-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Can Elders Have More Than One Wife?
- Thread starter DaPastor
- Start date
Here is Mark's reply:
Mark C said:...Can get both answers depending on what I want it to say.
This line encapsulates the real heart of the matter, particularly with respect to the well-known apparently 'anti-polygyny' verses in Timothy and Titus concerning 'overseers', 'deacons', or whatever the OTHER part of the translation may say.
The translators of the English versions which render the Greek "mia" wife as "one wife" instead of the equally-grammatically-correct "a wife" or "first wife" clearly knew what THEY wanted it to say. This has become a place to which I point when looking to cite an example of a culturally-biased translation and associated assumptions.
Any understanding of what Paul intended simply CANNOT be made from the text alone, but must be made in terms of context, and especially necessarily from a Torah-literate (which Shaul/Paul most assuredly was) perspective. It should not be forgotten, as well, that this was also a man who (speaking clearly for himself, and not God) specifically advised celibacy for some!
Bottom line for me is that I think he was saying such a man should be the "husband of a first wife", meaning that such a man should be --
1) married - indicating that he has the skills, wisdom, and experience to head a household and cover his wife (or wives)...
2) STILL married (to his first wife) - indicating that he has not "put her away", for the obvious and Biblically-myriad reasons.
(And I think that it would be as incorrect to arbitrarily exclude widowers from such offices based on an overly-legalistic interpretation of those verses as I would the upstanding patriarchal heads-of-house!)
Much more could be said, but the above is consistent with the Bible (as the apostles knew it!) and the specific teachings of the Savior. It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that the only real arguments for the more traditional Romanized teaching of "monogamy-only for deacons" is the "tradition" of the "Church" which - as Yeshua warned the Pharisees, AND those who would later emulate them :?: - has so often been allowed to replace the "commandments of God".
Brother Mark,
I agree with you on your take but would like to add this tid-bit. I think that Paul was also saying that a Deacon / Bishop should have at least 1 wife, if not more, for how can a man who has never been married understand all the things it would take to rule in the church ie 1 Tim 3: 4-5 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); . I have never read or seen, so far, why Paul or anyone else, has stated requirements for Pastors, Missionaries, etc as they have for those who serve as a Deacon / Bishop, which are those who are assigned duties to assist the Pastor, etc.
just me thoughts on my last day home
I agree with you on your take but would like to add this tid-bit. I think that Paul was also saying that a Deacon / Bishop should have at least 1 wife, if not more, for how can a man who has never been married understand all the things it would take to rule in the church ie 1 Tim 3: 4-5 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); . I have never read or seen, so far, why Paul or anyone else, has stated requirements for Pastors, Missionaries, etc as they have for those who serve as a Deacon / Bishop, which are those who are assigned duties to assist the Pastor, etc.
just me thoughts on my last day home
Mark
I agree with you, but another question arises. your comment concerning still married to your first wife. Would that mean that someone who is divorced can't be a pastor. Or how about as long as he is married to his first wife and divorced his second wife. And then you get into all the dirvorce issues. He filed she filed. Or what about were they truly married by God or did they go thru some ritual that man had devoloped. And boy that can open a whole can of worms. I thought I knew all these answers, but the more truth I discover the more I realize another thruth or I thought was truth becomes clouded.
I agree with you, but another question arises. your comment concerning still married to your first wife. Would that mean that someone who is divorced can't be a pastor. Or how about as long as he is married to his first wife and divorced his second wife. And then you get into all the dirvorce issues. He filed she filed. Or what about were they truly married by God or did they go thru some ritual that man had devoloped. And boy that can open a whole can of worms. I thought I knew all these answers, but the more truth I discover the more I realize another thruth or I thought was truth becomes clouded.
Hello gentlemen,
I think we all agree that "mia" is not required to be translated as "one". "One" suggests "only" although I do not know if "only" is the only option for "one" there. I do know that many who claim that "one" is the only answer actually change it to a "one-wife kind of man" in order to make it ok for a pastor to be enabled to practice "serial monogamy". However, with that being said, if one translates mia as the indefinite article "a", then it expresses the idea that an elder merely needs to be married - no single pastors. One can be divorced as long as one is married. However, if it is translated "first", then it expresses the idea that an elder must always be married to his first wife, at least. This certainly implies that divorce is not an option - for the first wife. So, there are many considerations involved here to discern the proper usage here that is Biblically contextually wholelistic.
