Re: MIAJ GUNAIKOJ ANDRA - I Tim. 3:2

From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Wed Dec 03 1997 - 13:09:20 EST


On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 12:32:35 +0000 "Brian E. Wilson"
<brian@twonh.demon.co.uk> writes:

>Does MIAJ GUNAIKOJ ANDRA in I Tim 3:2 mean that at the time I Timothy
>was written, a Christian man was allowed to have more than one wife, but
>that if he was an EPISKOPOJ, then he should be married to only one
>woman? In other words, were Christian men in New Testament days
>allowed to be what today we would call polygamists? It seems to me that
in I
>Tim 3:2 it would hardly be said that a bishop should have only one wife
>unless generally a Christian man was allowed to be married to more
>than one woman at the same time.
>
>Putting the question another way, is there any statement in the New
>Testament which explicitly rules out a Christian man being married at
>the same time to two or more women?

Mark 10:11 just might do it, hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU KAI
GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI EP' AUTHN.

1. If we take APOLUSHi to be a technical term for divorce, then the
meaning is clear. But, the negation (if a man does not divorce his wife
and [yet] marries another then he does not commit adultery) certainly
does not follow logically, as a conditional does not imply its negation.
Besides, by definition, it would be adultery. Since adultery is always
condemned in scripture, then so is marriage to another in this case.

2. If we take APOLUSHi non-technically, perhaps the safest way to go
here, i.e., "let go, send away, dismiss," without necessarily involving
legal divorce (say separation, or simply turning away from in order to
turn to another), then marriage to another still constitutes adultery,
which is clearly condemned in the NT. Hence, polygamy is condemned and
wrong.

3. If we come in the back door by looking at our marriage vows alone,
then polygamy is forbidden. Most marriage vows today include something
to the effect, "I promise to faithful to you as long as we both shall
live." In my experiences I have yet to counsel a couple for marriage who
wanted anything less. And, a vow is binding.

>
>I am not personally interested in becoming a polygamist myself! My
>reason for wanting to explore this is that there is considerable
>controversy in the UK about pronouncements by the URC concerning
>sexual partners and the ordained ministry, and all this is due to be
>discussed at an important meeting or the Ecumenical Project of which I
am a
>member. What I would like to be able to say at the meeting is that
>there is no doubt that the NT states in such and such a text that no
>Christian man should be married to more than one woman at the same
>time. I had always assumed that there is such a text, but, to my
surprise, I
>have not been able to find one. Indeed, I Tim. 3:2 seems to suggest
>the opposite view. Or have I misunderstood the force of MIAJ here?

The parallel with 1 Tim 5:9 suggests that what is meant is not: married
to one wife at a time, as though polygamy was being practiced and was
perhaps not so bad for everybody, but was forbidden for elders. Rather,
the meaning would seem to set as a model marriage to one woman for your
lifetime. This is not to say that remarriage after the death of one's
spouse was wrong, as it is not, but that it is better to remain as one
is, if possible (1 Cor 7:8ff). Elders should exemplify this.

Paul Dixon



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:36 EDT