Husband of one wife

[David1701]

51 minutes ago, vic66 said:

No christian whether minister or not should be a polygamist,  all Christians whether  ministers or no should be faithful to their spouse. Only death ends marriage vowls, until death do us parts. Applies to all Christians.

 

Amen to all this.

Quote

Husband of one wife is peculiar to those elders in ministry only.

Husband of one wife is about polygamy and/or adulterous remarriage.  In those days there were some polygamous societies.  If a polygamous man was saved, he was barred from being an elder.  If a man had divorced his wife and remarried, while she still lived, he was also barred.

If your wife dies, then you are no longer married.  If you remarry, then you are still the husband of only one wife.

[vic66]

source: bibleq.net/answer/1446/
What does “wife of one husband” mean in 1Tim.5:9?

Answered by Steven · 2 December 2009 · 0 Comments

What does this mean?

1 Timothy 5:9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband^1
1Or a woman of one man

The footnote suggests that “wife of one husband” might be some kind of idiom, for being a faithful wife. Is this possible?

Literal meaning

The ESV footnote reading “woman of one man” is itself peculiar since “woman of…man” is how Greek writes “wife of…husband”. The main text is probably correct, and the ESV footnote incorrect, for five reasons:

1. To be an idiom requires evidence of a use that means more than the sum of the words. In this case there’s no such evidence.
2. The evidence that does exist (see notes below) is for a literal meaning. Propertius, in Funeral elegy of Cornelia exhorts her daughter to be “wife of husband” for life, not faithful to a series of husbands.
3. There are many other clear ways of saying “faithful wife” in Greek if this is what Paul meant. Most usually “wise” (sophron) was used as an idiom for chaste, faithful in a wife (or in a bishop 1Tim.3:2)
4. It’s unlikely that Paul would say “Let a widow be enrolled if she has been faithful” — since this would require Timothy to not simply ascertain not how many times the widow had been married (and whether a previous husband was still alive), but require Timothy to investigate the personal matters of the widow’s bedroom. Clearly Timothy could not go poking around in the private history of every applicant for the widow’s list.
5. Paul has already established his concern in 1Tim.5:3 — “Honor widows who are truly widows.” What Paul means by this is not that he expected widows to be misbehaving (as the proverbial “merry widow”) but that the word “widow” was often used euphemistically to describe women who were simply divorced, separated, but whose husbands were in fact still alive. Divorce and remarriage was extremely common in the 1st Century, and many of those baptised would enter the church in this situation (see 1Co.7:27 “are you loosed [divorced] from a wife?”).

So isn’t Paul being unfair?

This then raises the question of whether Paul is being unfair. That a widow who was widowed twice (the first husband died, she remarried, the second husband died) would be excluded. Or a “widow” who had in fact been deserted, or divorced, against her will, would be excluded.

Clearly Paul expected Timothy to apply the rule with discretion and mercy. Timothy was not going to let someone starve because she did not strictly meet the criteria of Paul’s rule. The point is that Paul did not want to see the church becoming a large welfare organisation for widows who had living children, or a living ex-husband, or were under 60 and in his view would do better to remarry. So “not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband” is only a guideline.

But it still means what it says, the ESV alternative reading “having been a faithful wife” is something Timothy could hardly investigate, and has no support in texts of the period.

Notes

1. Funeral elegy for Cornelia
Propertius 4.12.67-68:
“My daughter be like me, be the wife of
one husband only”
filia, tu specimen censurae nata paternae,
fac teneas unum nos imitata virum.

2.  Gravestone inscription
VIXIT ANNIS L, UNO CONTENTA VIRO
“she lived 50 years, content with one man”
Imperial era. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 6.5162
cited Lightman & Zeisel in Church History Vol.46/1 1977
www.jstor.org/stable/3165156

[vic66]

source public domain:

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Let not a widow be taken into the number - Margin, “chosen.” The margin expresses the sense of the Greek more accurately, but the meaning is not materially different. Paul does not here specify into what “number” the widow is to be “taken,” or for what purpose she is to be “chosen,” but he speaks of this as a thing that was well understood. There can be no doubt, however, what he means. In the Acts of the Apostles 1 Timothy 6:1 we have this account: “And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a complaining of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.” “It appears that from the first formation of the Christian church, provision was made out of the public funds of the society for the indigent widows who belonged to it;” see Patey‘s Horae Paulinae on 1Tim. No. 11. To this, as to a well-known practice, Paul here evidently refers. The manner in which he refers to it is such as to show that the custom had an existence. All that was necessary in the case, was, not to speak of it as if it were a new arrangement, but to mention those who ought to be re garded as proper subjects of the charity. It would seem, also, that it was understood that such widows, according to their ability, should exercise a proper watch over the younger females of the church. In this way, while they were supported by the church, they might render themselves useful.

