Excellent question. May have something to do with this:
Just bookmarking that for later. I'm not getting into that until we get through Phase I.
-
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.
Authority, submission, and chain of command
- Thread starter andrew
- Start date
Many of us have served as ministers, pastors, elders etc for many years, in my personal case for over 30 yrs. In the past I have loved the oversight that allowed me to assist others.It should well be understood that I now absolutely believe in the scriptural foundation for polygamy. That being stated, the concern that I hold is that when a matter becomes personal our judgment or our understanding or indeed our interpretation can be colored by our personal wants. Scripture at no time can be used to support our personal desires but rather we need to align our lives with the scriptures. Now the scriptures are indeed inspired of God and thus they are also under his care so that we can clearly know the truth and thus give worship as we should, clean, pure and unadulterated. The above understanding of 1 Tim and Titus would imply that a man who has more than one wife could hold the oversight of Elder. However as we all have a vested interest in understanding the scriptures in that way, there is the risk of misinterpreting scripture to suit our own ends.
As I have always used the scriptures as my guide could you please refer me to one translation of the bible that says at 1 Tim and Titus that a man can have more than one wife or at least makes reference in harmony with your above understanding. I would love to see it as it would then open many possibilities. However if such is only personal reasoning then I will stay with scripture as I have no wish to go beyond what is written. At this time I do not serve in that capacity nor do I seek to as due to my current understanding. Should another wife come into our home then I would no longer qualify and thus I won't play with the lives of others in holding an oversight unless I am absolutely convinced that it is harmony with the accepted, understood word of God.
Looking forward to seeing the translation so that I may check the reference and move forward with a clear conscience.
Might do the same thing
James 3;1 (book marked for latter).
It's not a question of translations, Aussies. "Cultural bias," where the translation is made to fit the "obvious" and "accepted, understood" Word is the problem. And it's precisely what you just described.
I contend that there is a consistent, undeniable, "Word of YHVH" resolution to all such issues.
Yahushua, more than once, but clearly and unequivocally in Matthew 5:17-19, said He would NOT change His own Word (explicitly, "torah and prophets") so long as "heaven and earth" still exist. One does not have to argue how much of "ALL" is fulfilled (like whether He'll come back) to realize heaven and earth still exist. So - "not one yod nor tiddle" has "passed away". QED.
Ergo, since He made provision for polygyny, and the witnesses are voluminous, ANY reading of ANY letter from Paul, Peter, John, or anyone else that "adds to" or "subtracts from" what the Master THEY serve Wrote, taught, and lived which SEEMS to contradict Him is just plain wrong. Either they are liars, and "God be True", or somebody mis-translated. (II Peter 3:15-16 makes that point).
Whether some (or many) English translator who was kowtowing to pope and king got it wrong is no excuse for us not to be "like the Bereans".
Last edited:
Mark, you and I agree on something! Let's bookmark that! 
Aussies, by the time English-translation bibles were getting traction, monogamy was already culturally established, and the translators wouldn't have had any reason to think beyond translating mia as "one" in those verses. I may screw up these dates, but I think the first English bigamy criminal statute (making bigamy a felony punishable by death) was published in 1603, and then the Authorized Version sponsored by King James was published in 1611. Funny coincidence, eh?
If we're going to rehash this verse further we should probably open a new thread or just go back and look at some of the old ones. Meanwhile, Aussies, you do what your conscience tells you to do; that's as far as we can go with this. But the idea that Paul inadvertently and without even a brief explanation of why or what he was doing would in a passing comment overturn the plain teaching of the Old Testament, radically rewrite the church's witness regarding marriage, and eliminate from consideration as church elders the many mighty patriarchs of history that were approved by God (starting with David...) is really hard for me to accept. It's a lot simpler to see the standard English interpretation of those verses since the 1600s as a simple case of cultural blinders at work in the translation.
Aussies, by the time English-translation bibles were getting traction, monogamy was already culturally established, and the translators wouldn't have had any reason to think beyond translating mia as "one" in those verses. I may screw up these dates, but I think the first English bigamy criminal statute (making bigamy a felony punishable by death) was published in 1603, and then the Authorized Version sponsored by King James was published in 1611. Funny coincidence, eh?
If we're going to rehash this verse further we should probably open a new thread or just go back and look at some of the old ones. Meanwhile, Aussies, you do what your conscience tells you to do; that's as far as we can go with this. But the idea that Paul inadvertently and without even a brief explanation of why or what he was doing would in a passing comment overturn the plain teaching of the Old Testament, radically rewrite the church's witness regarding marriage, and eliminate from consideration as church elders the many mighty patriarchs of history that were approved by God (starting with David...) is really hard for me to accept. It's a lot simpler to see the standard English interpretation of those verses since the 1600s as a simple case of cultural blinders at work in the translation.
