, in the genitive case. In the LXX (Septuagint, Greek Old Testament), mia is also used as “the first” in summaries (Genesis 2:1) and calendar references (Genesis 8:5), as well as one in contrast to another (Exodus 18:3).
Gunaikos (“woman” or “wife”), a noun, genitive case of gunē.
Andra (“man” or “husband”), a noun, accusative case of anēr. The accusative case means andra functions as a direct object.
The clause contains no definite articles (“the” or “a”) or conjunctions.
2. The genitive case
The genitive case is a case of definition or description. It functions primarily as an adjective, but the genitive case may be used in one of three ways (see below). Thus, the genitive case of mias-gunaikos attributes something to or describes something about andra.
A genitive of relationship is used to attribute a genital or marriage relationship, which would mean the andra has a marriage. A genitive of relationship would support the first two interpretations given above.
A genitive of possession expresses ownership, which would mean the andra possesses or owns the mias-gunaikos (a concept most Christians don’t like). A genitive of possession would support the third and fourth interpretations.
A genitive of quality expresses a simple description of the object, which would make mias-gunaikos a character quality of andra. Advocates of this view point out that the ministry qualifications are a series of character statements, rather than a list of persons or things the elder possesses. Also, the lack of definite articles supports this interpretation better than any other.
FINAL ANALYSIS
There is one other interpretation that I would offer based on assumption of a Hebrew undertext. That is, Paul originally wrote the letter in Hebrew and it was later translated into Greek. In Hebrew the phrase would be echad ishshah ish. Echad ishshah ish could be a statement of marriage unity, specifically the wife must be in unity with the husband, a reflection of her submission. The fact that Paul goes on to address the management of the elder’s household implies the wife must support her husband’s leadership for him to effectively balance household management with congregational management. Unity was Yeshua's prayer for his disciples (John 17:21-22).
A few polygamy advocates have suggested that mias-gunaikos should be interpreted as a reference to a first wife. However, this view seems to impose a nonsensical construction on the words. If Paul was offering support for polygamous ministers, there would be no need to say anything about a first wife, because obviously there would be one. Another view is that Paul is commanding “at least one wife,” a variation on the first interpretation above. However, there are no words in the Greek sentence that convey this meaning and no exegetical basis for inserting them. Paul would have had to use the Greek word kan, as is used in Acts 5:15 and 2 Corinthians 11:16, to convey the meaning of “at least.”
After much consideration I prefer the unity and fidelity interpretations. As far as polygamy is concerned, Paul's instruction neither supports nor prohibits having more than one wife, because that's not the issue he's dealing with. Nevertheless this interpretation would have practical importance for polygamous marriages.
One of the objections raised against polygamy is Paul’s instruction that ministers have one wife, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 & Titus 1:6. The clause “husband of one wife” is actually ambiguous in the Greek text, which has led to much disagreement among expositors over its meaning. For the sake of discussion I will confine comments to the first reference, since the other two are essentially redundant.
FIVE COMMON INTERPRETATIONS:
1. Marriage as a requirement for ministry. 1 Timothy 3:2 starts the list of qualifications by saying the overseer “must be…” The requirement is supported by Paul’s command to be married in 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 1 Timothy 5:14. However, this could not be an absolute requirement since 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, 25-33 recommend remaining unmarried during a time of distress. Scripture also records a number of people who were servants of God with no indication of being married (e.g., Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, John the Immerser, Yeshua).
2. Polygamy restriction. Polygamy did exist among first century Jews and Jewish believers likely included polygamous men. Therefore, Paul sought to minimize competition for a minister’s time and service. Early Church Fathers favored this view. Later the Church went further and prohibited priests to be married. However, in the Jewish context being limited to one wife (ishshah) does not preclude having a wife of second degree, i.e., a pilegesh or concubine. It should be noted that Christians continued to practice concubinage after the first century until banned by the Council of Trent.
