BISHOPS, ELDERS AND DEACONS MUST BE HUSBANDS OF ONE WIFE
If deacons, elders and bishops from non Catholic churches can be a husband of one wife, why priests
are not allowed to be husbands of one wife? This is Biblical.
The Bible says in 1Timothy 3:2 that bishops and elders should be "husband of one wife". So we see that monogamy is a holier way and spiritual leaders should be exemplary in this. Polygamy thus is the permissive and not the perfect will of God.
Taken that the translation of the passage regarding bishops, elders and deacons having only one wife is right, it does imply that it is acceptable in the scriptures for other men in the congregation to be polygamous. When something is not the perfect will of God for a particular person, but it is also not sinful and thus permitted by God, it becomes the permissive will of God. God will never accept anything sinful to be permissible. Thus if something is permissible, it cannot be sinful. Polygamy thus cannot be considered sinful. Just like monogamy and celibacy, polygamy may be God's permissive will for some while it may be the perfect will of God for others. Each will have to seek God for what is specific for his life. If polygamy is sinful, then the Bible would, as with other sins, have constantly admonish and remind all men to be strictly monogamous, but the warning against polygamy is never addressed anywhere in the Scriptures.
Now, further examination of the contextual understanding of this verse tells us that the instructions given in this particular passage were very cultural in context. Paul, in the same epistle, said in 1Tim 2:9-12 that women should not have braided hair or be adorned with gold, pearls nor costly clothing. He also said that women are not permitted to teach. We see that these are all acceptable today and even much more. Today, we have God-anointed, God-vindicated women teachers, senior pastors, prophets, missionaries and renowned preachers. This passage was a part of Paul’s personal letter to advise the young minister Timothy, his protege and pastor who was faced with all sorts of pressures, conflicts, and challenges from the church and the surrounding culture. The emphasis of the passage was a guideline, not strict qualifications for the appointment of faithful and responsible leaders who should be capable of running their own household well. He also said that their children must be in submission with all reverence. We cannot penalize a spiritual man of service just because he has delinquent children. Samuel had children who took bribes, but God did not disqualify him from service. It was evil men who took occasion to fault him. Moreover, if one is to stick to the "non-compromising" stand of husband of one wife, then he should also disqualify the countless anointed male pastors who are single, whether still unmarried or widowed or divorced and all female pastors. Even Apostle Paul would be disqualified.
I would venture to emphasize that we would have to use the instructions as a guide only. Rigid adherence to this entire passage without using an intelligent discernment of cultural and contextual application can be disastrous. It would mean:
Women are not allowed to have hair-dos nor wear gold, pearl or costly clothing, and if they so do, they would have to be considered improper.
Countless anointed women who are called to be pastors, teachers and leaders would have to be taken down from serving God.
Even unmarried single men would have to be removed from the position of a pastor, elder or deacon. Even Jesus, and perhaps Paul and some apostles would not be qualified.
Also, a man who has problematic children would be disqualified, so would the prophet Samuel if he lives today.
If a person is not actively hospitable, he would also be disqualified.
If he does not have a good standing with the world because he had committed some crimes before, he also stands no chance at all.
If they have wives that seem problematic or are not considered by others to be virtuous enough, they would also be disqualified.
We know that hardly anybody stands a chance to be an overseer or elder of a church if we put him through this laundry check-list. What about other qualifications like sound theological degrees and good social etiquette? Has Paul forgotten them? I also wonder if Paul's outward disposition is gentle enough for the job. So we realize that the items on the check-list only serve as a guide, which also means that the "husband of one wife" is not to be taken as a rigid instruction but a guide to measure one's availability and capacity, especially when one was not raised in the Jewish ways of patriarchy and house management. If this instruction is to be adhered to rigidly, then the rest of the qualifications must be rigidly fulfilled too, implying that countless pastors and elders are not acceptable before God.
Also interestingly, this "strictly monogamy" line of interpretation would also mean that great leaders like Moses, David and Abraham are all going to be disqualified from ruling with Christ. One may contend that they would then be neither male nor female. But they can never erase the fact that their lives were polygamous when God qualified them as leaders and exemplars, and into eternity they still acknowledge their wives. When Jesus said that they would be neither male nor female in the resurrection, He merely meant that they no longer have sexual relationships - a good answer to the trick questions of the doubting Pharisees. It's not that they would not recognize or disown their wives. If a monogamist would acknowledge his wife, so would a polygamist. So a continual polygamous relationship if deemed sinful would imply a sin that goes into eternity. We would have to first answer the question as to whether Abraham and David and their multiple wives would be in Heaven. The answer of course is YES. Thus it is clear that the enforcement of strict monogamy on leaders of the church is inconsistent with the ways of the unchanging God. It is definitely out.