Under threescore years old - For such reasons as those mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:11-14.

Having been the wife of one man - There has been much diversity of opinion whether this means that she had never had but one husband, or whether she had been the wife of but one man at a time; that is, whether she had cast off one and married another; see Whitby, in loc. The same difficulty has been felt in regard to this as on the passage in 1 Timothy 3:2; see the notes on that verse. Doddridge, Clarke, and others, suppose that it means, “who had lived in conjugal fidelity to her husband.” The reason assigned for this opinion by Doddridge, is, that the apostle did not mean to condemn second marriages, since he expressly 1 Timothy 5:14 commends it in the younger widows. The correct interpretation probably is, to refer it to one who had been married but once, and who, after her husband had died, had remained a widow. The reasons for this opinion briefly are:

(1) That this is the interpretation most naturally suggested by the phrase;

(2) that it agrees better with the description of the one that was to be enrolled among the “number” - those who were “widows indeed” - as we should more naturally apply this term to one who had remained unmarried after the death of her husband, than to one who had been married again;

(3) that, while it was not unlawful or improper in itself for a widow to marry a second time, there was a degree of respect and honor attached to one who did not do it, which would not be felt for one who did; compare Luke 2:36-37, “She was a widow of great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; and she was a widow of about fourscore and four years.” The same is true now. There is a higher degree of respect felt for such a widow than there is for one who has been married again, though she may be again a widow.

(4) among the pagans, it was regarded as especially honorable to have been married to but one man, and such widows were the Pudicitioe Coronam, or crown of chastity; Val. Max. L. i. c. ii.; compare Livy, L. 10:c. 23; see Whitby.

(5) as these persons were not only to be maintained by the church, but appear also to have been entrusted with an office of guardianship over the younger females, it was of importance that they should have such a character that no occasion of offence should be given, even among the pagan; and, in order to that, Paul gave direction that only those should be thus enrolled who were in all respects widows, and who would be regarded, on account of their age and their whole deportment, as “widows indeed.” I cannot doubt, therefore, that he meant to exclude those from the number here referred to who had been married the second time.

 

 

 

[BeauJangles]

21 minutes ago, vic66 said:

source: bibleq.net/answer/1446/
What does “wife of one husband” mean in 1Tim.5:9?

Answered by Steven · 2 December 2009 · 0 Comments

What does this mean?

1 Timothy 5:9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband^1
1Or a woman of one man

The footnote suggests that “wife of one husband” might be some kind of idiom, for being a faithful wife. Is this possible?

Literal meaning

The ESV footnote reading “woman of one man” is itself peculiar since “woman of…man” is how Greek writes “wife of…husband”. The main text is probably correct, and the ESV footnote incorrect, for five reasons:

1. To be an idiom requires evidence of a use that means more than the sum of the words. In this case there’s no such evidence.
2. The evidence that does exist (see notes below) is for a literal meaning. Propertius, in Funeral elegy of Cornelia exhorts her daughter to be “wife of husband” for life, not faithful to a series of husbands.
3. There are many other clear ways of saying “faithful wife” in Greek if this is what Paul meant. Most usually “wise” (sophron) was used as an idiom for chaste, faithful in a wife (or in a bishop 1Tim.3:2)
4. It’s unlikely that Paul would say “Let a widow be enrolled if she has been faithful” — since this would require Timothy to not simply ascertain not how many times the widow had been married (and whether a previous husband was still alive), but require Timothy to investigate the personal matters of the widow’s bedroom. Clearly Timothy could not go poking around in the private history of every applicant for the widow’s list.
5. Paul has already established his concern in 1Tim.5:3 — “Honor widows who are truly widows.” What Paul means by this is not that he expected widows to be misbehaving (as the proverbial “merry widow”) but that the word “widow” was often used euphemistically to describe women who were simply divorced, separated, but whose husbands were in fact still alive. Divorce and remarriage was extremely common in the 1st Century, and many of those baptised would enter the church in this situation (see 1Co.7:27 “are you loosed [divorced] from a wife?”).

