• 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.

Husband of One Wife

I find it VERY interesting that there is a mountain of evidence that polygyny was widely practiced when Jesus walked the face of the earth among us. Yet not once did He even address the situation, much less criticize or condemn it.

Justin Martyr (103-165 AD) in his Dialogue With Trypho commented that the followers of Judaism advocate and engage in polygamy "over all the earth, wherever they sojourn".

Wouldn't you think that the "hideous sin" of polygyny would have been addressed by the Lord Himself?
 
Justin Martyr, Dialogue
But if even to such a man no remission was granted before repentance, and only when this great king, and anointed one, and prophet, mourned and conducted himself so, how can the impure and utterly abandoned, if they weep not, and mourn not, and repent not, entertain the hope that the Lord will not impute to them sin? And this one fall of David, in the matter of Uriah’s wife, proves, sirs,” I said, “that the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all mysteries might be accomplished by them; since, if it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, which the men of your nation do over all the earth, wherever they sojourn, or wherever they have been sent,
 
Dr C.V. Raegean said:
Justin Martyr, Dialogue ..............
Click to expand...

My point was that it is clear from Justin Martyr's statements that polygyny was practiced openly and frequently in his time, and therefore it can easily be concluded that it was also practiced openly and frequently at the time Jesus walked the earth. You may want to edit your comment and let us know what point you were trying to make...I am curious to know if you had a point or if you just felt that a larger portion of Justin Martyr's dialog needed to be posted.

I can't help but wonder if the early "Christians" were prejudiced against the practices of the Jews due to the fact that the Jews rejected the messiah, therefore they considered most Jewish practices to be "un-Christian", and the fact that the early church adopted many Roman laws and customs.
 
sadanyagci said:
First time I've come across an attempt at an explanation of the "Husband of one wife" scriptures like this one. ... Thoughts? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Personally, I find Don's argument rather compelling. With Paul writing to an audience of Roman citizens, and knowing how hard it can be in a modern church to find members willing to accept and truly execute the offices of Elder and Deacon, this argument makes a huge amount of sense. IMHO ;)
 
Glad to see some good opinions here. Here's my view.

It's a logical argument, with many good points. Problem is that I see a lot of theory without much proof. I do agree that the church isn't structured the way it's supposed to. What I don't see is the proof behind those definitions of elder, bishop, etc.

He makes a good point about the culture at the time, and he is right that language can change that way. Problem is that there is no direct connection between that phrase and that law of Rome. It's clear what that phrase was not intending, and that's how it is being applied by the church usually. But the arguments just seem to change "husband of one wife" to "father of few children" without much to back that interpretation up.

It's a good explanation and very plausible. It just needs more facts to connect the dots. Can't really use it as a stable interpretation when talking to those who are against polygamy, at least from what I can see... unless someone here has information that could fill in those blanks. For starters, is there anything that may define those positions in the church back when they were first put in place? Their oldest definitions?
 
Scarecrow said:
["] My point was that it is clear from Justin Martyr's statements that polygyny was practiced openly and frequently in his time, and therefore it can easily be concluded that it was also practiced openly and frequently at the time Jesus walked the earth. You may want to edit your comment and let us know what point you were trying to make...I am curious to know if you had a point.
..............
Click to expand...
[/quote]


Well, the point was to provide the reference for those who would like to study it farther. However, all the info didn’t translate over to the BF board ( i.e. the book and section and a lot of the passage itself). Sorry.
 
sadanyagci said:
But the arguments just seem to change "husband of one wife" to "father of few children" without much to back that interpretation up.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that Don's argument is that it is given as a SIMILAR type of law, where the excusing factor would be more than one wife rather than 3 or more children. Did you read it the same way?

I don't know if Don's argument is right or not. I wasn't there to talk it over with Paul, and he wouldn't have understood my midwestern English questions anyway? :lol: But the most persuasive argument to me remains the following:

All the other clauses have to do with the man's CHARACTER and EXPERIENCE. Having this one clause suddenly relate to his marital STATUS at the moment of his ordination, or even the duration of his tenure, makes no sense to me at all. Translating it as "Husband of a wife", meaning that he's got the experience of being a husband and leading his home on his resume, makes far more sense. It goes to his experience. "Husband of first wife", meaning no divorce, would go to his character. Either or both make far more sense in context. *shrug*
 
CecilW said:
Actually, I think that Don's argument is that it is given as a SIMILAR type of law, where the excusing factor would be more than one wife rather than 3 or more children. Did you read it the same way?
Click to expand...
Seemed to me he used slang of the age to connect the dots. But yes, I do suppose there could be a casual relationship between the laws, rather than a direct one.

