Are
Elders Prohibited From
Having More Than One Wife?
by
Isaac Aluochier
Author's Note
Subsequent to the following writing, Jeffrey B. White has drawn notice to the author that Strong's Exhaustive Concordance's rendition of the Greek words mia and heis is not as complete as rendered by other authorities. While the conclusion reached in the following article is valid in that elders are not prohibited from having more than one wife, "correct" usage of mia and heis does not prove the issue either way. Where the verses have been rendered "one wife" or "one husband", they should be rendered "a wife" or "a husband". The implication being that elders should be married. The author therefore thanks Jeffrey White for pointing out this matter.
White's writings on this and other subject matters can be found at his web site Zullûwth, at http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/jbwwhite/index.html.
1 Timothy 3: 1-7 gives some qualifications elders should have. Verse 2 states that a bishop or overseer must be "the husband of one [Strong’s No. 3391] wife". 1 Timothy 3: 8-13 gives some qualification deacons should have. Verse 12 states that deacons should "be the husbands of one [Strong’s No. 3391] wife". Titus 1: 5-9 also gives some qualifications elders should have. Verse 6 states that elders should be "the husband of one [Strong’s No. 3391] wife". 1 Timothy 5: 3-16 talks about honoured widows and gives some qualifications honoured widows should have. Verse 9 prohibits widows under sixty years of age from being taken into the number of the honoured ones, and not unless "she had been the wife of one [Strong’s No. 1520] man". (All scriptural references are from the New King James Version [NKJV], 1992, Thomas Nelson, Inc. unless otherwise stated.)
Strong’s No. 1520
reads: heis, hice; (includ. the neut. [etc.] hen); a prim.
numeral; one:- a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another),
only, other, some. See also 1527, 3367, 3391, 3762.
Strong’s No. 3391 reads: mia, mee-ah; irreg. fem. of 1520; one or first:- a (certain), + agree, first, one, x other.
The word heis clearly denotes the numeral "one", while the word mia can be translated to mean either "one" or "first", depending on the context of its usage. With respect to the elders having "one" wife, the word used is mia, which can be translated either "one" or "first". With respect to the honoured widows having been the wife of "one" man the only translation allowed by the meaning of the word is the numeral "one". It therefore appears, from the meaning of the words heis and mia, that in the case of the honoured widows, one of their qualifications was having been the wife of one man, while in the case of elders, one of their qualifications was being the husband either of one wife, or of first wife. This would appear to suggest that with respect to elders, if they had more than one wife, a qualification they had to possess was their still being married to their first wife.
Scriptural Usage Of The Greek Word Mia
Two separate scriptures can be examined to show that the word mia in instances where it has been translated "one" could also have been correctly translated "first".
Revelation 6: 1 reads: "Now I saw when the Lamb opened one [mia] of the seals; and I heard one [heis] of the four living creatures saying with a voice like thunder, ‘Come and see.’"
Revelation chapter 5 tells us that the scroll the Lamb took out of the right hand of him who sat on the throne had seven seals. Revelation 6: 3 states that the Lamb "opened the second seal". Revelation 6: 5 states that the Lamb "opened the third seal". Revelation 6: 7 states that the Lamb "opened the fourth seal". Revelation 6: 9 states that the Lamb "opened the fifth seal". Revelation 6: 12 states that the Lamb "opened the sixth seal". Revelation 8: 1 states that the Lamb "opened the seventh seal". In consideration that with respect to seals number two to seven they were all descriptively mentioned by number, and with respect to seal number one the word used was mia, which can be translated either as "one" or "first", it appears to me that a better translation of the word mia in the context of Revelation 6: 1 is "first", for this would then tally with the consistency of the manner all the other seals were described when they were opened. Revelation 6: 1a would therefore better read: "Now I saw when the Lamb opened the first seal".
Revelation 9: 12 reads: "One [mia] woe is past. Behold, still two more woes are coming after these things."
Revelation 8: 1 states that the Lamb opened the seventh seal. Verse 2 states that seven angels who stand before Yahweh were given seven trumpets. Verse 6 states that these seven angels prepared themselves to sound. Verses 7, 8, 9 and 12 show the first, second, third and fourth of these angels respectively sounding their trumpets. Verse 13 mentions an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, "Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because of the remaining blasts of the trumpet of the three angels who are about to sound!" Revelation 9: 1 states that the fifth angel sounded. The events pertaining to the sounding of this fifth trumpet are then described in verses 1 through to 11. Verse 12, in talking of the trumpet just sounded, states that one [mia] woe is past, with still two more woes to come. Verse 13 states the sixth angel sounded, and various events are described from verse 13 through to Revelation 11: 13. Revelation 11: 14 reads: "The second woe is past. Behold, the third woe is coming quickly."
