|
Question #31: The timothy reference of the elder to be the husband of 'one' wife ... one means either the numeric 1, or the first in a series ... So, which does this intend? Should the elder be appointed when he is 'on' the 'first of many wives', or the husband of 1 wife? I interpret the singular. And if rightly so, and in supporting texts, we are to aspire to 'add to our faith', 'work out our salvation', 'desire the greater gifts', that Paul wished 'we were/could be like him' (regarding marriage).
Well, I see several problems with this interpretation. If Paul had wanted to say the husband of one, and ONLY one wife, he certainly could have said so. The phrasing he used only states that he must be husbanding a wife, but not necessarily ONLY ONE wife. That concept cannot be substantiated from the Greek text. But more importantly, there's something that I've noticed that many Believers tend not to realize regarding these three "mia" wife verses. All three passages that require the Bishops, Deacons or Elders to be the husband of "mia" wife, ALSO require that the Bishops, Deacons or Elders have children! Reading all three passages in context can, I believe, shed a lot of light on what Paul was really trying to communicate. 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." Regardless what we believe "mia" might mean in these passages, it is clear that having children was as much a prerequisite as being the husband of "mia" wife. It seems obvious that the entire context in each of these passages is in the sense of demonstrating experience in how to rule or govern. To be a Bishop, Deacon or Elder, one must have a wife (though not specifically ONE) and children (though not specifically SEVERAL). Once we see Paul's requirements of properly managing those things under his authority, does it really make sense that he is suddenly redefining marriage for those in leadership, without even a word of explanation? Look at how Paul used this exact same "mia" word just two chapters later in Titus. Titus 3:10: "Reject a divisive man after the FIRST (mia) and SECOND (deuteros) warning" Titus 1:6: "If anyone is unreprovable, the husband of ONE (mia) wife, having believing children not accused of loose behaviour, or unruly." These quotes are both from the same book of Titus. Both passages were written by Paul, written at the same time, and use the exact same Greek word. "Mia" in Titus 1:6 is commonly translated as "one", while "mia" in Titus 3:10 is commonly translated as "first". Which reading makes more sense of the passage, once we recognize the context of properly managing authority over one's household? Titus 1:6: "If anyone is unreprovable, the husband of ONE wife, having believing children not accused of loose behaviour, or unruly." Titus 1:6: "If anyone is unreprovable, the husband of FIRST wife, having believing children not accused of loose behaviour, or unruly." I believe the best reading of these passages is that a Bishop, Deacon or Elder should still be married to their FIRST wife, demonstrating that they know how to properly rule their own homes. This isn't popular in today's Church because of the high divorce and remarriage rate of those in leadership, but it fits the underlying context of these passages and aligns perfectly with all the other Scriptures on marriage. However, if you prefer to interpret Paul's usage of "mia" to suggest a singular wife, then that would be conceding the point that all other men aside from Bishops, Deacons and Elders were permitted to marry more than one wife (or permitted not to marry any wife at all). Bishops, Deacons and Elders were REQUIRED to be married to their "mia" wife and have children. This requirement was not applied to anyone else in the Body. To make a prohibition for one group of people is pointless unless others were free to do so. Any way we slice it, there's nothing here to suggest that God changed His mind regarding the definition of marriage. |
 Back |
 Home |
 Next |
"...In essentials we maintain unity, in opinions liberty, and in all things love..."
webmaster@righteouswarriors.com