CecilW said:
I don't know if Don's argument is right or not. I wasn't there to talk it over with Paul, and he wouldn't have understood my midwestern English questions anyway? :lol: But the most persuasive argument to me remains the following:

All the other clauses have to do with the man's CHARACTER and EXPERIENCE. Having this one clause suddenly relate to his marital STATUS at the moment of his ordination, or even the duration of his tenure, makes no sense to me at all. Translating it as "Husband of a wife", meaning that he's got the experience of being a husband and leading his home on his resume, makes far more sense. It goes to his experience. "Husband of first wife", meaning no divorce, would go to his character. Either or both make far more sense in context. *shrug*
Click to expand...
That is what I see in it as well. Though "husband of first wife" would exclude widowers and those that divorced rightly over adultery. I just don't see it as fitting completely. "Husband of a wife" does seem to fit well. But then "wife of a husband" in relation to widows seems a bit odd. But you're right in that It is definitely about character somehow.
 
Monogamists (monogamy only defenders) have a problem with the New Testament. Polygamy is not condemned in it. To get around this they claim that polygamy was not practiced at this time, so there was no need to mention it even though (in their minds) polygamy is a sin. For this reason this verse causes them problems. The problem for them is that this verse is either a direct reference to polygamy or not. They can not have it both ways.

If it is a direct reference to polygamy, then we know several things:

1. Polygamy was practiced in NT times (otherwise why mention it?)
2. It was not banned in the church (otherwise there would be no question of leaders practicing it)
3. Polygamists were not dis-fellowshipped.
4. Worst case scenario for polygamists based on this verse: polygamists are not eligible for leadership positions.

The problem monogamists have with this interpretation is that it is not strong enough. It is not the sweeping ban that they would like. So often they prefer to claim that this is not a reference to polygamy at all and the monogamy only doctrine is present in the Bible on general principles (Adam and Eve, etc.).

But of course if it is not a direct reference to polygamy then the verse does not apply at all to the discussion at hand. They can not have it both ways and neither way hurts the polygamy argument.
 
Well said Cynstrom. My wife has a hang up on this particular verse because it can't be pulled apart using the lackluster research tools that we currently have at our disposal but, in all honesty, it doesn't matter to the argument, either way it is translated.
 
From the best of my understanding the concept of elders, or at least how I was taught by a Hebrew/Jewish Christian scholar, is that elders were a simple carry over from Judaism into the early church model .

For example, in the Mosaic era Moses was told by his father-in-law to go find elders to help him rule (Exodus 18). That is what he did and they ruled along with him as overseers in the land.

This concept pervaded the Jewish life even into the time of the Messiah. The apostles being trained by a Jewish Messiah and being Jewish themselves applied this to the rule of the church. We can see they showed up even in Acts 14:23 where Paul applied this Jewish concept in Gentiles churches. Timothy in Ephesus went into a church that had been nurtured and built by the Jewish apostle himself (Acts 19) who apparently had established elders in it before leaving it (Acts 20:17-38).

Thus, and I may not understand what the article is saying, and if so I apologize, but to say that the eldership was an Office there in Ephesus based upon Roman government systems seems terribly backwards to me. For there to be such a change historically without any clear statement by an author of Scripture seems highly subjective to me and outside the bounds of proper hermeneutics. In other words, it is a subjective leap without, as one has said herein this thread, much to "connect the dots." I would place it under the 6th level (maybe the fifth at most) of stratification for degrees of authority in interpretation. Those six, as defined by Dr. Erickson are:

1. Direct statements of Scripture
2. Direct Implications of Scripture
3. Probable Implcations of Scripture
4. Inductive Conclusions from Scripture
5. Conclusions drawn from general revelation not attached to scripture
6. Outright speculation based upon a single statement of Scripture or hint in Scripture.

As Dr. Raegean likes to say in here: the GHC rule, grammatical, historical, cultural rule of interpretation. The history and culture of the Jews, and the time of strong Jewish influence in the early church seems to me to suggest that elders are simply a carry over structure, or a system of how to rule people effectively, that is by apostolic inspiration and revelation applied to the new church bodies under Christ's headship (1 Peter 5).

Thus, it is a novel idea but one that I think is weak in light of the overall exegetical data. Of the already six to seven interpretations to this text one more can be added to make it eight. But if ranking them in the top three this one would not make it. I think the top three based upon exegesis from a careful historical context with the Greek grammar the following three have the best weight:

1. A man who is Married
2. A man with his first wife
3. A man who is faithful to his wife

And those would be in the order of highest to lowest possibility though the arguments between number two and three are almost equal and thus may tie one another.

In fourth place is the view that it does restrict an elder from having more than one wife but not because it is a moral issue but because of the time factor that a man would have little time to dedicate himself to ruling and shepherding the church because of the large family responsibility. So that view would be 4. A husband of only one wife but not for moral reasons but for time reasons.

But number one through three seems to have the largest amount of weight backing them as it seems to me.

Dr. Allen
 
excellent post, dr allen
the concept of the elders coming from jewish tradition opens new vistas for me
 
Agreed, Steve. I think Cynstrom's summary of the logical disconnect is particularly succinct as well.

The key additional thing to remember from the "Hebraic tradition" -- which bolsters the obvious argument -- is that "teachers" in general were simply EXPECTED to be married. Even the English word "elder" carries a similar connotation of knowledge based on life experience. How better, in other words, to judge their "fruit"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top