The husband of one wife

To be considered for the ministry, a man had to be the husband of one wife. I have seen a lot of mean spirited debate about this[ not here] and I truly wish to discuss this with others who might have seen this in another way than I have seen it enforced.

Now when this was written men were allowed to have more than one wife. In fact I have never seen it forbidden. What I am throwing out is this: Did he mean the number and not remarried? It seems to me that if a man through no fault of his own loses his wife to whoredom or because she was an unbeliever that as the scripture says he is not bound any longer. Any comments?

Thanks for your comments Krispy, some very good insights. I know that God meant one husband and one wife, but I also see nowhere that it is forbidden. Neither do I see anywhere it is approved of. It just seems to me I mean that it is not ever spoken against even for kings except that a warning is given to not marry unbelivers as they will turn away your heart from God. As in Solomons case.
I agree that the character of a shepherd is the most important thing. But I really do think this was referring to more than one wife at a time.
Also in Lev 18:18 God forbids a man to take his wifes sister to wife at the same time, as it would vex his wife. It seems that acceptance of pologamy is implied here.
Anyway I seem to be getting off the subject, I just think that maybe we have this mixed up and I have seen a lot of meaness on this subject. It seemed to me that Paul might have been referring to the number and not divorce.
I think that it is hard to understand a lot of things in the bible as we do not live under the same customs and because the customs of the times were the norm and no one talked about them, we might get the wrong Idea. Like headcoverings, or long hair on a man, what about baptizing for the dead? so many things we see different from the early church...

It seems to me that if a man through no fault of his own loses his wife to whoredom or because she was an unbeliever that as the scripture says he is not bound any longer. Any comments?

Hello lightwalker,

I agree with Krispy---- I do not believe that passage refers to polygamy as it was not a common practice in those days. Divorce also, though possibly common in the Jewish community, was not common in Roman society. One of the early church fathers even stated in their writings that divorce is something not seen in their society in over 500 years (so even in the Gentile world it was not common). I had always thought that "husband of one wife" meant that no remarried man (who had a living wife) could serve in the church in an elder/deacon position. In such cases, it would be no different than polygamy. In both situations, there are multiple wives living, so neither are permitted to serve.

Also, I must say that since I believe scriptures to teach that ANY remarried person is living in adultery if they have a living spouse (whether that spouse committed adultery in the marriage OR is an unbeliever---Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39), it stands to reason to me that no such person living in a state of sin should serve in any church ministry.

Another passage leads me to believe that Paul may indeed have been speaking of those men who have been married ONLY one time----including widowers who have not taken a second wife after the passing of their covenant wife. This passage caused/causes me to question whether a widower who has remarried should be serving as elder/deacon: I Tim. 5:3-16.

I ask myself this: why does Paul limit the taking into the number widows who have had ONLY ONE HUSBAND? To me, understanding this takes further investigation. I think it has much to do with how God values first marriages (orginal covenant marriages). I think many of the Early Church writers understood this "bond", yet some writers went off on tangents that are, to me, clearly unbiblical. Scripture teaches that widows/widowers ARE free to marry again (though Paul thought it better to remain single), so reading the writings of such men as Tertullian, in which he states that remarriage for widows/widowers is akin to a form of adultery, was shocking. Yet, in some way, I understand how he may have come to that idea. One marriage---for life---IS the better way----IS the TRUE representation of Jesus and the Church. We also have to consider that when one marries again after losing a spouse, all the "mingling" of families can cause a stir/problems which one does not see with intact(original) Godly families. I'm sure my ponderings will elicit response, but I welcome the dialogue as some of these things are not set in stone in my mind-----just thoughtful ponderings.........Blessings.........

Hi lightwalker...

Leonard Ravenhill once joked that a man can no longer have two wives -- because "NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS."

:-P

Sorry, but I couldn't help to include this in the discussion!

I know that God meant one husband and one wife, but I also see nowhere that it is forbidden. Neither do I see anywhere it is approved of.

However, polygamy was not only permitted, under certain conditions, it was commanded!!!“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.”
(Deuteronomy 25:5-10 KJVS)This is known as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibbum]Levirate Marriage.[/url]

I guess I always assumed these brothers were not married. This is an interesting thought. I still stand by what I posted earlier tho.

1Tim. 3:2 (KJVS) A bishop then must be blameless, [b]the husband of one wife[/b], vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Titus 1:6 (KJVS) If any be blameless, [b]the husband of one wife[/b], having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

1Tim. 5:9 (KJVS) Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been [b]the wife of one man[/b], The construction of 'husband of one wife' is exactly the same construction as 'wife of one man'. (the word 'aner' being translated as both husband and man.) This is referring to a woman who is a widow so we are clearly not talking about 'one at a time husbands' and whereas polygamy was not unknown in the 1st century polyandry was unknown, as far as I can tell.