The second and third woes are clearly described by their numerical position in the NKJV translation. The first one is not. It therefore appears to me, to uphold the consistency of the descriptions of these woes that the first woe should also have been so described in the NKJV translation. And as the word mia was used, which can mean either "one" or "first", depending on the context, the context in Revelation 9: 12 clearly shows that it should have been rendered "first" rather than "one". Therefore, Revelation 9: 12a would better read: "The first [mia] woe is past."
There are also other scriptures where the word mia was used, and the NKJV translators correctly denoted it to mean "first", rather than "one". These are:
Mattityahu (Matthew) 28: 1: "Now after the Sabbath, as the first [mia] day of the week began to dawn ...."
Mark 16: 2: "Very early in the morning, on the first [mia] day of the week ...."
Luke 24: 1: "Now on the first [mia] day of the week ...."
Yahchanan (John) 20: 1: "Now on the first [mia] day of the week ...."
Yahchanan 20: 19: "Then, the same day at evening, being the first [mia] day of the week ...."
Acts 20: 7: "Now on the first [mia] day of the week ...."
1 Corinthians 16: 2: "On the first [mia] day of the week ...."
Titus 3: 10: "Reject a divisive man after the first [mia] and second admonition".
There are other scriptures where the word mia was used, and the NKJV translators rendered it to mean "one", rather than "first". These are: Mattityahu 5: 18, 36; 17: 4; 19: 5, 6; 20: 12; 26: 40; Mark 9: 5; 10: 8; 14: 37; Luke 9: 33; 13: 10; 14: 18; 16: 17; 17: 22, 24, 35; 20: 1; 22: 59; Yahchanan 10: 16; Acts 4: 32; 12: 10; 19: 34; 21: 7; 24: 21; 28: 13; 1 Corinthians 6: 16; 10: 8; 2 Corinthians 11: 24; Galatians 4: 24; Ephesians 4: 4, 5: 5: 31; Philippians 1: 27; Hebrews 10: 12, 14; 12: 16; 2 Kefa (Peter) 3: 8; Revelation 13: 3; 17: 12, 13; 18: 8, 10, 17.
It is therefore clearly seen that the word mia is translated either "one" or "first" depending on the context in which it is used.
With respect to the context of polygyny in the scriptures, seeing that it has been allowed by Yahweh and even practices within it regulated by him, it appears that the word mia in the scriptures 1 Timothy 3: 2 and 8 and Titus 1: 6 ought to have been translated "first" rather than "one".
Why Honoured Widows Had To Have Been The Wife Of Not More Than One Man
With respect to 1 Timothy 5: 9, why was it important that the honoured widows had been the wife of one man and not more than one man? Because the law against adultery prohibits a woman departing from her husband and marrying another, for a woman who so does commits adultery and is an adulteress. It is not appropriate for the assembly of Yahweh to honour a woman who is or has just been living the life of an adulteress, for Galatians 5: 16-21 makes plain that those who practice adultery will not inherit the kingdom of Yahweh, for those who practice adultery do not really worship Yahweh, serving rather their own pleasures, thereby committing also idolatry and covetousness.
With respect to 1 Timothy 3: 2 and 8 and Titus 1: 6 it was important that those to serve as elders be found not to be adulterers, for the same reasons as mentioned above with respect to honoured widows. For the law against adultery prohibits a man from divorcing any wife of his on a ground other than sexual immorality or adultery committed by the wife, and subsequently marrying another woman. For anyone who so does commits adultery. It is therefore important to ascertain whether a potential elder is still married to his first wife. For, provided a potential elder has not divorced his first wife, nor placed her in a situation whereby she is likely to commit adultery, he has not committed adultery against her.
It is even more important to ascertain whether a potential elder is still married to his first wife rather than just whether he is married to one wife. For a potential elder could be married to one wife, yet be an adulterer, in that he has already divorced a woman he has previously been married to on a ground other than adultery! He might therefore appear on the surface to be living an upright life, while in reality he is indeed an adulterer, violating the law against adultery. In this light it is clearly seen that the word mia in 1 Timothy 3: 2 and 8 and Titus 1: 6 ought to be translated "first" rather than "one". (For a more complete exposition on the law against adultery see Marriage, Adultery and Divorce.)
CONCLUSION
It should therefore be noted that Scripture does not prohibit polygyny, that is one man marrying more than one wife. It does prohibit polyandry, that is one woman marrying more than one husband, while her first husband is still alive, for this is adultery. And specifically, Scripture, as seen from the examination of the above verses, does not prohibit elders in the assembly of Yahweh from having more than one wife. What it does prohibit is their committing adultery and being adulterers, such as by divorcing their first wives on a ground other than adultery, or putting them in a situation whereby they are likely to commit adultery. Elders in the assembly of Yahweh can therefore have more than one wife.
Return to Servants of Yahweh Site Contents page.
© 1998, Isaac Aluochier, All rights reserved. Published by Servants of Yahweh, P O Box 44848, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya. E-mail: servantsofyahweh@serveyahweh.org. Permission is hereby GRANTED to reproduce this and other publications in the Servants of Yahweh web site, http://www.serveyahweh.org, unless otherwise stated.