• 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.

If the one wife verses really applied to everyone.....

D

DiscussingTheTopic

Member
Male
1 timothy 3:2 and 3:12 and titus 1:6 make references to certain Church job/leadership positions and one wife

Someone has been trying to tell me that these verses mean all people should not have more than one wife

I have been telling that person it means some people at best, that is it only applies to people in the listed Church positions that go with those verses (deacons, elders, bishops or whatever it is translated to) and that it does not apply to other people.

I asked something like what if two would be okay because it is at least one?

That person told me something like, "no one can only mean one."

I responded something like if one only means one and it applies to all men then it is a sin for anyone even Jesus or Paul to be unmarried at any moment in time because 0 wives is a different number of wives than one. But if you tell me it does not apply to all people so that some can be single then you can not say that other people (than deacons, etc) could not have another number of wives like two based on those verses. And if one does not mean one than you can not restrict the number of wives with these verses.

So in summary no matter what they can not use these verses to make a reasonable argument against polygyny, if it applies to everyone all unmarried people are sinners and if it does not apply to everyone they have no argument against polygyny for other people.

They tried to claim that the word "but" could possibly mean no more than one. The word "but" appears in NIV but the word "but" does not appear in King James which is a word for word translation.

However they did say something like they will have to do more research on the topic.
 
Look at the verse in this way for possible ways it should or could have been translated to make their points:

1. Husband never divorced view; it should then read: "the husband who has not been divorced."

2. Husband to just one wife view; it should then read: "the husband of only one wife."

3. Husband who is faithful view; it should then read: "the husband who is faithful."

4. Husband who is not remarried view; it should then read: "the husband that married only once."

5. Husband whose wife is the church view; it should read then: "the husband whose wife is the church." Or possibly, "the husband married to the church."

Of the ones above I think a literal and plain reading yields good evidence for another view. Simply that one where it reads a elder is to be a husband to a wife. Thus, it seems probable to me that the statement: "husband of a wife" fits well as there is no indefinite article in the Greek and "a" is often from the word "one-mia in the Greek."

But also the husband of first wife could fit and would also fit with a literal view of Scripture. You are correct that in either case, whatever this verse is saying, it is not a universal text that applies to all people.

But also keep in mind as well. There is STRONG eveidence that Apostle Paul himself was divorced. Some good scholars have proposed and taught that members of the jewish leadership he was a part of, of those all of the men had to be married and thus that means at some point either his wife died or she left him when he converted to Christ.

We also have evidence from some early church fathers that say Paul was a married man. But that same quote also says that Timothy was not married. And thus, there seems to be a tension in how Timothy could be there at Ephesus teaching and leading in a primary role if he were single. Would Paul tell him to appoint only married men if Timothy, the one doing the appointing, were functioning as a single man himself? That poses a tension that would call for some further clarification.

Lastly, to be fair, there is also a case to be made that it did indeed mean an elder should not have multiple wives. In that case it would be because of the time factor, not because it was immoral. In other words, for each additional wife one takes the less time the person would have to spend serving the church. Thus, according to that view, no wife or only one wife would allow a man to do more service to the church. But even if this view is taken it would then still be a rule for elders not the general populace.
 
I agree that it seems likely that Paul was married.

"or she left him when he converted to Christ."

It also seems likely that when Paul had his conversion she refused to also convert thereby being an unbeliever:

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

I think a very strong argument can be made for the "one wife" verses to be translated "first wife" from the fact that Paul uses "heis" in two verses:

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one (heis) husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

1 Timothy 5:9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one (heis) husband,

"heis" clearly denotes the numerical value of one (1). Yet in the three verses you mention Paul uses the word "mia" which can mean one or first. Clearly Paul is making a distinction here. If Paul had intended for Bishops, Elders, or Deacons to indeed be the husband of only one wife he would have used the word "heis" not the word "mia". Paul was highly educated and was not arbitrary in the words he selected to use, neither would he be ambiguous about something this important. From a logical perspective this is a very difficult argument to ignore.

G1520 εἷς heis hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527, G3367, G3391, G3762.

