Greek Word Studies

[TruthDriven]

Hello Friends,

I am no Greek Scholar, but am enough of a skeptic and reasonable inquirer to want to know God's Word. Please anyone is welcomed to take up the word studies I've outlined in the two verses below to help clarify the NT stance on the allowance, transition, or otherwise stance of Christian Polygamy. I look forward to seeing the replies.

In the 1st one, why are there two different root words used for the word "own" that appears twice?

Keep in mind that Corinth was struggling with orgies and all sorts of premarital and adulterous activity.

1 Corinthians 7:2
English Standard Version (ESV)
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

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

In the 2nd verse below, could the word "one" below be translated as "first" in the Greek?

1 Timothy 3:2
English Standard Version (ESV)
2 Therefore an overseera]"must be above reproach, the husband of one wife," sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Thanks!

TruthDriven

 

[CecilW]

In the 1st one, why are there two different root words used for the word "own" that appears twice? ... 1 Corinthians 7:2

In the 2nd verse below, could the word "one" below be translated as "first" in the Greek? ... 1 Timothy 3:2

Thanks for posting and asking, TruthDriven.

Both questions have been discussed extensively elsewhere in the forum, but I guess I need to pull the information together and set it up in a FAQ area. Will look into doing so.

Question 1: Because the nature of the own=ness varies by gender. This can be seen by the words' usage elsewhere. The word used for '"his own" is singularly possessive, eg. "eat your own bread." The word used for "her own" could be better translated as "the one to which I belong", eg. "Jesus left and returned to his own country", which was also the country of many thousands of others, or "serve your own master", who could, of course, have many other servants.

In other words, Paul's specific word choice actually SUPPORTS the validity of plural marriage. A man's own wife is one who "belongs" to him. A woman's own husband is one to whom she, and perhaps others, "belongs". This is not in a "inanimate insensate property" sense, but in the sense that "No-one can serve two masters" means there is an exclusive relationship in one direction, but not necessarily the other.

However, there is no need for women to fear that we men will get big heads and dictatorial, thinking we are the Big Kahuna, or the HNIC. We men, in turn, DO have a Head to whom WE are exclusively responsible, tho His relationship to us is that of one to many. In other words, we are only middle managers.

Question 2: Yes, it may. Also as the participle "a". Each translation carries its own flavor and implications. "First" and "a" match much better with the sense of the passage, which otherwise deals with the man's character and successful experience level of dealing with his own household.

For the writer's intention to be setting a limit of a singularity, there is a different Greek word which I am told would have been far preferable and clearer. Perhaps the writer had a brain freeze and couldn't remember the better word? In 3 or 4 different spots? Ri-i-i-ight!

And even if he were alive today and calmly said, "Yes, I meant only one," the passage by dictating an exception, would prove the rule for the rest of us ordinary mortals! There's just no way for monogamists to win on this one.

 

[Oreslag]

Question 2: Yes, it may. Also as the participle "a". Each translation carries its own flavor and implications. "First" and "a" match much better with the sense of the passage, which otherwise deals with the man's character and successful experience level of dealing with his own household.

For the writer's intention to be setting a limit of a singularity, there is a different Greek word which I am told would have been far preferable and clearer. Perhaps the writer had a brain freeze and couldn't remember the better word? In 3 or 4 different spots? Ri-i-i-ight!

And even if he were alive today and calmly said, "Yes, I meant only one," the passage by dictating an exception, would prove the rule for the rest of us ordinary mortals! There's just no way for monogamists to win on this one.

For me the most satisfying explanation of this passage has always been to consider the author's purpose for giving any sort of requirement upon the family status of an elder or deacon. In particular, notice the reason for declaring that a man have a wife is revealed in Verses 4 and 5 where we are directed to look at 'the fruit' of his headship of his house; namely, the submission of his children. Thus, one potential translation, and the one that seems to me to fit best, is that the author is simply stating that a qualification for elder or deacon is that a man be a demonstrably effective patriarch instead of a single man with no observable evidence of how something he rules might turn out.

Viewed in this light, to say that a man is a 'husband of one woman' (which is how it reads in the Greek if I recall correctly) is simply to convey 'not single', and the remainder of the passage reveals why it is important for the man not to single, thus conveying that he must not only be married, but have children whose quality of submission might be evaluated. However, I don't know if there would be a better (i.e. more direct and obvious) way to declare this idea (i.e. not single and not married without children) in the Greek. If so, then I might be taking this 'argument from context' too far.

In any case, I ran across this viewpoint in a commentary that compared three possible translations of this passage. The one I've written about here was rejected as a plausible translation by the author on the basis of the remaining portion of scripture that 'argued to the monogamy-only' conclusion. Thus, I find it ironic (and quite typical of our sinful nature) that the common understanding within the church of this portion of scripture uses the 'remainder of the biblical witness against polygamy' to justify aiming this teaching at something that was clearly not intended by the author, while simultaneously ignoring its purpose and direction by commonly appointing single men, or even women, as elders. Go figure.

And how did the Roman church conclude that elders should all be celibate? Beats the heck out of me, because it is obvious to even the most casual of observers that this could not possibly be what was meant by this passage. Go figure that too...

 

[TruthDriven]

And how did the Roman church conclude that elders should all be celibate? Beats the heck out of me, because it is obvious to even the most casual of observers that this could not possibly be what was meant by this passage. Go figure that too...

Thank you for the prompt replies. More thoughts are certainly welcomed as there is much confusion and theological relativity on the individual conclusions.

As far as the Roman Catholic celibacy position on the elders/priests, I have a friend that has transitioned to the Eastern or Russian Orthodox church which I do believe has far truer doctrine and theology compared to Roman Catholic doctrine, but still hold to this requirement for their regional bishops, not their elders. Supposedly this requirement is based on principle in line with Paul's verse below rather than a Biblical commandment. I agree that it's adding weights to church offices that are not only there, but actually talks of the contrary when it comes to marriage and family example as you mentioned.

If anyone wants to comment on the also controversial section below or the expanded verses to the unmarried in 1 Cor. 7, please do so. I think the most common commentary is speaking of the immediate challenges and trials of the day with persecution of Christians. Otherwise, going to the far extreme would equate to Paul prescribing a formula to end the human race by not marrying and pro-creation which certainly cannot be the case. He also seems to be sharing his own opinion and experience like anyone with a personality would on such a huge topic and life decision.

1 Corinthians 7:32-35

English Standard Version (ESV)

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

 

[TruthDriven]

More thoughts are certainly welcomed as there is much confusion and theological relativity on the individual conclusions.

By the way, I wasn't referring to the individual responses posted here when I said this, but rather in general all across American Christianity and churches.