I think we all agree that "mia" is not required to be translated as "one". "One" suggests "only" although I do not know if "only" is the only option for "one" there. I do know that many who claim that "one" is the only answer actually change it to a "one-wife kind of man" in order to make it ok for a pastor to be enabled to practice "serial monogamy". However, with that being said, if one translates mia as the indefinite article "a", then it expresses the idea that an elder merely needs to be married - no single pastors. One can be divorced as long as one is married. However, if it is translated "first", then it expresses the idea that an elder must always be married to his first wife, at least. This certainly implies that divorce is not an option - for the first wife. So, there are many considerations involved here to discern the proper usage here that is Biblically contextually wholelistic.
pastor said:
Hello,
Unfortunately, many times we make doctrinal decisions on only half the Scriptural evidence. The reality is that the best way to study doctrine is to literally take all the verses that a particular doctrine includes, studying them until there is a clarity of thought that includes a clear harmony of all passages included - I get tired thinking about it.
I am glad we are discussing these issues. I am working on a book that hopefully will include all of the passages about marriage, divorce, remarriage and polygyny. However, it is overwhelming! At this point, I am taking one passage at a time and attempting to carefully analyze it.
It should be noted that all of these concepts are inter-related at various points.
DavidinBulgaria
New Member
All,
Interesting study here!
I think we all agree that "mia" can have a range of meanings and this very fact has clouded the issue. One can "make" "mia" mean whatever he wants in order to support his doctrinal stance on the right of church leaders to have more than one wife.
As God is our ultimate example I'd like to throw into consideration that He divorced one wife (Israel) and had trouble with a second (Judah) and had to send her away for awhile. Still, God remained God--the ultimate Spiritual Leader. God can't violate His own laws--He can't sin. When one wife turned away from Him, he divorced her. When a second wife was being unfaithful to Him, He sent her into captivity for 70 years. God IS our example. Of course God is righteous so any dealings with our wives should be as righteous as possible within the earthly realm.
So, can a church leader have more than one wife? God, our Lord, did. Can a man remain a church leader even after he has been divorced? God remains God!
My two-cents worth.
In His service and yours.
Interesting study here!
I think we all agree that "mia" can have a range of meanings and this very fact has clouded the issue. One can "make" "mia" mean whatever he wants in order to support his doctrinal stance on the right of church leaders to have more than one wife.
As God is our ultimate example I'd like to throw into consideration that He divorced one wife (Israel) and had trouble with a second (Judah) and had to send her away for awhile. Still, God remained God--the ultimate Spiritual Leader. God can't violate His own laws--He can't sin. When one wife turned away from Him, he divorced her. When a second wife was being unfaithful to Him, He sent her into captivity for 70 years. God IS our example. Of course God is righteous so any dealings with our wives should be as righteous as possible within the earthly realm.
So, can a church leader have more than one wife? God, our Lord, did. Can a man remain a church leader even after he has been divorced? God remains God!
My two-cents worth.
In His service and yours.
All -
I tend to agree with Chaplain about the "at least one" comment, although I admit that the ambiguity is problematic. My initial point in these discussions (and there have been many, including the Messianic congregation I mentioned in another thread) has been simply to get so far as to point out that there are other readings than a polygyny prohibition!
For the same reasons that several here point out, my own opinion tends to be that Paul was arguing against elders who have demonstrably NOT been able to hold their house together - regardless of how many wives might be involved. Certainly our culture of "serial polygamy" tends to condemn men who COVER more than one wife, while 'winking and nodding' at men, including elders, who "love 'em and leave 'em" -- one at a time.