G3391 μία mia mee'-ah
Irregular feminine of G1520; one or first: - a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.
 
I tend to ascribe to "a wife" or "first wife". It makes little sense to me that God since the beginning of time has allowed his people and their leaders take multiple wives, and then here without explanation is a restriction. Not that God has to explain everything to me... ;)

However, in debate, this is a hard position to take. Ultimately you are accused of twisting scripture. So I end up using their own interpretation, to show that laymen in the church clearly had multiple wives without a word spoken against them. If they accept that, then we can move on to other possibilities. (Has anyone else noticed that MOPs like to add the word "if" to this? "If he is married, then only to one")

Be careful with the Mia VS. Heis defense. According to Don Milton, they are different gender usages of the same word. I do not entirely understand it, but you may get left with egg on your face if your speaking with a Hebrew scholar.


Scarecrow said:

"heis" clearly denotes the numerical value of one (1). Yet in the three verses you mention Paul uses the word "mia" which can mean one or first. Clearly Paul is making a distinction here. If Paul had intended for Bishops, Elders, or Deacons to indeed be the husband of only one wife he would have used the word "heis" not the word "mia". Paul was highly educated and was not arbitrary in the words he selected to use, neither would he be ambiguous about something this important. From a logical perspective this is a very difficult argument to ignore.

G1520 εἷς heis hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527, G3367, G3391, G3762.

G3391 μία mia mee'-ah
Irregular feminine of G1520; one or first: - a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.
Click to expand...
 
"Mia" can be translated as "a" or "one" or "first". Since I lean towards "first" I list examples below where the base word of "mia" is used as "first". However there is an argument that there were two words for "first" ('proton' and "protos') that Paul would have used if he wanted to say "first", but did not. However "proton" is usually a neuter adverb and would have been difficult to use when describing the feminine position of a wife and modifying no verb action. "Protos" brings the meaning of "best" with it and no sane man today or in the early church would risk saying a first wife is the "best" wife. Therefore if Paul wanted to say "first" he would have used "mia" or a "mia" form. I also feel that a translation of "first" would qualify from home to church without consideration of a wife that existed before anyone became a Christian. Responsibility for pre-Christian activities should lay at the cross and not dredged into who we are in the church.

Matthew 28:1
In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. (Mark 16:2 Luke 24:1 John 20:1John 20:19 Acts 20:7 1 Corinthians 16:2)

Titus 3:10
A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;

The consideration is a qualification. It is obvious from the individuals in Scripture that unmarried individuals and married individuals qualify to be used by God. Why exclude the unmarried just for these qualification verses when there is no exclusion elsewhere. There is no demand that we all be married rabbi's. Trying to exclude divorced people is also not consistent with the redemption work of Christ. How inconsistent it would be for a sinner to pray and ask Christ for salvation and add as a footnote at the end of the prayer that they realize that they can not be as useful or made quite whole because they happened to be divorced or never married. If divorce is a sin salvation can not fix then that might be an argument. But since salvation can fix the sin of divorce (also it only takes one to sin for divorce, what of the sinless one?) then divorce is not a consideration in the church position qualification verses. This removes the qualification verses from being at odds with Christians that may be divorced through no fault of their own. If it is translated as "one" there is no reason to label plural as sinful because that would also not be consistent with other scripture. It is talking about a qualification not a sin issue. A point might be made that a man in monogamy has more time to devote to the church. If translated as "one" it actually supports the fact that others in the church might have been plural. (Not everyone that does not get a job is a sinner. And a man with more than one, not being a deacon, is no sin labeling of early church plural homes. It is not sinful to not know how to speak Spanish but it might be a disqualification from leading a Spanish church.)

If translated as "a" a deacon should have a wife. This in no way indicates plural homes are sinful.
If translated as "first" the potential deacon should still have his first wife. This still in no way indicates plural homes are sinful.
If translated as "one" a deacon should have just one wife. This also does not indicate plural homes are sinful, but rather to not be expected to manage a big home and the church at the same time.

My opinion is that such qualification verses may actually support the fact that plural was practiced at the time and in the early church.