Some 'high church' people in the Anglican church would interprete the 'husband of one wife' as being an absolute stipulation and would not agree even to a widower remarrying.

Others categorically deny eldership to any who have had more than one wife, historically. This usually means they would not consider a divorcee eligable for the role of eldership.

Let us not forget 1 Timothy 5:14,

"I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." (KJV)

If it is wrong for a woman to have at least two husbands in her lifetime (one at a time of course), then why does Paul encourage the younger widows to marry?

Note: younger women in the context means the younger widows.

If it is wrong for a woman to have at least two husbands in her lifetime (one at a time of course), then why does Paul encourage the younger widows to marry?

Krispy, I agree with you that if you speak the truth you are called mean spirited. In this generation of politically correct thinking we are in danger of even speaking the truth without going to jail for it.I recieved an email from a friend who keeps an eye on these things and he said they are trying to pass a hate crimes law that will not let you say something is sin, if the sin is protected. So christians will not be able to preach against homosexulity. Anyway that is not what I meant. Do you ever feel like this:

[It is] time for [thee], LORD, to work: [for] they have made void thy law.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55599

I see what you are saying, "having been the wife of one man,"

Does that mean the widow has only had one husband in her entire life, does that mean she has never had more than one husband at a time?

Romans 7:2-3 provides some clues:
"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."

A woman (and man) is bound to her spouse for as long as the spouse is alive. Once the spouse has passed away, the woman is free to marry again. She may be allowed into the Widow's ministry.

Does that mean the widow has only had one husband in her entire life, does that mean she has never had more than one husband at a time?

It is very unlikely that this would mean 'only one husband at a time'.

It is very unlikely that this would mean 'only one husband at a time'.

I understand what you are saying. I personally have never heard the word 'polyandry' before today.

If you are right, then what are the implications?

Paul said in verse 14, (KJV)
"I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully."

After saying in verses 9 and 10:

"Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man. Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work."

Would it make sense for Paul to stipulate that the widow ministry exclude widows of more than one husband, then tell widows of one husband to marry a second...thereby excluding them from any future hope in the widow ministry?

I know it is a stretch...how possible is it for one woman to have multiple dead husbands...but it could happen and I feel it is a valuable example.

It does seem the early church fathers were pretty strong on the idea of a widow no matter what the circumstances not to re-marry unless the spouse dies.

Obviously adultery warrants a person to divorce, but "re-marry"?

And if that party divorces over abuse issues or other drast cicumstances can that party re-marry in the Lord?

I know that the post apostolic period moved toward greater asceticism and that restoring the 'penitent' became an issue which, in some ways, continues to our own day. I raised this oddity regarding 'wife of one husband' because I think it is important to realise that better and wiser men than ourselves have struggled with these issues and come to different conclusions.

It is comparitively easy to come to black and white conclusions in the calm of the study but when faced with the wreckage of lives that we meet in pastoral care we need to be sure that we are not adding burdens to lives which have already been crushed.

Philologos, Jaysaved, Krispy, and all else interested:

I'm going to give you a present - a specific circumstance to examine, since it is real, and might one day be a problem to solve, in the event I wish to remarry.

It doesn't relate to a "Bishop's" requirements, because I am a woman. I will not be called to such a position, and wouldn't take it if it were offered, since it is in direct dispute with scripture.

But take the following as a hypothetical, even though it is real:

I, a widow at 20, later married a man who had never been married. We were married in a Christian ceremony, and the vows were taken as such.

Our marriage was as good or better than most for 11 years.

Then I was in a car crash, and was no longer good wife material, so to speak. Why doesn't matter, except that my husband could not cope with the results of the accident.

He deserted me, was unfaithful with many, then remarried.

I was not unfaithful, during our marriage, or in the 12 years since the accident.

So we are looking at a classic adultery situation.

I am the one who was betrayed.

I remain unmarried at this time.

Under these circumstances, and only these circumstances as stated, am I free to remarry, and remain within the congregation without accusation and dispute?

Or should I remain unmarried for the sake of remaining unmarried, that I might be a 'widow' without reproach.

Whatever you do, don't hold back from speaking your hearts, just because this is a 'real' hypothetical. I want to know what people think, and what scriptures support their views.

Blessings,

Forrest

Delete - server error