On the divorce 'can of worms' I would add this one thing. The oft-misunderstood lecture by Yeshua on the topic is difficult for many to understand because of cultural bias and related mis-translations; there is a difference between "divorce" and the "putting away". The best summary of this point that I have seen is the following article, which I find frequently valuable as a reference:
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage:
http://www.missiontoisrael.org/m-d-remar.php?print=1
I tend to agree with Chaplain about the "at least one" comment, although I admit that the ambiguity is problematic. My initial point in these discussions (and there have been many, including the Messianic congregation I mentioned in another thread) has been simply to get so far as to point out that there are other readings than a polygyny prohibition!
For the same reasons that several here point out, my own opinion tends to be that Paul was arguing against elders who have demonstrably NOT been able to hold their house together - regardless of how many wives might be involved. Certainly our culture of "serial polygamy" tends to condemn men who COVER more than one wife, while 'winking and nodding' at men, including elders, who "love 'em and leave 'em" -- one at a time.
On the divorce 'can of worms' I would add this one thing. The oft-misunderstood lecture by Yeshua on the topic is difficult for many to understand because of cultural bias and related mis-translations; there is a difference between "divorce" and the "putting away". The best summary of this point that I have seen is the following article, which I find frequently valuable as a reference:
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage:
http://www.missiontoisrael.org/m-d-remar.php?print=1
I'm basically with Mark's original points here, that Paul was probably saying should be married, OR that they shouldn't be divorced - especially given the lack of any other polygamy reference on his part.
But one thing I sometimes add here when talking to others is to totally take away this verse as a stumbling block, and put them on the spot at the same time: "Hey, you think this means elders shouldn't have 2 or more wives, fine. I'll totally accept living under that, even if I don't think that was the original meaning. I promise to never apply for elder or deacon or any form of leadership in your church. So can I start bringing my entire family next week?"
I haven't got an enthusiastic response yet... :lol:
But one thing I sometimes add here when talking to others is to totally take away this verse as a stumbling block, and put them on the spot at the same time: "Hey, you think this means elders shouldn't have 2 or more wives, fine. I'll totally accept living under that, even if I don't think that was the original meaning. I promise to never apply for elder or deacon or any form of leadership in your church. So can I start bringing my entire family next week?"
I haven't got an enthusiastic response yet... :lol:
Hello,
Generally, I agree with Mark and Nathan. My problem begins with the blending of Scripture. Since we all agree that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, then this passage needs to be thought out quite thoroughly, in my thinking. If one takes the interpretation that mia means "first" wife, then we have disqualified God Himself, having giving Israel a "certificate of divorce". If we take mia to mean one, then this would disqualify God again. I haven't come to a absolute conviction on this verse, but I do know that it needs to agree with the overall tenor of Scripture. It seems that the issue might be that it is to be translated as an indefinate article "a". If my memory serves me well, even "one" does not necessarily mean "only" in all cases.
Generally, I agree with Mark and Nathan. My problem begins with the blending of Scripture. Since we all agree that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, then this passage needs to be thought out quite thoroughly, in my thinking. If one takes the interpretation that mia means "first" wife, then we have disqualified God Himself, having giving Israel a "certificate of divorce". If we take mia to mean one, then this would disqualify God again. I haven't come to a absolute conviction on this verse, but I do know that it needs to agree with the overall tenor of Scripture. It seems that the issue might be that it is to be translated as an indefinate article "a". If my memory serves me well, even "one" does not necessarily mean "only" in all cases.
That is actually exactly how I resolved the issue with the friend and former pastor when we formed our local Messianic congregation, Nathan. They continue to teach that God's Word does permit polygyny; unfortunately, however, they did not have the courage to "walk the walk", so we did.
Pastor Randy's point about one not necessarily meaning "one and only one" is a good one, but I have found that folks who won't accept that "mia" could possibly mean "a", much less "first" aren't about to go there. :|
But his train of thought does lead one to ask the question about the other option which is often confused with divorce - simply "putting away" a wife, without the cause or certificate referenced by Yeshua. While lawful divorce might NOT disqualify a potential elder, those who would "put away" women, to put it politely, probably should be...
^_^
Member
The whole interesting thing though about Israel and Judah as wives concept is that although Yahweh divorced them, yet he took them back at a later date.