However it is translated it does not oppose plural.
 
Some people say it means one woman man which is supposedly a metaphor for sexual purity such as not looking with lust at people other than his wife. So if a single unmarried person can be a one woman man, can a man with two wives also be a one woman man?

How would someone answer the claim that the one woman is a metaphor for being sexually pure and not a number of wives? (They do not like it being exactly one wife (and no numbers other than one) because I already revealed to them that if they apply the one wife law to everyone, it would be a sin to be unmarried (married to zero wives), not just a sin to be a polygamist.)
 
welltan said:
Although "mia" can be translated as "a" or "one" I feel that it should be "first" and I list other examples below where "mia" is used as "first". :

Matthew 28:1
In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Mark 16:2
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Luke 24:1
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

John 20:1
John 20:19
Acts 20:7
1 Corinthians 16:2

Titus 3:10
A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting those verses. I had a suspicion for a long time that it meant first wife as in not divorced, based on the strong concordance number description of mia. But this gives me more strong reason to believe that that could be true since it is used as first elsewhere in translations, however that still does not mean, that it is first in this case without a doubt.

To me Mia meaning first, makes the most sense, and has made the most sense for a long time, but I do not yet know Greek well enough to have great confidence that, that is the meaning. (As of September 3, 2010)
 
It is an overwhelming combination of things that have convinced me that an Elder, Deacon, or Bishop should be the husband of his first wife. When I look to the scriptures for the truth I am cognizant that God is not double minded; either something is true or it is false, either it is sinful or it is not. Therefore as I examine a topic I look for which opinion has the strongest argument and conclude that must be the correct understanding, and the other arguments are therefore likely to be incorrect or errant.

1) As I previously stated, Paul makes the distinction by using mia and heis when he talks of “first” wife and “one” husband. There is no gender implication attributed to either word or the scriptures would be redundant. If mia means female then it would read “one female wife”, and heis would read “one male husband”. It is unnecessary and incorrect to assign a gender to either of the words as a wife is assumed to be a female and a husband male; we do not find a male wife or female husband anywhere in the scriptures, therefore this is a safe assumption. Heis is found 235 times in the New Testament and it simply means “one” as in the numerical equivalent. Add the word “male” into these verses (or any verse where heis is used) and see if even one of them would make more sense with a gender association:

Matthew 6:27 And which of you by being anxious can add one(male) hour to his span of life?

Luke 7:41 "A certain moneylender had two debtors. One (male) owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.

Luke 12:52 For from now on in one (male) house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three.

Romans 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one (male);

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one (male) spirit with him.

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one (male) husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

1 Timothy 5:9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one (male) husband,

"heis" clearly denotes the numerical value of one (1). Yet in the three verses you mention Paul uses the word "mia" which can mean one or first. Clearly Paul is making a distinction here. If Paul had intended for Bishops, Elders, or Deacons to indeed be the husband of only one wife he would have used the word "heis" not the word "mia". Paul was highly educated and was not arbitrary in the words he selected to use, neither would he be ambiguous about something this important.

2) If indeed Elders, Bishops, and Deacons are commanded to be the husband of one wife, and likewise we are commanded to emulate them, then a man without a wife, or a man with more than one wife are in sin against this commend. I have been unable to locate one verse in the scriptures that state that it is sinful for a man to remain unmarried, or that it is sinful for a man to have more than one wife. This argument for the one wife translation is obviously absurd.

3) Clearly the intention of Paul was to instruct us to find men of good character to be the Elders, Bishops, and Deacons of the church. It is logical for us to emulate men of good character which then puts all of this into its proper perspective. As Jesus submitted to the Father, the Elders, Deacons, and Bishops are to submit to the authority of Christ, and we are to submit to the authority of the Elders, Deacons, and Bishops as the leaders of the church, it is the hierarchy God established.

4) To be men of character the Elders, Bishops, and Deacons would need to observe and obey the scriptures which include:

Exodus 21:10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

As leaders of the church they are not to diminish the provision for their first wife if they have taken an additional wife or additional wives, and they are not to be divorced and remarried thereby being adulterers.

