Monogamy In A New Testament Context

My dear friend, please don’t confuse the issue with the genitive—that’s not the point; the translation and context is, however. So, I have gone over some of what I have written you and hopefully improve the clarity.

 

As I said, there are 8 occurrences of the word μιᾶς in the New Testament. Here they are with their meanings (pay particular attention to the context of each):

 

Luke 14:18 καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ μιᾶς πάντες παραιτεῖσθαι. ὁ πρῶτος εἶπεν αὐτῷ• ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα καὶ ἔχω ἀνάγκην ἐξελθὼν ἰδεῖν αὐτόν• ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε με παρῃτημένον.

 

They all as one began to make excuses. "The first said to him, 'I have bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please have me excused.'

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “I have bought one field, only—not two or three, only one …”

 

Luke 17:34 λέγω ὑμῖν, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς, ὁ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται•

 

I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed. The one will be taken, and the other will be left.

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “two in one bed, one taken, one left”

 

Luke 22:59 καὶ διαστάσης ὡσεὶ ὥρας μιᾶς ἄλλος τις διϊσχυρίζετο λέγων• ἐπ' ἀληθείας καὶ οὗτος μετ' αὐτοῦ ἦν, καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν.

 

After about one hour passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, "Truly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean!"

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “About an hour …”

Acts 24:21 ἢ περὶ μιᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραξα ἐν αὐτοῖς ἑστὼς ὅτι περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι σήμερον ἐφ' ὑμῶν.

 

“[U]nless it is for this one thing that I cried standing among them, 'Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged before you today!'"

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “I am being judged for one thing only — not two or three, only one!”

 

Hebrews 12:16 μή τις πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἠσαῦ, ὃς ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέδετο τὰ πρωτοτόκια ἑαυτοῦ.

 

[Le]st there be any sexually immoral person, or profane person, like

Esau, who sold his birthright for one meal.

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “One meal” not two

1 Timothy 3:2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν,

 

The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “Same word, why the exception?”

 

Titus 1:6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα.

 

if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behavior.

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “Same word, why the exception?”

 

Let's look at some other examples:

 

"But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 NASB (Contextually, a plurality is not suggested here.)

 

1 Corinthians chapter 7 discusses marriage and it is always in the context of "wife" (singular) and "husband" (singular). It does not make sense for the singular words to be used, if it is possible to have more than one wife. If it were acceptable to God to have more than one wife, then the word "wives" would have to have been used here. The wording of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 completely excludes the possibility of polygamy, in my opinion—unless, one applies a strange new hermeneutics.

 

Ephesians chapter 5 (verses 22-33) discuss marriage. Here again we do see the plural "wives" used. However, it is used because Paul is writing to the overall category of husbands and wives.

 

"Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 NASB

 

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her," - Ephesians 5:25 NASB

 

Notice that in verse 23 his message becomes more personal:

 

"For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body." - Ephesians 5:23 NASB

Then I pointed out:

 

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride [the church] has made herself [not themselves] ready." - Revelation 19:7 NASB

 

Friend, since none of these indicates a plurality—unless you choose use an Old Testament polygamous paradigm as your hermeneutical tool. I choose to accept the contextual and New Testament linguistical approach.

 

Again, since in my opinion, the overwhelming use of the Greek points in the solid direction of monogamy and since we can easily deduct this from the context of the other examples, why should we make the only other exception that of relating to wives? It just does not make sense to me. Friend, in times past, God winked at such practices (my words here, not Jesus’ because I know that he was addressing the issue of divorce here) but he now calls all men to repentance.

 

May God bless you,

             

Jim

P.S. And as far as I can determine, the use of the μία form is just as singular, no matter how you slice it as it regards marriage.

Does The New Testament Teach Monogamy?