While this seems to have contradicted his own laws about taking a wife back after divorcing her and her marrying another man, from what I see it does not. Every time he sent Israel or Judah into captivity, it was for an entire generation. At the very least, it was only the youngest who were still alive during the return of those who were taken captive. That's my thoughts on that point anyway.
Now, as far as this relating to the men in leadership positions having more than 1 wife....I consider this:
Kings, while forbidden to have a large harem, were not forbidden to have a few. Are not kings leaders?
Many of the patriarchs had at least 2 wives, are they not leaders?
Several of the judges had several wives, at the very least Gideon did. Was he a leader?
I'm trying and failing to recall the prophets marriage status, so I can't offer info on that. I do know Samuel's father had at least 2 wives.
Now, there were restrictions placed on the priests as to whom they could marry. They were only to take a maiden (KJV says virgin), however, in Ezra's day it seems that restriction was loosened to allow the priests to take a widow of another priest. I'm not sure why this restriction was placed on them, I suppose it had something to do with their office of priesthood. It would certainly have taken an understanding woman to support a man who had sacred duties 3 months out of the year that required rigorous cleanliness and much time away from home. This could be a clue on this portion we are discussing, but the writer certainly doesn't link it to anything in Torah that I'm aware of.
Carry on, good studying
While this seems to have contradicted his own laws about taking a wife back after divorcing her and her marrying another man, from what I see it does not. Every time he sent Israel or Judah into captivity, it was for an entire generation. At the very least, it was only the youngest who were still alive during the return of those who were taken captive. That's my thoughts on that point anyway.
Now, as far as this relating to the men in leadership positions having more than 1 wife....I consider this:
Kings, while forbidden to have a large harem, were not forbidden to have a few. Are not kings leaders?
Many of the patriarchs had at least 2 wives, are they not leaders?
Several of the judges had several wives, at the very least Gideon did. Was he a leader?
I'm trying and failing to recall the prophets marriage status, so I can't offer info on that. I do know Samuel's father had at least 2 wives.
Now, there were restrictions placed on the priests as to whom they could marry. They were only to take a maiden (KJV says virgin), however, in Ezra's day it seems that restriction was loosened to allow the priests to take a widow of another priest. I'm not sure why this restriction was placed on them, I suppose it had something to do with their office of priesthood. It would certainly have taken an understanding woman to support a man who had sacred duties 3 months out of the year that required rigorous cleanliness and much time away from home. This could be a clue on this portion we are discussing, but the writer certainly doesn't link it to anything in Torah that I'm aware of.
Carry on, good studying
Welltan,
You know that I am with you on this one, too. But let me make another comment as well; I find it interesting how readily those that say we are no longer under OT law are willing to make law out of NT principles. When Paul was writing to the Ephesians, he wasn't writing a manual or a set of regulations, rather, he was showing them principles and standards that churches were to look for in their leaders.
It is the same reasoning that some use to legislate women wearing hats in church, or forbidding them to preach, or a 100 different other examples that modern legalists use to somehow appear more spiritual. Jesus did not fulfill one Law to give us another.
Is there a higher standard, and a higher calling, that spiritual leaders should be held to? Absolutely! But you and everyone on the board probably can name someone that met all the 'spiritual' qualifications of being an elder, yet was living in obvious sin, splitting hell wide open!
Plus, don't forget that those in a position of power in religious circles can 'game' the system. Here is an example: I knew of a man that was saved later in life, and felt a call to ministry. No problem, except that he had been divorced years ago, and had remarried. The denomination he was a part of (and welltan, I think you know which one I am talking about ) really wanted to credential him. However, because of the divorce and remarriage, he was disqualified....or was he?
Well, what they did was 'anulled' the first marriage, as if had never occurred! In essence, he 'lived with' the first woman for five years, even though he married in a church, had a license issued by the state, and a divorce decree issued by a judge!
Guess what? The guy is pastoring in Texas today!
So if life is like playing craps in Vegas, it is important to know not only who is rolling the dice, but whose dice they are as well.....
