"Husband of One Wife"

[Off-Grid Artist]

Here is a topic you've all seen before, but I have a different discussion to bring forth from it.

Titus 1 has very similar instructions to a different assembly as 1 Timothy 3. These are intended as expectations for potential new church leaders.

We understand that these are not prescriptive to all men, just the leaders.

We do think it has to do with "at least one" because he must demonstrate leadership experience. And it almost certainly indicates he still has his first wife.

Let me first get the translation on this out of the way because people always tell me this one. This may be the first time someone reads this. This is the first time I did my own homework on it.

Here is the same Greek word "one" being used as "first":

------

28 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.

-------

first day / one wife

It's another case of the translators putting replacement theology ahead of the original meaning.

εις II

εις | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (New Testament Greek)

A close look at the Greek word: εις | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (New Testament Greek)

www.abarim-publications.com

This same word is also in the LXX (Septuagint) for Genesis 1:

---------

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

----------

"First" again

--------------------------------------------

Okay, that's the vocabulary lesson for anyone who doesn't know it.

Here's my theoretical situation for your consideration.

As my life grows more pure and strong in the spirit, I begin to wonder if I should be more of a teacher in my community. Should becoming a spiritual leader be a goal of mine?

Do I pass the basic qualifications?

Learning that a godly man may have a large family with many wives is great. This lets me know that if that is a path I want to try and go down, then it is available to me.

However, no matter which definition of "first wife" is, I do not seem to qualify. I did not cherish the wife of my youth. I have been legally married before, and if we are defining sex as marriage then good luck with that. I have lived very spiritually poorly.

It may be my intention to look for technicalities and skirt the instructions given to us. That may be my motive. I'm putting this before others because at the moment my discernment isn't clear on this topic.

When I came back to God and began the process of turning my life to His direction, and turning my character defects and sins over to Him to take away from me - because I cannot do this myself - does that signify a washing away of the old relationship baggage? I feel like it could, depending on the circumstances.

If one is married to an unbeliever who wants to leave, then we are to let them go and the union is not binding. They do not have the sincerity of the marriage, they do not maintain integrity in their agreements with others.

The intention to honor agreements and display integrity universally is core to my spiritual beliefs.

How then in this framework can I consider any of the relationships from before that time as binding in terms of a "first wife?" It feels like those were all various forms of adultery and fornication. Few promises were made. The ones who received promises, which may only be one, held different religious and spiritual views from me entirely.

The object of my first sex is a practicing witch today. The first woman I felt love and a hint of commitment for is a pagan lesbian. My first legal wife had no integrity and was an actor who played different roles to everyone publicly depending upon the circumstances. Nobody else from before qualifies as "first wife" to any level near those.

Who is the "wife of my youth?" I don't even know.

Is my current wife, my second legal wife, really my first wife spiritually? It feels that way. We have a shared honesty and equal yoke situation which is unique.

But, this isn't up to me to decide. I don't get to be the judge of these matters. I cannot go back, and I cannot judge myself.

Realizing that I have stated circumstances of other people from my past I can state moreover that their statuses do not matter. That is one thing I know entirely. It is about my heart and my actions in life.

These are questions about my own spiritual fitness, not theirs.

So, what do you all think about what makes a "first wife," what makes the "wife of your youth." How does one honor this, in retrospect?

Does having ever lived a life of lower natures automatically disqualify a man from being a proper spiritual leader?

If that is the case, I would not be upset. It would make a lot of sense that only a man who got that part of life correct from the start has the value to be a resource for his community. That seems to be what Paul is saying and the more I talk about it the more logical it feels.

--------------------------------------------

Titus 1:

5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

--;

1 Timothy 3

1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

 

[Shiloh.F]

Thank you for thoughtfully sharing a personal matter, and it sounds to me like you have the right heart about it. I will do my best to give an equally thoughtful response.
The qualifications listed in Titus and Timothy are for elders or “bishops”, which are specific roles in a local church. They are important positions, but certainly not the only ones or even the only leadership roles. You can still have other gifts such as teaching, prophecy, apostle, and exercise them in the church, without being an elder or meeting all requirements for that specific role.
Example, we know from scripture Peter was an apostle to the Jews and an elder in the church in Jerusalem. We also know he was married, and can safely assume to his first wife. Paul was also an apostle, though primarily to the gentiles. It also seems that he was unmarried, he also never claimed to be an elder. I don’t think that anyone can argue that Paul wasn’t a spiritual leader.
I’m still open to discussion on if the proper translation is first/a/one in those verses, but lean strongly towards it being a requirement to have a wife to demonstrate leadership, and it be your first one as a witness towards outsiders. This position currently disqualifies me from being an elder, barring a miraculous restoration. However I’m confident God is not done with me yet.