The following question was sent to me by a proponent of polygamy to answer true or false. Kind of like asking the question of whether or not you have stopped beating your wife. So, although, I was tempted to answer it as both true and false, I thought it would be better to go into detail a little more. T/F The word mia can mean first or one or other. (See Strong’s Concordance). Answers Actually, there are 8 occurrences of the word in the New Testament. Here they are with their meanings (pay particular attention to the context of each): Luke 14:18 καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ μιᾶς πάντες παραιτεῖσθαι. ὁ πρῶτος εἶπεν αὐτῷ• ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα καὶ ἔχω ἀνάγκην ἐξελθὼν ἰδεῖν αὐτόν• ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε με παρῃτημένον. They all as one began to make excuses. "The first said to him, 'I have bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please have me excused.' Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Luke 17:34 λέγω ὑμῖν, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς, ὁ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται• I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed. The one will be taken, and the other will be left. Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Luke 22:59 καὶ διαστάσης ὡσεὶ ὥρας μιᾶς ἄλλος τις διϊσχυρίζετο λέγων• ἐπ' ἀληθείας καὶ οὗτος μετ' αὐτοῦ ἦν, καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν. After about one hour passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, "Truly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean!" Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Acts 24:21 ἢ περὶ μιᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραξα ἐν αὐτοῖς ἑστὼς ὅτι περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι σήμερον ἐφ' ὑμῶν. “[u]nless it is for this one thing that I cried standing among them, 'Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged before you today!'" Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine 1 Timothy 3:2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν, The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching; Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine 1 Timothy 3:12 διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων. Let servants be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Titus 1:6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα. “[I]f anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behavior. Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Hebrews 12:16 μή τις πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἠσαῦ, ὃς ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέδετο τὰ πρωτοτόκια ἑαυτοῦ. [L]est there be any sexually immoral person, or profane person, like Esau, who sold his birthright for one meal. Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine Since none, of these indicates a plurality. And, if that be the case as we can easily deduct from the context, why should we make the only other exception that of relating to wives? You and I both know that there are no examples of Christian (or Jewish) polygamy in the New Testament. So how do we find out what the New Testament says about polygamy? We take a look at what the New Testament says about marriage. What we'll find is that the New Testament ALWAYS describes marriage as between ONE man and ONE woman. It never allows for more than one wife. Let's look at some examples: "But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 NASB 1 Corinthians chapter 7 discusses marriage and it is always in the context of "wife" (singular) and "husband" (singular). It does not make sense for the singular words to be used, if it is possible to have more than one wife. If it were acceptable to God to have more than one wife, then the word "wives" would have to have been used here. The wording of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 completely excludes the possibility of polygamy. Ephesians chapter 5 (verses 22-33) discuss marriage. Here again we do see the plural "wives" used. However, it is used because Paul is writing to the overall category of husbands and wives. "Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 NASB "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her," - Ephesians 5:25 NASB Notice that in verse 23 his message becomes more personal: "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body." - Ephesians 5:23 NASB When Paul speaks to individuals, it is husband and wife. ONE man and ONE woman. That is marriage. But there is something even more important here. The relationship of husband and wife in marrige is the same as the relationship between Christ and His church. "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride [the church] has made herself [not themselves] ready." - Revelation 19:7 NASB Take care, Jim

Was Moses Polygamous?