@Aussies, Moses was the appointed ordained leader of the first assembly. When Miriam and Aaron got upset over his Ethiopian wife (the second at least) God made it very clear that he'd appointed Moses. The issue of the 2nd wife is never addressed by God, rather the attempted usurpation of authority from God's anointed.
It would appear that the issue of the second wife for the very first "Bishop" was of no consequence to God.
It would appear that the issue of the second wife for the very first "Bishop" was of no consequence to God.
I've stayed out of this thread and a few others the last few days and resorted to mostly drive by posts (I've been busy here at home).
I can't help wondering if much of what we as men on this forum struggle with in the conflict of our interpretation and application of verses regarding headship and submission to leadership is rooted in cultural mindsets in addition to just straight interpretation.
For those of us who might balk at having some random old dudes (elders
) tell us how to live our lives or decide who is eligible for us to marry, do we shade scripture to meet our more rugged , individual, manifest destiny-oriented, pioneer spirits?
In Paul's day, much of the known world was still very tribal/collectivist/communal/community (however you want to describe it) oriented. This certainly applied to the churches he was writing to. No matter how Hellenized, extended family and/or tribal connections were still strong. Galileans, Judeans, Samarians, etc. all had distinct differences despite being very close to one another. Thus, members of these early assemblies Paul was writing to would have had a more dependent, group dynamic that they were working under. You didn't just go rogue at every whim ,or disagreement like we might today. You would most likely have an unwritten agreement to follow as the group elders decided.
Does this make sense?
I can't help wondering if much of what we as men on this forum struggle with in the conflict of our interpretation and application of verses regarding headship and submission to leadership is rooted in cultural mindsets in addition to just straight interpretation.
For those of us who might balk at having some random old dudes (elders
) tell us how to live our lives or decide who is eligible for us to marry, do we shade scripture to meet our more rugged , individual, manifest destiny-oriented, pioneer spirits?In Paul's day, much of the known world was still very tribal/collectivist/communal/community (however you want to describe it) oriented. This certainly applied to the churches he was writing to. No matter how Hellenized, extended family and/or tribal connections were still strong. Galileans, Judeans, Samarians, etc. all had distinct differences despite being very close to one another. Thus, members of these early assemblies Paul was writing to would have had a more dependent, group dynamic that they were working under. You didn't just go rogue at every whim ,or disagreement like we might today. You would most likely have an unwritten agreement to follow as the group elders decided.
Does this make sense?
With regard to 1 Tim and Titus, well stated and your comments are worthy of prayerful consideration.So just to think this through,
This possibility cannot be correct as 1 Cor 7:8 shows Paul to be single and thus he would be stating that he himself did not meet his own requirement.
Not a practicer of "serial monogamy" Malachi 2:16. This argument holds merit.
This understanding would be in harmony with 1 Cor 7:21-38.
Consider also that as polygamy was against Roman law and Paul stated that he never spoke against the law or the temple or Caesar (Acts 25:8), this understanding could be correct for if a man in breach of the law of the land was in a position of authority in the congregation, then Rome could take action against the Christian Church. Thus to protect the fledgling congregation this restriction well may have been placed on eldership. The same concern could be expressed today when we consider what is going on in Canada at the present. They pursued the leader now the flock. If however the leader was monogamous then the witch hunt would not have happened.
That would however mean one standard for those in oversight and another for the individual christian man that was not in oversight. This however was the case for those in leadership under the law of Moses as a priest was restricted in who he could marry but the average man could marry the women that a priest was forbidden to marry, thus two standards for the same people dependent on the responsibility's held. Thus it would not be a change or even be speaking against the law, just an organizational arrangement to protect the Church from opposers. Where Moses and other who lead the nation in the past were concerned they only had the law of God to adhere to, but in the first century they also had the law of Rome. There is nothing wrong with monogamy and thus to place such a restriction on oversight would not be going against the law nor the prophets. But it would protect the flock.
My concern with this is that if you speak to the average person up the street and mention "polygamy" you get responses like, nutters, sects, they twist scripture and so on. So to be prepared to take a stand against the understood expressions of Paul in this arrangement of elders, I believe that our ground needs to be solid and unquestionable and firmly back up by scripture.
Me thinks on this a little more.
This possibility cannot be correct as 1 Cor 7:8 shows Paul to be single and thus he would be stating that he himself did not meet his own requirement.
Not a practicer of "serial monogamy" Malachi 2:16. This argument holds merit.