So isn’t Paul being unfair?

This then raises the question of whether Paul is being unfair. That a widow who was widowed twice (the first husband died, she remarried, the second husband died) would be excluded. Or a “widow” who had in fact been deserted, or divorced, against her will, would be excluded.

Clearly Paul expected Timothy to apply the rule with discretion and mercy. Timothy was not going to let someone starve because she did not strictly meet the criteria of Paul’s rule. The point is that Paul did not want to see the church becoming a large welfare organisation for widows who had living children, or a living ex-husband, or were under 60 and in his view would do better to remarry. So “not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband” is only a guideline.

But it still means what it says, the ESV alternative reading “having been a faithful wife” is something Timothy could hardly investigate, and has no support in texts of the period.

Notes

1. Funeral elegy for Cornelia
Propertius 4.12.67-68:
“My daughter be like me, be the wife of
one husband only”
filia, tu specimen censurae nata paternae,
fac teneas unum nos imitata virum.

2.  Gravestone inscription
VIXIT ANNIS L, UNO CONTENTA VIRO
“she lived 50 years, content with one man”
Imperial era. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 6.5162
cited Lightman & Zeisel in Church History Vol.46/1 1977
www.jstor.org/stable/3165156

 

8 minutes ago, vic66 said:

source public domain:

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Let not a widow be taken into the number - Margin, “chosen.” The margin expresses the sense of the Greek more accurately, but the meaning is not materially different. Paul does not here specify into what “number” the widow is to be “taken,” or for what purpose she is to be “chosen,” but he speaks of this as a thing that was well understood. There can be no doubt, however, what he means. In the Acts of the Apostles 1 Timothy 6:1 we have this account: “And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a complaining of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.” “It appears that from the first formation of the Christian church, provision was made out of the public funds of the society for the indigent widows who belonged to it;” see Patey‘s Horae Paulinae on 1Tim. No. 11. To this, as to a well-known practice, Paul here evidently refers. The manner in which he refers to it is such as to show that the custom had an existence. All that was necessary in the case, was, not to speak of it as if it were a new arrangement, but to mention those who ought to be re garded as proper subjects of the charity. It would seem, also, that it was understood that such widows, according to their ability, should exercise a proper watch over the younger females of the church. In this way, while they were supported by the church, they might render themselves useful.

Under threescore years old - For such reasons as those mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:11-14.

Having been the wife of one man - There has been much diversity of opinion whether this means that she had never had but one husband, or whether she had been the wife of but one man at a time; that is, whether she had cast off one and married another; see Whitby, in loc. The same difficulty has been felt in regard to this as on the passage in 1 Timothy 3:2; see the notes on that verse. Doddridge, Clarke, and others, suppose that it means, “who had lived in conjugal fidelity to her husband.” The reason assigned for this opinion by Doddridge, is, that the apostle did not mean to condemn second marriages, since he expressly 1 Timothy 5:14 commends it in the younger widows. The correct interpretation probably is, to refer it to one who had been married but once, and who, after her husband had died, had remained a widow. The reasons for this opinion briefly are:

(1) That this is the interpretation most naturally suggested by the phrase;

(2) that it agrees better with the description of the one that was to be enrolled among the “number” - those who were “widows indeed” - as we should more naturally apply this term to one who had remained unmarried after the death of her husband, than to one who had been married again;

(3) that, while it was not unlawful or improper in itself for a widow to marry a second time, there was a degree of respect and honor attached to one who did not do it, which would not be felt for one who did; compare Luke 2:36-37, “She was a widow of great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; and she was a widow of about fourscore and four years.” The same is true now. There is a higher degree of respect felt for such a widow than there is for one who has been married again, though she may be again a widow.

(4) among the pagans, it was regarded as especially honorable to have been married to but one man, and such widows were the Pudicitioe Coronam, or crown of chastity; Val. Max. L. i. c. ii.; compare Livy, L. 10:c. 23; see Whitby.