3. Only one wife in a lifetime. This position would preclude widower ministers from remarrying. The rationale is based on the potential burden of caring for a double family, posing a serious hindrance to ministry. The view seems to be reflected in the New Revised Standard Version, the New Century Version, God’s Word Translation, Good News Translation. However, the verse simply does not say, “an elder must be married only once.” Acts 6:3 lists only three qualifications for the first group of deacons, none of which related to marriage.
4. No divorce. This is a very common view among conservative Christians. Since the rule pertains to ministry qualifications, some contend that remarriage after divorce disqualifies from ministry. Some also contend that divorce on other than biblical grounds (variously defined) disqualifies from ministry. Some extend the restriction to include a previously unmarried man who marries a divorced woman. This position implies that divorce is a sin without redemption and relegates divorced persons to second-class citizens in the kingdom. As with the previous interpretation the verse does not say “an elder can never have been divorced and remarried.”
5. Marital fidelity. This view is based on taking the phrase literally as “man of one woman” or “a one-woman man.” This view emphasizes the character of the man rather than his marital status. This view seems to be reflected in the Complete Jewish Bible, the New Living Translation, The Message, The Contemporary English Version and Today’s New International Version.
LEXICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Greek words in the clause
Mias (numeral “one,” “alone,” “unity”), an adjective, derived from mia, feminine form of heis, in the genitive case. In the LXX (Septuagint, Greek Old Testament), mia is also used as “the first” in summaries (Genesis 2:1) and calendar references (Genesis 8:5), as well as one in contrast to another (Exodus 18:3).
Gunaikos (“woman” or “wife”), a noun, genitive case of gunē.
Andra (“man” or “husband”), a noun, accusative case of anēr. The accusative case means andra functions as a direct object.
The clause contains no definite articles (“the” or “a”) or conjunctions.
2. The genitive case
The genitive case is a case of definition or description. It functions primarily as an adjective, but the genitive case may be used in one of three ways (see below). Thus, the genitive case of mias-gunaikos attributes something to or describes something about andra.
A genitive of relationship is used to attribute a genital or marriage relationship, which would mean the andra has a marriage. A genitive of relationship would support the first two interpretations given above.
A genitive of possession expresses ownership, which would mean the andra possesses or owns the mias-gunaikos (a concept most Christians don’t like). A genitive of possession would support the third and fourth interpretations.
A genitive of quality expresses a simple description of the object, which would make mias-gunaikos a character quality of andra. Advocates of this view point out that the ministry qualifications are a series of character statements, rather than a list of persons or things the elder possesses. Also, the lack of definite articles supports this interpretation better than any other.
FINAL ANALYSIS
There is one other interpretation that I would offer based on assumption of a Hebrew undertext. That is, Paul originally wrote the letter in Hebrew and it was later translated into Greek. In Hebrew the phrase would be echad ishshah ish. Echad ishshah ish could be a statement of marriage unity, specifically the wife must be in unity with the husband, a reflection of her submission. The fact that Paul goes on to address the management of the elder’s household implies the wife must support her husband’s leadership for him to effectively balance household management with congregational management. Unity was Yeshua's prayer for his disciples (John 17:21-22).
A few polygamy advocates have suggested that mias-gunaikos should be interpreted as a reference to a first wife. However, this view seems to impose a nonsensical construction on the words. If Paul was offering support for polygamous ministers, there would be no need to say anything about a first wife, because obviously there would be one. Another view is that Paul is commanding “at least one wife,” a variation on the first interpretation above. However, there are no words in the Greek sentence that convey this meaning and no exegetical basis for inserting them. Paul would have had to use the Greek word kan, as is used in Acts 5:15 and 2 Corinthians 11:16, to convey the meaning of “at least.”
After much consideration I prefer the unity and fidelity interpretations. As far as polygamy is concerned, Paul's instruction neither supports nor prohibits having more than one wife, because that's not the issue he's dealing with. Nevertheless this interpretation would have practical importance for polygamous marriages.