 

[Mark C]

I’m still open to discussion on if the proper translation is first/a/one in those verses, but lean strongly towards it being a requirement to have a wife to demonstrate leadership, and it be your first one as a witness towards outsiders.

Agreed, although I have concluded that 'mia' should be rendered as "a", or "first" - including for the reason of the 'razor' - that Paul did NOT change any of the instruction that had already been given by his Master.

When I was asked, years ago, to help found a 'messianic congregation' in Longmont (Colorado) I made sure that the other two men/families who had asked knew about my "two conditions." First, that we NOT be a 501c(3). And, second, that they both understood the 'other woman' that they already knew was my wife. Neither expressed much surpise ("yeah, kinda thought that...") but both pointed to Timothy/Titus. At the time I didn't really care, didn't want to argue. Polygyny itself was a bigger issue than a mistranslation which would continue to be an issue year after year...

People need to understand the 'bigger picture' first - before they'll even see the logic of the things they never questioned before.

 

[frederick]

Here is a topic you've all seen before, but I have a different discussion to bring forth from it.

Titus 1 has very similar instructions to a different assembly as 1 Timothy 3. These are intended as expectations for potential new church leaders.

We understand that these are not prescriptive to all men, just the leaders.

We do think it has to do with "at least one" because he must demonstrate leadership experience. And it almost certainly indicates he still has his first wife.

Let me first get the translation on this out of the way because people always tell me this one. This may be the first time someone reads this. This is the first time I did my own homework on it.

Here is the same Greek word "one" being used as "first":

------

28 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.

-------

first day / one wife

It's another case of the translators putting replacement theology ahead of the original meaning.

εις II

εις | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (New Testament Greek)

A close look at the Greek word: εις | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (New Testament Greek)

www.abarim-publications.com

This same word is also in the LXX (Septuagint) for Genesis 1:

---------

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

----------

"First" again

--------------------------------------------

Okay, that's the vocabulary lesson for anyone who doesn't know it.

Here's my theoretical situation for your consideration.

As my life grows more pure and strong in the spirit, I begin to wonder if I should be more of a teacher in my community. Should becoming a spiritual leader be a goal of mine?

Do I pass the basic qualifications?

Learning that a godly man may have a large family with many wives is great. This lets me know that if that is a path I want to try and go down, then it is available to me.

However, no matter which definition of "first wife" is, I do not seem to qualify. I did not cherish the wife of my youth. I have been legally married before, and if we are defining sex as marriage then good luck with that. I have lived very spiritually poorly.

It may be my intention to look for technicalities and skirt the instructions given to us. That may be my motive. I'm putting this before others because at the moment my discernment isn't clear on this topic.

When I came back to God and began the process of turning my life to His direction, and turning my character defects and sins over to Him to take away from me - because I cannot do this myself - does that signify a washing away of the old relationship baggage? I feel like it could, depending on the circumstances.

If one is married to an unbeliever who wants to leave, then we are to let them go and the union is not binding. They do not have the sincerity of the marriage, they do not maintain integrity in their agreements with others.

The intention to honor agreements and display integrity universally is core to my spiritual beliefs.

How then in this framework can I consider any of the relationships from before that time as binding in terms of a "first wife?" It feels like those were all various forms of adultery and fornication. Few promises were made. The ones who received promises, which may only be one, held different religious and spiritual views from me entirely.

The object of my first sex is a practicing witch today. The first woman I felt love and a hint of commitment for is a pagan lesbian. My first legal wife had no integrity and was an actor who played different roles to everyone publicly depending upon the circumstances. Nobody else from before qualifies as "first wife" to any level near those.

Who is the "wife of my youth?" I don't even know.

Is my current wife, my second legal wife, really my first wife spiritually? It feels that way. We have a shared honesty and equal yoke situation which is unique.

But, this isn't up to me to decide. I don't get to be the judge of these matters. I cannot go back, and I cannot judge myself.

Realizing that I have stated circumstances of other people from my past I can state moreover that their statuses do not matter. That is one thing I know entirely. It is about my heart and my actions in life.

These are questions about my own spiritual fitness, not theirs.

So, what do you all think about what makes a "first wife," what makes the "wife of your youth." How does one honor this, in retrospect?

Does having ever lived a life of lower natures automatically disqualify a man from being a proper spiritual leader?

If that is the case, I would not be upset. It would make a lot of sense that only a man who got that part of life correct from the start has the value to be a resource for his community. That seems to be what Paul is saying and the more I talk about it the more logical it feels.