(5) as these persons were not only to be maintained by the church, but appear also to have been entrusted with an office of guardianship over the younger females, it was of importance that they should have such a character that no occasion of offence should be given, even among the pagan; and, in order to that, Paul gave direction that only those should be thus enrolled who were in all respects widows, and who would be regarded, on account of their age and their whole deportment, as “widows indeed.” I cannot doubt, therefore, that he meant to exclude those from the number here referred to who had been married the second time.

That's all fine and good, Vic. But what about the topic? 

Husband of one wife

On 6/20/2020 at 8:49 AM, vic66 said:

Apostles Paul teaching that Apostles Paul teaching that pastors, bishop, elders in the ministry and deacon can only have one wife in their whole life time. No second marriage after the death of of the death of there first wife. 

I'm still waiting on the answer to this. You're saying this is the Apostle Paul's biblical teaching, or is it your "oneness" doctrine and/or denomination's teaching? What's up with this? You keep coming back to this topic and I'll continue to ask you to make yourself accountable for it. 

What's your answer, Vic?

[BeauJangles]

Sooo... The usual "post-and-split-the-scene-routine" eh? That's not gonna work with me, Vic. 

 

  On 6/20/2020 at 8:49 AM, vic66 said:

Apostles Paul teaching that Apostles Paul teaching that pastors, bishop, elders in the ministry and deacon can only have one wife in their whole life time. No second marriage after the death of of the death of there first wife. 

Just when will you answer this question, bro? This is the Apostle Paul's teaching or your "oneness" doctrine and/or denomination's teaching? 

It isn't the Apostle Paul who taught this. Let's clean up this issue. It's erroneous doctrine. 

[vic66]

source: In the public domain Home / Bible Commentaries / Vincent's Word Studies/ 1 Timothy Bible Commentaries Vincent's Word Studies 1 Timothy 3     This is a true saying ( πιστὸς ὁ λόγος ) Better, faithful is the saying. See on 1 Timothy 1:15. Desire ( ὀρέγεται ) Better, seeketh. Only here, 1 Timothy 6:10, and Hebrews 11:16. Originally to stretch forth, to reach after. Here it implies not only desiring but seeking after. Desire is expressed by ἐπιθυμεῖ immediately following. The word implies eagerness, but not of an immoderate or unchristian character. Comp. the kindred word ὄρεξις with its terrible meaning in Romans 1:27. The office of a bishop ( ἐπισκοπῆς ) oP. Ἑπίσκοπος superintendentoverseer, by Paul only in Philemon 1:1. The fundamental idea of the sword is overseeing. The term ἐπίσκοπος was not furnished by the gospel tradition: it did not come from the Jewish synagogue, and it does not appear in Paul's lists of those whom God has set in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11). Its adoption came about in a natural way. Just as senatus, γερουσία and πρεσβύτερος passed into official designations through the natural association of authority with age, so ἐπίσκοπος would be, almost inevitably, the designation of a superintendent. This process of natural selection was probably aided by the familiar use of the title In the clubs and guilds to designate functions analogous to those of the ecclesiastical administrator. The title can hardly be traced to the O.T. There are but two passages in lxx where the word has any connection with religious worship, Numbers 4:16; 2 Kings 11:18. It is applied to God (Job 20:29), and in N.T. to Christ (1 Peter 2:25). It is used of officers in the army and of overseers of workmen. The prevailing O.T. sense of ἐπισκοπὴ isvisitation for punishment, inquisition, or numbering. He desireth ( ἐπιθυμεῖ ) See on 1 Peter 1:12. Verse 2 Blameless ( ἀνεπίλημπτον ) Or without reproach: one who cannot be laid hold of ( λαμβάνειν ): who gives no ground for accusation. oP. Only in 1st Timothy. The husband of one wife ( μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα ) Comp. 1 Timothy 3:12; Titus 1:6. Is the injunction aimed (a) at immoralities respecting marriage - concubinage, etc., or (b) at polygamy, or (c) at remarriage after death or divorce? The last is probably meant. Much of the difficulty arises from the assumption that the Pastorals were written by Paul. In that case his views seem to conflict. See Romans 7:2, Romans 7:3; 1 Corinthians 7:39; 1 Corinthians 8:8, 1 Corinthians 8:9, where Paul declares that widows are free to marry again, and puts widows and virgins on the same level; and comp. 1 Timothy 5:9, according to which a widow is to be enrolled only on the condition of having been the wife of but one man. The Pauline view is modified in detail by the writer of the Pastorals. Paul, while asserting that marriage is right and honorable, regards celibacy as the higher state (1 Corinthians 7:1, 1 Corinthians 7:7, 1 Corinthians 7:26, 1 Corinthians 7:34, 1 Corinthians 7:37, 1 Corinthians 7:38). In this the Pastoral writer does not follow him (see 1 Timothy 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:4, 1 Timothy 3:12; 1 Timothy 4:3; 1 Timothy 5:10, 1 Timothy 5:14). The motive for marriage, namely, protection against incontinency, which is adduced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:2, 1 Corinthians 7:9, is given in 1 Timothy 5:11-14. As in Paul, the married state is honorable, for Bishops, Deacons, and Presbyters are married (1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12; Titus 1:6), and the honor of childbearing conferred upon the mother of our Lord is reflected in the Christian woman of later times (1 Timothy 2:15). While Paul advises against second marriages (1 Corinthians 7:8, 1 Corinthians 7:9, 1 Corinthians 7:27, 1 Corinthians 7:39, 1 Corinthians 7:40), in the Pastorals emphasis is laid only on the remarriage of church-officers and church-widows. In the Pastorals we see a reflection of the conditions of the earlier post-apostolic age, when a non-Pauline asceticism was showing itself (see 1 Timothy 4:3, 1 Timothy 4:4, 1 Timothy 4:8; Titus 1:15). The opposition to second marriage became very strong in the latter part of the second century. It was elevated into an article of faith by the Montanists, and was emphasized by Tertullian, and by Athenagoras, who called second marriage “a specious adultery” ( εὐπρεπής μοιχεία )