Blessings to all,
Doc
You know that I am with you on this one, too. But let me make another comment as well; I find it interesting how readily those that say we are no longer under OT law are willing to make law out of NT principles. When Paul was writing to the Ephesians, he wasn't writing a manual or a set of regulations, rather, he was showing them principles and standards that churches were to look for in their leaders.
It is the same reasoning that some use to legislate women wearing hats in church, or forbidding them to preach, or a 100 different other examples that modern legalists use to somehow appear more spiritual. Jesus did not fulfill one Law to give us another.
Is there a higher standard, and a higher calling, that spiritual leaders should be held to? Absolutely! But you and everyone on the board probably can name someone that met all the 'spiritual' qualifications of being an elder, yet was living in obvious sin, splitting hell wide open!
Plus, don't forget that those in a position of power in religious circles can 'game' the system. Here is an example: I knew of a man that was saved later in life, and felt a call to ministry. No problem, except that he had been divorced years ago, and had remarried. The denomination he was a part of (and welltan, I think you know which one I am talking about
) really wanted to credential him. However, because of the divorce and remarriage, he was disqualified....or was he?Well, what they did was 'anulled' the first marriage, as if had never occurred! In essence, he 'lived with' the first woman for five years, even though he married in a church, had a license issued by the state, and a divorce decree issued by a judge!
Guess what? The guy is pastoring in Texas today!
So if life is like playing craps in Vegas, it is important to know not only who is rolling the dice, but whose dice they are as well.....
Blessings to all,
Doc
Hello,
I think I have finally come to my conviction on this matter. I believe that "mia" should be translated as an indefinite article - "a". It seems to fit better with the entire tenor of Scripture better. Translating it "first" implies that it would be less moral to have been divorced, yet, the Law, Jesus and Paul, allow for divorce. If Jesus allows for divorce, it must be morally sound in certain cases! If it is morally sound for Jesus, why would Paul place a higher standard on men than Jesus would? "One" would certainly contradict the entire Old Testament moral code on marriage. To me, the indefinite article "a" places the emphasis on leadership of a home more than on the morality of the one married. The weakness of my argument is then, why didn't Paul just use the Greek word "gameo" (married) and have communicated the thought more clearly? I am not certain? Lets discuss this some more...
I think I have finally come to my conviction on this matter. I believe that "mia" should be translated as an indefinite article - "a". It seems to fit better with the entire tenor of Scripture better. Translating it "first" implies that it would be less moral to have been divorced, yet, the Law, Jesus and Paul, allow for divorce. If Jesus allows for divorce, it must be morally sound in certain cases! If it is morally sound for Jesus, why would Paul place a higher standard on men than Jesus would? "One" would certainly contradict the entire Old Testament moral code on marriage. To me, the indefinite article "a" places the emphasis on leadership of a home more than on the morality of the one married. The weakness of my argument is then, why didn't Paul just use the Greek word "gameo" (married) and have communicated the thought more clearly? I am not certain? Lets discuss this some more...
A
Anonymous
Guest
DaPastor said:
I don't believe that Paul was suggesting a morality issue in these three "mia" wife passages (1 Timothy 3:1-5, 1 Timothy 3:12, and Titus 1:6) so much as a leadership issue. Let's take a quick look at these passages:
1 Timothy 3:1-5: "Trustworthy is the word: If a man longs for the position of an overseer, he desires a good work. An overseer, then, should be blameless, the husband of MIA [3391] wife, sober, sensible, orderly, kind to strangers, able to teach, not given to wine, no brawler, but gentle, not quarrelsome, no lover of money, one who rules his own house well, having his children in subjection with all reverence, for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he look after the assembly of Elohim?"
1 Timothy 3:12: "Let attendants be the husbands of MIA [3391] wife, ruling children and their own houses well."
Titus 1:6: "If anyone is unreprovable, the husband of MIA [3391] wife, having believing children not accused of loose behaviour, or unruly."
By comparing other places where "mia" is translated in Scripture, we know this word can correctly be translated as "a", "first" or "one". But regardless whatever "mia" might mean in these passages, it seems clear that Paul wasn't trying to communicate one form of marriage over another (monogyny over polygyny), but rather handling authority well. These passages speak of authority, of ruling one's house well, of having believing children who revere their father... demonstrating his ability to properly handle Godly authority. The exact number of wives or children are not really the issue he's concerned with.