--------------------------------------------

Titus 1:

5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

--;

1 Timothy 3

1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

There are primarily three words used in reference to those men who lead in the assemblies.
The most common word is from ποιμήν, the Greek word for shepherd, but (mis)translated pastors in Ephesians 4:11. The leaders in the assemblies are to be shepherds to the saints.
Another word used in reference to these men is from ἐπίσκοπος, the word for overseers and is used in e.g. 1 Timothy 3:2. This speaks to his administrative duty, overseeing the assembly for its direction and protection.
And the other word used is from πρεσβύτερος, the word for elders, and used in passages such as Titus 1:5 and 1 Peter 5:1. This word is used in reference to the spiritual maturity of the man.

These words are all used in regard to these leaders who are to be well grounded, mature men in the faith, who can watch over an assembly and shepherd the saints to godliness.

One quality of character such men are to exhibit concerns their morality. It's not that such men aren't to be divorced or must be married, but rather "a man of one woman" (the literal rendering of the text in 1 Timothy and Titus). I'll go out on a slightly different route and suggest this speaks of such men being of a high moral character. When writing these instructions to Timothy and Titus Paul wasn't changing a well established principle for marriage; i.e. from allowing polygyny to monogamy-only, but reinforcing the need for these men to be morally blameless (1 Tim. 3:2).

Many rulers throughout biblical history were married to more than one wife, and that without censure from God. It is foolhardy to suggest Paul is changing that position to monogamy-only with no explanation or clarification from the Scriptures. Those who go down that path, condemning a brother in Christ, set themselves up as lawgiver, a most dangerous path to tread (see James 4:11-12). Shalom

 

[Mojo]

It is foolhardy to suggest Paul is changing that position to monogamy-only with no explanation or clarification from the Scriptures. Those who go down that path, condemning a brother in Christ, set themselves up as lawgiver, a most dangerous path to tread

Especially when the scripture that he describes as inspired in those epistles only included TNK at the time.

 

[Bridger]

I think the position of understanding the translation of "one-woman man" as an idiom to describe a faithful man, who keeps his covenants and is not promiscuous, is the most pure way of taking the texts. If we look at how the rest of the qualifications are presented, we see other phrases that are more colorful ways to describe certain attributes like not being given to much wine (not an alcoholic or prone to getting drunk), ruling one's house well (being a good husband, father, and so forth as it would apply). All of the qualifications are descriptions of character attributes and behavioral characteristics.

The "husband of one wife" one is the only one that gets so much attention as pertaining to status, but that's probably because it sounds weird to the English world. Most of the modern church ignores it except for in cases of the off thought of a man having more than one wife (because of the weird wording and modern western culture being unfamiliar with polygyny but still having the limited knowledge of there being men who had more than one wife in the bible.) Many bishops or deacons in modern churches are either single, divorced, or even women who obviously can not be a husband of one wife, but somehow the phrase is not a concern in those situations.

In general, people get their moral and ethical compass, even in regards to what is sin, by the culture they live in rather than the Kingdom of God or His word. If polygyny were the cultural norm, and Rome had never spread serial monogamy and the monogamy norm throughout the world, nobody would question it. The understanding of a "one-woman man" as an idiom for a faithful, not sexually immoral, man would be commonplace.
The thought for thought translations of the bible, like the NLT, when they use "faithful to his wife" are much closer to the original intent.

If we look at the flip side of the qualifications and call the opposites disqualifications, it makes it easier to understand what type of man Paul was describing. The opposite to a faithful man is an unfaithful man. That is simple and easy to figure out. The opposite of a husband of one wife? Not so simple. Every other qualification there is an obvious opposite that would disqualify for recommendation to the office. Some would say "well you are or you are not," but that's not the point. The point is that throwing a random status as a qualifier, when all other qualifiers are characteristics of behavior, is inconsistent. Especially when considering that this particular qualifier, when taken literally, disqualifies many prominent polygynous men of God in the bible that God finds no fault in and calls faithful, as well as even disqualifies Paul and Jesus for being unmarried.

Yet another important prose is that a husband of one wife, who is either unfaithful, an adulterer, promiscuous, not a keeper of covenants, by the modern church interpretation of numerical one wife, would still be potentially qualified depending on how people were able to interpret/judge them as "blameless " or "beyond reproach" in accordance with these texts. That is problematic.

 

[Maddog]

EVEN IF(!!!) the phrase were true regarding elders and pastors... I am neither (used to be but thats a story for another day), It does not apply to me.