Mark Niwot posted a great article showing a biblical understanding of marriage and polygyny at Helium.
Scripture repeatedly commands (Deut. 4:2 and 12:32, Rev. 22:18-19, etc) that man is not to “add to” nor “subtract from” the Written Word of God. Our Savior was likewise critical (Matthew 23 is just one obvious example) of those “Hypocrites!” who took it upon themselves to insert their own “traditions” into “law” and thus make His commandments “of no effect”. (Matt. 15:6, Mark 7:13, etc.) But there is perhaps no better example of a false doctrine elevated by tradition alone to the status of unquestioned “Law” than the false idol of Monogamy….
I wasn’t that impressed. It was more of a rant. And I did not come away thinking that he gave a convincing argument for his position. Perhaps it is because I am not familiar with all the arguments he referred to but did not give.
It is a great article, but it doesen’t dumb anything down so I doubt it means much to the majority that knee-jerks against polygamy. You would have to actually know why you disliked polygamy to understand the article, and it’s usually just prejudice and hate that keep people against it.
I suspect that’s something I’m frequently guilty of too. When you are completely familiar with an argument, it is probably very easy to skim over the details. While a single phrase embodies all of those details to someone who has thought very deeply about a subject, the less well versed might be left scratching his head, wondering what he missed.
Thanks, Jay, for your comments. You’re right – perhaps it is easy to suspect that arguments you’ve heard ad infinitum and rejected an equal number of times are well-known to all. And thanks as well for the feedback, bethyada.
I’m actually working on a much longer and more comprehensive piece, so perhaps that will help address some of your complaints. As Jay is aware, to do a complete analysis really does take a book.
It did seem like a rant, so I just skimmed it.
I agreed with most of what I read, but I must point out that he is wrong about “husband of FIRST wife”. That is a bad translation. I believe that “husband of A wife” is correct. The following link explains why in detail:
http://home.sprynet.com/~jbwwhite/HEIS_MIABW.html
You should read more closely, Bryce. I am familiar with the article you linked (one of the “many” good detailed such works), and was merely noting that the common “husband of ONE wife” rendering is an example of cultural bias. Other phrases are at LEAST as accurate.
Here is what I wrote, in the form of a footnote:
Dubious translations, such as the Âhusband of ONE wife of I Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6, have been addressed in many places. The Greek article “mia”, used there, is just as properly translated as “husband of A wife”, or “husband of a FIRST wife”. The popular rendering proves only that the translators believed the Monogamy Only Tradition themselves.
Blessings,
It is wrong to even suggest “husband of FIRST wife” as it cannot be right. Saying that it might be right is unwise, as it is easily dismissed. It is much better to only suggest that which makes sense if you want people to take you seriously.
FROM http://home.sprynet.com/~jbwwhite/HEIS_MIABW.html
»dead in Christ shall rise first« (1Th 4:16, KJV, prôton)
»except there come a falling away first« (2Th 2:3, KJV, prôton)
»in me first Jesus Christ might shew« (1Ti 1:16, KJV, prôtos)
»I exhort therefore, first of all« (1Ti 2:1, KJV, prôton)
»For Adam was first formed, then Eve« (1Ti 2:13, KJV, prôtos)
These examples of Paul’s usage of prôtos/prôton demonstrate well that Paul would have not used mia to mean ‘first’ if he wanted to say first…. It is true that Paul used mia referring to the first day of the week as do other New Testament writers. But, even so, mia in those verses did not mean ‘first’ to them in the context of the Greek language. We translate the construction tê mia tôn sabbatôn in John 20:1 et al as the ‘first day of the week’ because that’s more like commonly used English. However, the literal meaning is »(regarding) the one of the sabbaths«. In fact, he was using it much like the way ‘echâd is used in the Old Testament to denote the first day or year of a span of time. Thus the English translation »first« here is idiomatic, and not literal. It is important to remember that heis/mia/hen is used in the Septuagint to translate ‘echâd. However, Hebrew, like Greek and English, has a separate word to mean ‘first’ – ri’shôwn – which is used considerably more often than ‘echâd in this capacity. There is also the word ben which is so translated in the KJV. In Hosea, when he speaks regarding »her first husband« (Ho 2:7), he uses ri’shôwn to denote ‘first’. So we might expect ri’shôwn to be used if the Old Testament contained the phrase ‘first wife’ (which is does not appear to contain). All taken together, there is not much here to support the rendering of mias gunaikos as ‘of first wife’.
I think the better argument on Elders is not to challenge the monogamy of Elders view of the passage, but to point out that it is for Elders. God, after all, placed restrictions on who Levites might marry. It would not be surprising if he made some special condition for Elders, that was not based on morality.
It is not wrong to be a woman, but it is wrong to be an Elder and a woman for instance. How is it figured that because God declares it necessary for an Elder to be monogamous, that we should be as well? Certainly it is wrong for us to be drunkards, but we know this from other passages. There are none that say we are bad because we don’t teach, are women, or are polygynous.
BTW, who is Mark Niwot? I pretty much liked the article, but I don’t recall hearing of Mark Niwot before.
In the Law of God, there are no restrictions placed on who elders may marry outside of the restrictions that all Jewish males have. Why would Paul add to the Law of God? Adding to the Law of God is against the Law of God.
Bryce and Hugh — thanks both for your comments. I certainly don’t intend the “mia” issue to be divisive, or conclusive – my point was to try and keep an article pithy and reasonably short, which is why I put the issue in a footnote.