I think the key to understanding the meaning of "mia" in these passages is to consider the source. Paul wrote all three of these passages and he himself was unmarried, having no house or children to rule. So if we take these verses as an absolute prohibition of specific forms of leadership for anyone who has not previously established themselves in handling household authority, then Paul's own words would disqualify both himself, as well as Jesus, from being an overseer, attendant or elder. Beyond that, let's look at all three possibilities and see where the evidence leads:
(1) "husband a wife": This option says the man should be married, with no mention as to the number or sequence of wives. The only issue is that he be married.
(2) "husband first wife": This option says the man should be married, specifically to his first wife (the wife of his youth, perhaps?), but again there is no mention of the number of wives. If anything, "first" implies more than one wife may exist.
(3) "husband one wife": This option says the man should be married, and if we read "one" as "ONLY one", we could make an argument for a singular wife, without concern to which one. Of course, no reading of "mia" can be correctly interpreted as "only one", even though that's what many believers read into it anyway.
What is important to notice in all three cases is that the man is assumed to be MARRIED. Any way we slice it, any way we choose to interpret "mia", the clear reading is that the man should be married. None of the options allow for the possibility of an unmarried man to take on the roles of an overseer, attendant or elder. In fact, the same argument that says the man must be married also says the man must have children.
An overseer, an attendant or an elder must be married and have children. That seems to be the clear understanding of all three of these passages, regardless of which specific English word we use to translate "mia". Even if we removed the "mia" phrase altogether, the clear understanding of the passages remains. Authority. Leadership. This is the issue being addressed as criteria.
Now Paul, being a Pharisee and an expert in the Law, knew that a man was entitled to husband multiple wives, just as he was entitled to father multiple children. We already know that there wasn't some radical redefinition of marriage presented in the New Testament. But even in a monogynous marriage relationship, the form of the man's authority in the home is assumed to be PLURAL in all three passages, since regardless how many wives he may have, he must have children. Having a ruling authority over even one wife and one child demonstrate that the authority being described is plural, not singular. One to many. Paul was clear that the man being considered should be married and have his entire house in order. I believe we can gain this understanding from these passages without regard to whether we choose "a", "first" or "one".
. . . am I long winded or what?? . . .
David
David,
Rereading your post I am reminded of a time when I was trying out for the pastoral position in a small church in the Midwest. I was in my 20s, married and with one child.
The sermon went well, we had a great rapport at the potluck after church, and the people seemed to like us.
My wife and I had an interview with the board, and it seemed to go well, until one of the members said that I did not qualify for leadership, because I did not fulfill the requirements of 1 Tim 3:4.
The reason?
I only had one child, and 1 Tim 3:4 specifically says children
Being young in ministry, I didn't know how to answer them then. Little did they know that we already had another child that had passed away. So I guess the traumactic death of my son disqualified me, in spite of meeting all the other requirements.
Thank God I didn't end up at that church.....
When I look at this list of qualifications, it is clear that Paul never meant to make doctrine or church law out of his recommendations for leadership. But boy, we love to, don't we? I think he is saying to Timothy, "Here's some things that you need to look for in a good leader," and lists some items.
Doc
Rereading your post I am reminded of a time when I was trying out for the pastoral position in a small church in the Midwest. I was in my 20s, married and with one child.
The sermon went well, we had a great rapport at the potluck after church, and the people seemed to like us.
My wife and I had an interview with the board, and it seemed to go well, until one of the members said that I did not qualify for leadership, because I did not fulfill the requirements of 1 Tim 3:4.
The reason?
I only had one child, and 1 Tim 3:4 specifically says children
Being young in ministry, I didn't know how to answer them then. Little did they know that we already had another child that had passed away. So I guess the traumactic death of my son disqualified me, in spite of meeting all the other requirements.
Thank God I didn't end up at that church.....
When I look at this list of qualifications, it is clear that Paul never meant to make doctrine or church law out of his recommendations for leadership. But boy, we love to, don't we? I think he is saying to Timothy, "Here's some things that you need to look for in a good leader," and lists some items.