[vic66]

Just now, BeauJangles said:

Sooo... The usual "post-and-split-the-scene-routine" eh? That's not gonna work with me, Vic. 

 

  On 6/20/2020 at 8:49 AM, vic66 said:

Apostles Paul teaching that Apostles Paul teaching that pastors, bishop, elders in the ministry and deacon can only have one wife in their whole life time. No second marriage after the death of of the death of there first wife. 

Just when will you answer this question, bro? This is the Apostle Paul's teaching or your "oneness" doctrine and/or denomination's teaching? 

It isn't the Apostle Paul who taught this. Let's clean up this issue. It's erroneous doctrine. 

Keep reading, keep searching, keep praying

[BeauJangles]

1 minute ago, vic66 said:

Keep reading, keep searching, keep praying

Yeah, I did all that. When are you gonna stop being evasive and answer the question?

[vic66]

25 minutes ago, BeauJangles said:

Yeah, I did all that. When are you gonna stop being evasive and answer the question?

here a little there a little line upon line, line upon line . making my case by showing pauls train of thought on the subject on qualification for those who would be part of ministry.

Pauls / Christ  life was a very good example.  living epistles indeed.

Edited June 29, 2020 by vic66

[BeauJangles]

34 minutes ago, vic66 said:

here a little there a little line upon line, line upon line . making my case by showing pauls train of thought on the subject on qualification for those who would be part of ministry.

Pauls / Christ  life was a very good example.  living epistles indeed.

Here a little there a little? Where at all a little is this teaching as alleged to have been taught by the Apostle Paul, Vic? Nowhere, bro. Not any post, not on any page, throughout the entire thread here. What kind of cat-and-mouse game is this, anyway? I'm really not interested in playing with you. Can't you simply admit to the error? All you have to do is swallow a little spiritual pride. Pride is not from the Lord either. What's the big problem? 

On 6/20/2020 at 8:49 AM, vic66 said:

Apostles Paul teaching that pastors, bishop, elders in the ministry and deacon can only have one wife in their whole life time. No second marriage after the death of there first wife.

So once again, I'm asking is this the Apostle Paul's teaching, or was this some kind of simple mistake? Does your church teach this? Or what? All I'm requesting is an answer for this. Is that too difficult for you? I really didn't think it was unreasonable to respond to this. Is admitting to a mistake a bad thing? I don't think so. And I promise not bash you for it either. Honest!