Yet there is more than meets the eye. The word "one" (Strong No. 3391) has been translated elsewhere also as "first". We see this same instructional guideline repeated in Titus 1:6, where the same word "one" is translated as "first" in Titus 3:10 to reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition. This same word "mia" in Greek is also translated in several other places in the New Testament as "first" rather than "one", for example "first day of the week" in John 20:1. Easterners like the Chinese still call the "first day of the week" also as "number one day of the week". Thus, it is also possible to translate the passages of 1Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 as saying that bishops and elders should be a blameless, "first wife husband" who is capable of taking care of his household. This means that he should be capable of keeping his first wife and managing his children well, which means that he can be polygamous. This flows well with the teaching of Christ about divorce and also with the verses in Malachi 3:15,16 that say God is against one who deals treacherously with the wife of his youth (forsaking first wife) and that he hates divorce. God is not against addition and added responsibility. He is against subtraction and irresponsibility. Since polygamy is in order, many divorcees including ministers should attempt to bring back their first wives and love them. I am not in any way saying that because of "first wife husband", all bishops and elders must be polygamous. But rather, because the word "mia" can be translated as "one" and "first", this verse cannot be used to support the proposition that bishops and elders must be monogamous, not forgetting the cultural and contextual "guidance" aspect of the instructions. There is simply no ground against leaders being polygamous in these pastoral passages. No way. Also, in 1Tim 5:9, the specific numeric "one" is used in application to "wife of one husband" (Strong No. 1520). Why wouldn't the same author of the same epistle use the same word if he had meant a same absolute numerical "one" in both cases? The answer is obvious, the meaning of "first wife" as in the case of elders and bishops and the numerical "one husband" as in the latter case of the same epistle.
There has been further contention (as would always be) that according to some 'authoritative' resources, the word "mia" in Greek language is to be correctly translated as "one", referring to a number because the word for sequential order ("first") of things and persons is the word "protos". Thus it means that the people in the congregation can be polygamous while pastors, bishops and deacons should be monogamous. For this I have 4 comments:
1. For all I know, the sources of such Greek "experts" were basically materials written by western Christians who made specific reference to this verse in their linguistic works. Thus we cannot discount the fact that such authorities may still be bias.
2. In the present time when God is using a royal priesthood where leadership and influence are not confined to bishops, pastors and deacons alone, making such a guide into a Law for just these 3 categories of leaders would be inappropriate. Also, where is it in the epistles that says the lifestyle of a spiritual leader should be religiously or naturally different from others believers? Anything that is inappropriate for the leaders would also be inappropriate for the others. This pattern is consistent throughout the NT of royal priesthood. God in His sovereign will, shifted the priesthood to include the laity and the line which separates them from the clergy is fast disappearing. We know there are those "ordinary" members of the congregation who are doing much more ministry than the clergy, influencing and leading the people as never before. So where then do we draw the line as to who should be polygamous and who should not be?
3. Leaders are supposed to be examples and imposing monogamy on them violates the overall context of the Word, watering down its timeless value and application, undermining the spirituality of the Patriarchs and making those who are polygamous, second class and unspiritual. Thus taking such line of interpretation that it's a must for leaders to be monogamous also means that polygamy is Biblically discriminated against.
4. It also means that a member who is polygamous would have to put away his other wives or wait for them to leave him or die, otherwise he is condemned to be only a follower and a member in the church, no matter how well he runs his family or how anointed he becomes. There is no more hope for him to advance in God's Kingdom. It seems he can polygamous while he is a younger believer and a ordinary member of the congregation, yet he is condemned by this same scriptural right and be barred from becoming an spiritual leader as he advances in the Lord. This is absolutely ridiculous! God is not like that. This line of theology condemns polygamous people to be unspiritual followers.
Despite all theological and technical exposition regarding this word "mia, to those who are still insistent on a being erroneously religious about being "a husband of one wife" I would like to tell them that a guideline is to be precisely a guide, not a Law. What Paul wrote was contextually a guide (taken that "mia" must mean "one", which is proven wrong) for the new church at that time, not always. Even so, the Law is for man and not man for the Law. We must be careful lest we be like the Jews, who fell into legalistically and ritualistically living out the Law and not the spirit of the Law. As what Martin Luther said, "Learn from me, how difficult a thing it is to throw off errors confirmed by the example of all the world, and which, through long habit, have become a second nature to us."
Further technical reading of the word "mia":
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/jbwwhite/HEIS_MIA.htmlJeff White is a friend and a wonderful teacher of the Word.
Copyright © Israel CS Lim, 1998
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=15406.0