(I also agree, Hugh, that for Paul to put a “new” commandment in place that violates Torah would make him a knowing violator of Deut. 13, and so MUST be rejected. But again, all of these discussions already involve more depth than I intended in such an introductory summary.)
I will add this, Bryce. While I understand, and even agree, with your issue concerning “husband of [a first] wife”, I conclude that it is NOT the worst possible rendering, since that spot is already occupied, by the traditional rendering.
(Unless one recognizes, of course, that all polygynists already qualify as “husband of one wife” in the same way that the owner of several cars can honestly apply for a pizza delivery job that requires the applicant to be “owner of one car”.)
Mark  I disagree. I think that “husband of ONE wife” makes more sense than “husband of FIRST wife”. The information in the link I provided makes it clear that “FIRST” is not correct. However, I think that both are wrong. We will both agree that “husband of A wife” is correct.
If people who believe that polygyny is acceptable will quit propagating the “husband of FIRST wife” idea then people who actually understand Greek and Hebrew might start taking us a little more seriously.
Bryce,
There was no law to cover it. If indeed the elder requirement is that of monogamy, then it in all probability was to conform to Roman Law. There was no Hebrew Law to cover the Gentile Church so Paul speaks to a new situation. The precedent of obeying law when in captivity was established. Laws of course, that did not require sin.
There was no need for a man to have two wives, and Levirate law did not apply to gentile converts since they had no inheritance to protect. Assuming it is a mandate to monogamy Paul is following the precedent of the “set apart” nature of leadership, and he wants his leaders to be of good standing in the community.
There are in my view several ways to read the passage.
“Husband of ONE wife.” “Husband of UP to one wife.” “Husband to AT LEAST ‘A’ WIFE.” “Husband of the FIRST wife.”
Any of the above readings have no bearing on the practice of polygyny. At worst it would mean that an Elder should only have one wife, but then an elder is to be a man and an elder is to be gifted to teach.
Polygyny shares characteristics with “being a woman,” and not being “gifted to teach,” in that being a woman and not being gifted to teach are not immoral or morally substandard states. They just aren’t the characteristics an Elder should possess.
I think I should have addressed the above remark to Mark.
Agreed, all.
(And we do agree, Bryce, that “a wife” is a far better translation.)
Much confusion lies in the fact that it is ONE thing to look solely at the Greek grammar rules, which seem to boil down to preference based on context. THAT, in turn, requires much discussion – as the above clearly shows.
I’m working on a longer piece, and will try to incorporate such distinctions…
Blessings,
I guess all I would be trying to hold out for is the idea that elders should be monogamous only means that elders should be monogamous, and absolutely nothing else.
OK, Hugh…then we really do disagree, sorry.
— I am not at all convinced that these letters were ORIGINALLY written in Greek. And I’ve always considered the “Timothy/Titus excuse” to be one of the weakest of the admittedly weak Monogamania arguments anyway!)
I think that Paul would never have tried to do what his Savior so clearly would have called him a “hypocrite” for doing as well…by “adding” a requirement that is foreign to Torah.
The idea of being able to examine the “fruit” of a man who would serve in a leadership position is not only supportable, but not even remotely novel. But to put in a new burden of “only one” is. Whether on not pagan Roman law mandated something that the Word did not, Paul would not have needed to violate the clear prohibitions in Torah to deal with a transient situation.
(Finally, guys – and I do NOT wish to open ‘another can of worms’
All I’m saying Mark is the Elder requirement, whatever it is, is most certainly NOT a rip of polygyny. You can decide what you want as to what it means with regard to the number of wives an elder has.
I don’t think it’s best to argue the “mia” question, it is too much like word wrangling. I agree with Bryce that asserting it means “husband of ‘a’ wife” causes those that disagree with us to take us less seriously.
It simply doesn’t follow from the construction of Paul’s Elder Requirement, that anyone in the congregation is being instructed to be monogamous, unless it is an elder, and if indeed it is an instruction to be monogamous, I have already gotten the concession of a Biblical language expert and reformed seminary professor that it PROVES there were polygynists in the early church.
The reasoning goes as follows:
If it is a monogamy requirement for Elders, then it makes no sense unless the practice was extant (ongoing) and present in the congregations of the early church.
Cast in this light it is instructive to note that Paul could have then just said “Be monogamous” to everyone, but does not.
THAT argument, Hugh, I not only agree with, but have used myself many times.
Only just reviewed the comments now.
Mark, rants can be okay. But Jay wrote: Mark Niwot posted a great article showing a biblical understanding of marriage and polygyny. So I expected more explanation than defence.
I was interested in the comments about Adam. And the translation issues around one versus only versus first etc. for eldership requirement.
I was interested in the comments about Adam. And the translation issues around one versus only versus first etc. for eldership requirement.
Meaning these are the passages around polygamy that I would be interested in knowing more about, from a pro-polygamy viewpoint.
I can think of three points made concerning Adam off the top of my head:
1. The fact that God only gave him one wife is not a prescription for all men.
2. If the bad results of Abraham’s two wives is good enough reason to ban polygamy, then the bad results of Adam’s one wife is even greater reason to ban monogamy.
3. A husband and wife become one flesh after the example of Adam and Eve, but that does not preclude a man from becoming one flesh with more than one woman.
Are you interested in hearing more about one of these arguments, all of them, or something else?