This understanding would be in harmony with 1 Cor 7:21-38.
Consider also that as polygamy was against Roman law and Paul stated that he never spoke against the law or the temple or Caesar (Acts 25:8), this understanding could be correct for if a man in breach of the law of the land was in a position of authority in the congregation, then Rome could take action against the Christian Church. Thus to protect the fledgling congregation this restriction well may have been placed on eldership. The same concern could be expressed today when we consider what is going on in Canada at the present. They pursued the leader now the flock. If however the leader was monogamous then the witch hunt would not have happened.
That would however mean one standard for those in oversight and another for the individual christian man that was not in oversight. This however was the case for those in leadership under the law of Moses as a priest was restricted in who he could marry but the average man could marry the women that a priest was forbidden to marry, thus two standards for the same people dependent on the responsibility's held. Thus it would not be a change or even be speaking against the law, just an organizational arrangement to protect the Church from opposers. Where Moses and other who lead the nation in the past were concerned they only had the law of God to adhere to, but in the first century they also had the law of Rome. There is nothing wrong with monogamy and thus to place such a restriction on oversight would not be going against the law nor the prophets. But it would protect the flock.
My concern with this is that if you speak to the average person up the street and mention "polygamy" you get responses like, nutters, sects, they twist scripture and so on. So to be prepared to take a stand against the understood expressions of Paul in this arrangement of elders, I believe that our ground needs to be solid and unquestionable and firmly back up by scripture.
Me thinks on this a little more.
Just one more thought.
1 Tim 3 ;7 "Also he must be well spoken of by people outside the church- those who aren't Christians- so that Satan can't trap him with many accusations, and leave him without freedom to lead his flock." (Living Bible)
If a man back in the first century had multiple wives then he could be prosecuted by Roman Law and thus would not have been well spoken of by those who were not Christian.
Even today one of the issues that we have recently discussed was how does a man introduce his wives as to call them his wives could place him in jail. Why do we need to be careful if we have more than one wife?
Remember the qualification for an Elder is a composite one thus to understand any one aspect without reference to the others is to not meet the qualification.
Again this is not a criticism of those with a plural marriage, for most of the men on this site (my self included) would welcome such for our own households. Its just an attempt to clearly consider scripture.
The fact is if the law of the land was to be enforced to its maximum degree in this matter who would lead the flock (even today)?
1 Tim 3 ;7 "Also he must be well spoken of by people outside the church- those who aren't Christians- so that Satan can't trap him with many accusations, and leave him without freedom to lead his flock." (Living Bible)
If a man back in the first century had multiple wives then he could be prosecuted by Roman Law and thus would not have been well spoken of by those who were not Christian.
Even today one of the issues that we have recently discussed was how does a man introduce his wives as to call them his wives could place him in jail. Why do we need to be careful if we have more than one wife?
Remember the qualification for an Elder is a composite one thus to understand any one aspect without reference to the others is to not meet the qualification.
Again this is not a criticism of those with a plural marriage, for most of the men on this site (my self included) would welcome such for our own households. Its just an attempt to clearly consider scripture.
The fact is if the law of the land was to be enforced to its maximum degree in this matter who would lead the flock (even today)?
Certainly the question is whether a divorce meets scriptural standards. However, life is messy, and it can be difficult to determine whether real-world situations actually meet those standards or not. A woman for instance may have had a past relationship that was terminated by her drunken partner shouting "get out of the house b*tch" and throwing her out the door. She doesn't return, and a few years later wants to remarry. Does an angry expletive-ridden statement issued under the influence of alcohol (so possibly not carefully considered) constitute a legitimate divorce initiated by the husband, or does it not? Don't try to answer the question, that's not the point - I'm just giving an example of a realistic situation that is not clear-cut.
Proverbs 11:14 "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellers there is safety."
In this case, a wise course of action could be to take this matter to the elders for an answer. The elders are not being asked to make the divorce legitimate or illegitimate - no man has that authority. They are being asked to figure out whether it meets scriptural standards or not. The man could say to the elders "I don't know the answer, and I am emotionally involved so could make the wrong judgement, I will trust you to give an impartial and considered analysis of the situation and marry or refrain as you advise". This would be a wise and humble approach to the situation.
Not to go down too much of a tangent, but that isn't scriptural (find one verse that says it). The marital union is between a man and a woman. The two are put together by God, but he is not a party to the union, just the matchmaker. This teaching is a very common statement by monogamist preachers, and is a misinterpretation of "a three-fold cord is not easily broken", with the three-fold cord being called the man, woman, and God. In context, that statement is simply saying that in all areas of life, a team of two is better than an individual (because it can achieve more), and a team of three is more resilient because it is "not easily broken", ie even if one fails you're still left with a team of two. This is not about marriage specifically, but about all teams, whether in the context of business, military, marriage, or any other situation. Can elaborate more if you like, but we should probably go to a different thread for that.