5) There is no other mention anywhere in the scriptures that the leaders of the church are to be monogamous. It is extremely unlikely that God, the prophets, and Jesus as well as all the other writers of scripture would somehow be ignorant of this stipulation for the leaders of the church much less leave it out of their writings. For Paul to issue a new commandment of this nature, at this time, without further explanation or detail is extremely improbable.

Without the emotional and irrational conclusions made by individuals that demand that Elders, Deacons, and Bishops be the husband of one wife, there is no theological means for them to overcome the strength in the arguments just presented. What you will find is that most people attempting to defend the one wife passages will demonstrate their emotions in arguing their opinion thereby proving all the more that their arguments are simply based on emotion and opinion rather than fact or scriptures. They may pound their fists and snarl, but they cannot overcome the truth in God’s word.
 
No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[a]
A. 1 Timothy 5:9 Or has had but one husband
1 Timothy 5:9 NIV
[NOTICE how the structure reminds me of the deacon one woman debate, only in this case one husband]
 
Jay3 had this to say under another topic:

"Please be careful with "heis", "mia" and "hen". These are all the same word. There is no difference in meaning only in "gender" - a concept utterly foreign to native speakers of English.

"heis" is masculine; "mia" is feminine and "hen" is neutrum. In any Greek dictionary one will find this word under the masculine, singular, nominative form "heis".

The structure of the "husband of 'one' wife" phrases is "μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ" = "a woman's man" or "man of a woman". (There was not word for "husband" of "wife".) [Please note: "μιᾶς" is the genitive singular form of the feminine.]

The structure of the "wife of 'one' husband" phrase is the same: "ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή" = "a man's woman" or "woman of a man". [Please note: "ἑνὸς" is the genitive singular form of the masculine.]

I respectfully submit that these phrases are nothing more than the Koine Greek way of saying that they should be (or have been) married.

German is similar in this respect. Although there are words for "husband" (Ehemann) or "wife" (Ehefrau) the common expression is "mein Mann" or "meine Frau"."

Which helped me to understand much better...I could not understand the masculine and feminine situation before I saw this...hope it helps others as it helped me...
 
Scarecrow said:


Matthew 6:27 And which of you by being anxious can add one(male) hour to his span of life?

Luke 7:41 "A certain moneylender had two debtors. One (male) owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.

Luke 12:52 For from now on in one (male) house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three.

Romans 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one (male);

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one (male) spirit with him.

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one (male) husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

1 Timothy 5:9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one (male) husband,
Click to expand...

This was a good exercise many of the verses are quite amusing read with (male) inserted this way.
I personally have come to the conclusion that the qualification do not in anyway stand in disagreement with the rest of the Bible which simply and clearly states that God hates divorce. It is of my opinion that translating it as "first" avoids the contradictions that other translations often cause.
 
"My opinion is that such qualification verses may actually support the fact that plural marriage was practiced at the time and in the early church."

To me there is no doubt that it was practiced as there is considerable extra-biblical evidence. For example:

"for it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time"
Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews Book 17 Chapter 1 (published 94 A.D.)

Notice the phrase "it is the ancient practice among us" is present tense and indicates that it was commonly practiced throughout history. In other words it was commonly practiced during the time when Jesus walked the face of the Earth and in the areas he walked. Yet Jesus does not once address the practice as sinful.

(you may also want to edit "If translated as "a" a deacon should have a wife. This is in no way indicates plural homes are sinful." scratch "is")
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
I responded something like if one only means one and it applies to all men then it is a sin for anyone even Jesus or Paul to be unmarried at any moment in time because 0 wives is a different number of wives than one. But if you tell me it does not apply to all people so that some can be single then you can not say that other people (than deacons, etc) could not have another number of wives like two based on those verses. And if one does not mean one than you can not restrict the number of wives with these verses.
Click to expand...

I like your logic! Nice job.
 
welltan said:
"is" is no lnger "is". Thanks
Click to expand...
and i thought that the question was "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is"
and now it no longer exists? what is this world coming to? ;) :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top