Doc
A
Anonymous
Guest
docburkhart said:
Exactly. If we take this list as an absolute prohibition of leadership for anyone not meeting all of the listed criteria, then Paul would have effectively disqualified both himself and Jesus from these positions (no wives, no children). Clearly it was not a list of leadership requirements (must haves) but rather recommendations (should haves). The verses in question certainly indicate that the man should have his family under authority because it demonstrates good leadership capabilities. Someone could nail every item on the checklist and still be a lousy choice for leadership. Likewise, another man may not have the aptitude for teaching but would still be great in leadership. Discernment is still required, because not all that glitters is gold.
1 Tim 3:2a: "An overseer, then, should be blameless, the husband of "mia" wife, sober, sensible, orderly..."
David
^_^
Member
just a quick comment on Paul's marital status.
considering that to reach the status of rabbi in Jewish opinion, one had to be married. It was not optional, in fact, one student was turned away by the head rabbi and told to come back after he was married and had experienced life.
And it was a known requirement that the members of the Sanhedrein were to be married, which Paul seems to have been part of, what with him consenting to the death of Stephen.
My personal suspicion that the messenger of satan spoken of in 2Co 12:7 was actually an ex-wife who was not pleased to dwell with Paul....
Might well have been why Paul knew how to handle the seperation issues and why a believer shouldn't be held in bondage to an unbeliever who wished to depart. These were difficult times, decisions of faith often resulted in choosing between life and death. If it wasn't the priests kicking you out of the temple, it was the Pharisees harassing you on doctrinal issues, if not that, then the Romans were just picking on you because they could.... hard times indeed.
considering that to reach the status of rabbi in Jewish opinion, one had to be married. It was not optional, in fact, one student was turned away by the head rabbi and told to come back after he was married and had experienced life.
And it was a known requirement that the members of the Sanhedrein were to be married, which Paul seems to have been part of, what with him consenting to the death of Stephen.
My personal suspicion that the messenger of satan spoken of in 2Co 12:7 was actually an ex-wife who was not pleased to dwell with Paul....
Might well have been why Paul knew how to handle the seperation issues and why a believer shouldn't be held in bondage to an unbeliever who wished to depart. These were difficult times, decisions of faith often resulted in choosing between life and death. If it wasn't the priests kicking you out of the temple, it was the Pharisees harassing you on doctrinal issues, if not that, then the Romans were just picking on you because they could.... hard times indeed.
Face,
Okay, I will open yet another can of worms on this, because it fits into the chain of thought here.
You say that Paul had to be married, because he was a rabbi.
Was Jesus a rabbi? If so, was he married.....?
At least then Jesus would qualify for the 1 Tim qualifications.....
Doc
Okay, I will open yet another can of worms on this, because it fits into the chain of thought here.
You say that Paul had to be married, because he was a rabbi.
Was Jesus a rabbi? If so, was he married.....?
At least then Jesus would qualify for the 1 Tim qualifications.....
Doc
^_^
Member
Like Paul, in the case of Yahushua, we aren't specifically told whether he was or not.
However, there is the wedding feast, and it seems his mother was somehow responsible for the wine....
Another piece that could fit the puzzle was that of Mary and Martha. Why would Martha come to Yahushua asking him to make Mary work? That's not something you ask of a guest, especially in that culture, but not even in our culture today.
In my opinion, it's quite possible Yahushua had 2 wives..... but I can't actually say it's so because we aren't specifically told.
Nobody can say with 100% certainty one way or another, because the record doesn't specifically say.
Are we havin' fun yet?
However, there is the wedding feast, and it seems his mother was somehow responsible for the wine....
Another piece that could fit the puzzle was that of Mary and Martha. Why would Martha come to Yahushua asking him to make Mary work? That's not something you ask of a guest, especially in that culture, but not even in our culture today.
In my opinion, it's quite possible Yahushua had 2 wives..... but I can't actually say it's so because we aren't specifically told.
Nobody can say with 100% certainty one way or another, because the record doesn't specifically say.
Are we havin' fun yet?