By that logic, "one" wife is also an incorrect translation, as Paul was single and thus did not meet the requirement to have "one" wife.
Another point to ponder: was Paul an elder? Or was he a travelling missionary, who appointed local church elders but did not himself have to conform to the standards expected, as his job was quite different, and being single was actually beneficial in his case?
It would be a change in the law, as it would be completely changing the standards. In the Mosaic law a priest could be polygamous, but could not marry a divorced woman or prostitute. In Paul's writings he never discourages church leaders from marrying such women, on the contrary the whole general thrust is that the old has passed away and has been forgiven, so a prostitute is completely free to marry with no restrictions on whom - but then it is suggested that he is requiring them not to be polygamous. This would arguably be a complete reversal of the law - if the interpretation is correct.
I do see your point about protecting the church from criticism. And I actually agree, in many situations being monogamous would be advantageous for cultural reasons. We are to do whatever we can to meet people where they are at in order to preach the Gospel to them without turning them away, and therefore I can certainly see many situations where being polygamous could be a problem for a particular individual. Each of us must certainly follow God's direction in our own lives. However it is a large jump from that to an outright ban on polygamy for all church leaders for all time and in all cultures.
Polygamy is not illegal, in most countries. A very small number of US states, and Canada, have laws against polygamy. For the rest of the Western world and much of Asia, you can live with as many women as you like. While in Africa and the Middle East polygamy is generally legal in one form or another. Western countries do have laws against bigamy (registering two simultaneous marriages with the State), but that's a very narrow situation that doesn't apply to many people. You can have as many simultaneous relationships as you want, completely legally, and many secular people already do. Most of these laws are already enforced strictly, yet don't affect us at all. So this is not a valid concern today.
Even in Roman law, although a man was only allowed one "official wife", he was allowed as many concubines as he liked. So polygamy was not illegal even then. And the Roman empire did not enforce such laws in occupied territories during the time the New Testament was written, I understand laws mandating monogamy were not enforced through the empire until after 300AD, after the adoption of the Catholic church as the state religion. The culture of the people Paul was writing to was one where prostitution was extremely common, the general public had no issue with men sleeping with multiple women so this would have been unlikely to cause outsiders to judge the church negatively. This does not seem a likely reason for such a restriction.
Back to church elders specifically - this is not usually interpreted to mean "precisely one wife", but rather "no more than one wife". An elder whose wife dies will not lose their job, as nobody is so strict as to interpret this to mean exactly "one". The standard church teaching is "no more than one wife". And this is an addition to scripture, because that is not what the verse says - it just says "mia", "one". Is it not equally valid to interpret it as meaning "at least one wife"? Andrew is an elder of this ministry, and he has one wife. He also has another two wives - but does that change anything? How is it any different to a widower being an elder? Either way you can get tied in knots about it.
I personally feel that the interpretation of "first" (or "number one" to put it a different way) is by far the most likely, as it is consistent with the general encouragement of men to be faithful to their wives. It means in effect, that we are to be faithful to our wives and not unjustly divorce them, and elders are to be men who model this faithfulness. If these passages introduce a requirement to be monogamous, this is a sudden imposition that is not even hinted at elsewhere in scripture and suddenly appears in the writings of only a single person (Paul) with no explanation - this is not established by at least two witnesses. However if they are about faithfulness, they are completely consistent with the remainder of scripture and give a practical application of the principles already outlined in many places throughout all of the Bible.
Last edited:
Well, there is an answer anyway,
for the general case:Deuteronomy 24:1, repeated in v 3, requires a written "sefer keritutah" (the word is only used 3 times in the TNKH) or 'writing of divorcement'. Without such, there is only a 'shalach', putting away. (And Yahushua, in Matthew 5:32 et al, makes it clear -- if the translators don't blow it -- that a woman WITHOUT the entire process still has a husband. "He causeth HER" to commit adultery is correct.
But the larger point is that the process that English speakers call "divorce" is NOT complete without the written evidence. (And, while the Almighty State is NOT an element of any Biblical marriage, it seems to me like the state's paperwork DOES at least meet that requirement. Not that they don't still have strings attached...)
Please consider the "elephant in the room" issue, which is why I answered a rhetorical question:
The Bible is clear that "everything" should be confirmed in the mouth of two (or more) witnesses. "How much more so," then, something that leads to Covenant? A woman who is not a virgin should have two witnesses for a potential husband/covering that she is able to be another man's wife. The written sefer keritutah is not only a second witness (to her) that she no longer "has a living husband" but also demonstrates (Numbers 30:15) that "he bears her guilt" for the prior broken vows.