Proponent for polygamy	My reply
The Bible does not say that Zipporah was from the land of Cush or Ethiopia.	The wife of Moses was a Cushite, according to the Book of Numbers 12:1. Exagoge 60-65 by Ezekiel the Tragedian (fragments reproduced in Eusebius) has Zipporah describe herself to Moses as a stranger in the land of Midian, and proceeds to describe the inhabitants of her ancestral lands in Africa: "Stranger, this land is called Libya {an ancient name for the African continent}. It is inhabited by tribes of various peoples, Ethiopians, dark men. One man is the ruler of the land: he is both king and general. He rules the state, judges the people, and is priest. This man is my father {Jethro} and theirs." Also, “Scholars like Johann Michaelis and Rosenmuller have pointed out that the name Cush was applied to tracts of country on both sides of the Red Sea in the Arabia (Yemen) and in Africa. In the 5th century AD, the Himyarites in the south of Arabia were styled by Syrian writers as Cushaeans and Ethiopians.”
I hate to say it, but you are repeating a common argument presented by opponents of polygamy, regarding Zipporah and the Ethiopian woman as being the same woman. They are not. And a little closer attention to the detail of scripture will demonstrate that these woman come from different countries and different lineages.	Not according to my research.
The first wife of Moses (Zipporah) is the daughter of the priest of Midian. It is important that we understand that she is a Midianite and the Midianites are descendants of Abraham.	Jethro is called a priest of Midian and became father-in-law of Moses after he gave his daughter, Zipporah, in marriage to Moses, not a Midianite. Jethro, priest of Midian, and father-in-law of Moses, is "said" to have been a Kenite, but merely live in the land of Cannan and the Midianites. Judges 1:16.
Midian is located south of Israel in the west, on the eastern side of the Gulf of Aqabah.	True, but so was Cush.
Ethiopia is south of Egypt proper in Africa.. The existence of the historical Kingdom of Kush in what is now areas of southern Egypt, and Sudan cannot be reasonably questioned. (Wikipedia)	Yes, but keep reading, “The existence of the historical Kingdom of Kush in what is now areas of southern Egypt and Sudan cannot be reasonably questioned, although the term may later have been employed with some latitude. Mike, if you research ancient maps you will certainly find Kush in parts of what is now part of Arabia. Go to http://nabataea.net/eden4.html and soak that information in.
The Midianites are the descendants of Midian a son of Abraham and Keturah.	Really, what does that prove? Jethro only lived among them, he was a  Kenite.
The Kenites?	The Kenites are not pure Midianites. They only lived among them, as far as I can tell. Careful research will show that Kenite clans were distributed all over the ancient world. As far north as Syria and into Ethiopia. They intermingled with the people of the regions and kept their distinctive clannish name because of their language. Some were black and from Ethiopia, some were lesser shades, depending on where and how long they lived and intermingled with the existing population.
In Genesis 25:1-2 we read, “Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.”	So? Again, what does that prove? Jethro only lived among them, he was a Kenite.
This is necessary to establish that Zippora is not confused with his Ethiopian wife in Numbers 12. Many assume that the numbers 12 wife is Zipporah. However, the Numbers 12 wife is clearly a Cushite or Ethiopian which was a descendant of Ham, whereas Midian, a son of Abraham, was a descendant of Noah’s son Shem. Thus, these would not be the same women.	Same o same o
“And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan” (Genesis 10:6).	Yep, that’s right.
Zipporah was not from Cush as you have erroneously repeated. The bible does not say she was from Cush. Since her daddy Jethro is a Midian priest, we must assume they are Midianites unless specifically told otherwise in scripture.	Well, since she was, I believe the same person we have been referring to as Moses’ wife, I believe she was. The point is Mike, you guys are straining at a nit to prove a point. I just don’t see it. It goes against solid historical research, only part of which I have given.
When we understand that Jethro and his daughters did not come from Cush/Ethiopia, but from Midian, two separate peoples and regions, we are able to understand that the Ethiopian woman of Numbers 12 is not Zipporah the daughter of Jethro a Midianite priest. She was clearly identified as a Cushite, a desendant of Cush.	Not so clear to me.
Are we looking for God's truth which causes scripture to fully harmonize? Or do we seek the approval of those who expect us to believe as they do?	Far as I am concerned scripture does harmonize. There you go again, Mike, pointing a finger, questioning someone’s courage. Stop it! Quit playing God. Be nice. God is big enough to handle my conscience.
Accepting and teaching the truth of biblical polygamy would cost many ministers their ministries and their financial support. They have much to lose. We all have the right to be wrong,,, and where shall we stand	What has that got to do with the price of tea in China? If you have me in mind, I ain’t got no money to lose. Yeah, I have a right, but not a desire to be wrong on anything, particularly things pertaining to God.
At the bema seat, where all of our works are tried to see if they are wood hay & stubble, or silver and gold. I do not care if the majority want to believe and teach the same traditions of man. It takes man of God to stand for and preach all of God's truths, especially the truths that might cost a man his esteem and his following.	I think I lost all my fear of men when I was a kid preaching on the street corner with all of my class mates walking by jeering. I’ve got self esteem, but no following. Sad to say. And, if I did, I would turn them around and point them to Jesus and ask them to follow him.
I do not believe the New Testament teaches monogamy only. I believe that is a tradition of man based on misunderstanding of scripture. I believe Rome was responsible for twisting this truth and selling it to the Church.	Huummmm. Guess we must disagree on that. No, I really think that what often happens is that we many times subconsciously try to justify our own idiosyncrasies or foibles.