Last edited:
What makes you think Paul was an elder? I don't remember him making this claim anywhere. Although it's interesting to note that there's no way to read this that would allow Christ during His earthly ministry to be an elder either. We might be making too big of a deal out of this elder thing. It really just might be an administrative post.
So you think Paul was an elder?
Sorry, that turned out to be a cup of coffee, lunch, a meeting with Ginny, and the rest of the afternoon with the a/c guy....
I've got a real, non-trivial question posted here about how men are supposed to relate to each other in community that has gotten very little direct engagement, and we're coming up on 60 posts. FollowingHim and Verifyveritas76, who normally don't do stuff like this, have thrown up the boogeymen of cult leaders and popes. Zec speculates about what might be. There are other side issues in the posts above, but these three men I consider friends and co-laborers, that I have spent time with and talked with and worshipped together with in meatspace, even if we're scattered all over the planet, so I'm using their comments to illustrate a point, and would always expect them to be as frank with me as I am being with them. I love and respect these guys like brothers (because, you know, they are brothers...), even when we disagree. Especially when we disagree.
Meanwhile, imagine what you would think if you were discussing male authority in the home with a woman, and she said things like "I've heard of someone who was mean to his wife once, so we have to be careful about how we think about male authority". Or "I know it says a man should be able to 'rule' his house, but it really just might be an administrative post". What would you do with that?
Or take the "yeah, but Paul said that Christ is the head of the man, so there" argument. I've already shown that that argument is not as strong as it sounds when you're just using a one-verse proof text, but even so. Ever had a conversation with someone about Eph 5 where you try to have a meaningful discussion about wifely submission and all the person wants to talk about is verse 21? Like verse 22 doesn't matter because verse 21? I do not see Paul's word to the Corinthians in the context in which he wrote it as in any way contradicting what he wrote to men or elders about ruling their respective communities. There's my 'apples and oranges'....
I'd really like to see someone give me a useful direct response to my question. I know aineo's processing, so I'm hopeful. But otherwise, again, full circle, I think Mojo's got the sense of this, and this is a difficult and awkward subject for us to talk about because of certain ways of thinking that may not have the biblical base we thought they did. Just like plural marriage.
I think Mojo has the right of it. I'm still waiting for meaningful engagement on these verses, and eager to hear what @aineo is coming up with at some point, since he's the one that so far appears to be really digging in.
I've got a real, non-trivial question posted here about how men are supposed to relate to each other in community that has gotten very little direct engagement, and we're coming up on 60 posts. FollowingHim and Verifyveritas76, who normally don't do stuff like this, have thrown up the boogeymen of cult leaders and popes. Zec speculates about what might be. There are other side issues in the posts above, but these three men I consider friends and co-laborers, that I have spent time with and talked with and worshipped together with in meatspace, even if we're scattered all over the planet, so I'm using their comments to illustrate a point, and would always expect them to be as frank with me as I am being with them. I love and respect these guys like brothers (because, you know, they are brothers...), even when we disagree. Especially when we disagree.
Meanwhile, imagine what you would think if you were discussing male authority in the home with a woman, and she said things like "I've heard of someone who was mean to his wife once, so we have to be careful about how we think about male authority". Or "I know it says a man should be able to 'rule' his house, but it really just might be an administrative post". What would you do with that?
Or take the "yeah, but Paul said that Christ is the head of the man, so there" argument. I've already shown that that argument is not as strong as it sounds when you're just using a one-verse proof text, but even so. Ever had a conversation with someone about Eph 5 where you try to have a meaningful discussion about wifely submission and all the person wants to talk about is verse 21? Like verse 22 doesn't matter because verse 21? I do not see Paul's word to the Corinthians in the context in which he wrote it as in any way contradicting what he wrote to men or elders about ruling their respective communities. There's my 'apples and oranges'....
I'd really like to see someone give me a useful direct response to my question. I know aineo's processing, so I'm hopeful. But otherwise, again, full circle, I think Mojo's got the sense of this, and this is a difficult and awkward subject for us to talk about because of certain ways of thinking that may not have the biblical base we thought they did. Just like plural marriage.
No, of course not—not in the sense we're using that word here. He had a trans-local assignment that took him out of the run-of-the-mill management of localized communities. Same goes for Jesus. I was responding to your closing musing about the nature of elderhood.
I've just been watching the thread primarily. I've got some other thoughts but just waiting to see how it developes and been crazy busy right now.