The most perplexing trap that devils will use to advance the plot of the wicked paradox is in the reference to "one wife" in Titus and 1_Timothy. But as usual, once the LIGHT of the Scripture comes shining through, the wickedness thereof is instantly revealed. Praise the LORD!
In our English language, Titus 1:5c-7: "ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker..."
In 1_Timothy 3:2: "A bishop must be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach"...
In 1_Timothy 3:12: "Let the deacons be the husbands of ONE WIFE, ruling their children and their own houses well."
When one consults STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE, an amazing piece of evidence becomes revealed. In most cases, the word for ONE in the Greek is "heis" (hice), meaning the primary numeral "1". Yet, in the references to "ONE WIFE", the Greek word for ONE is not that word for the primary numeral "1". Indeed, in those three cases, ONE is "mia" (mee'-ah), meaning "one" or "first".
While some will try to confuse by the fact that STRONG'S indicates that "mia" (mee'-ah) is a "feminine of" "heis" (hice), let those confusers be reminded that STRONG's is more specific. It says that it is an "IRREGULAR feminine". Quite a different thing indeed! Despite such wicked confusion, however, a deeper investigation sheds still more LIGHT through the darkness. Alleluia!
That word "mia" (mee'-ah), meaning "first", is the exact same word for FIRST in John 20:19, Acts 20:7, and 1_Corinthians 16:2. All three of these verses refer to "the FIRST day of the week". Indeed, we can see this word for "FIRST" as meaning, "The position-number-one of a sequence". For example, the FIRST day of the week is the Day-number-one of the sequence of seven days in a week. Thus, even simpler, "the FIRST day of the week" can be seen as "the day-number-one of the week", which, of course, is Sunday.
Thus, because we can see that Greek word "mia" (mee'-ah) in that way, it also my be applied to those references to "ONE WIFE". That is, instead, it can thus be seen as "FIRST wife", or as "Wife-number-one" of a sequence.
So, it can thus be seen that elders, bishops, and deacons must be "the husband of FIRST wife", of their "wife-number-one" of a sequence. And indeed, that would certainly be absolutely fundamental to the principles in determining adultery!
A TRUE GODLY man is not to deal treacherously with the "wife of his youth", his FIRST wife, the wife-number-one! The "judgment of the LORD" in Exodus 21:10 established that very clearly. Therefore, indeed, an elder, a bishop, a deacon would and should certainly be required to live up to that "judgment of the LORD" in Exodus 21:10. Indeed, because they must be holy, they must certainly be still so loving, so blessing, and so edifying their FIRST wife, the "wife of thy youth", the wife with whom they first learned how to be such a TRUE GODLY (small-L) lord! Yes, indeed, such (small-L) lords absolutely must follow the example of the (capital-L) Lord, thus loving their wives, absolutely including their FIRST wives, "as Christ also loved, as Christ also loved, as Christ also loved" the churches.
(As well, I could delve into the fact that it is that word "FIRST" also in the translation of "ONE" in "ONE FLESH", as in 1_Corinthians 6:16; but, as I have previously explained that unto you, and so as to now avoid confusion, I spare you...)
As for those who would refuse to see this revelation of "FIRST wife", then let them consider the following. Why did Paul not just say that elders, bishops, and deacons must not commit adultery? It is because, indeed, the TRUE meaning of adultery establishes the possibility of more than one wife. Further, let such consider what one TRUE GODLY man's wife at one time of allowance (that it may be for your edification herein) and what another TRUE GODLY man at another time have both intimated to me separately. If it is true that Paul only specified ONE single wife for elders, bishops, and deacons, does that not still prove that OTHER Christian men were authorized to marry, and indeed were marrying, more than ONE wife? Indeed, why did Paul not simply forbid adultery instead of saying "ONE WIFE"? It was establishing a holy requirement. That holy requirement was not about having ONE single wife but about being the husband of one's FIRST wife, as according to the "Judgment of the LORD" in Exodus 21:10. Truly, the specification was a requirement to holiness without error!
Thus, either way one looks at it, it is clear as to the TRUTH on this matter of "ONE WIFE" of elders, bishops, and deacons. Even if one rejects the "FIRST wife" understanding of the meaning of "ONE WIFE", even the idea of separating specific "church leaders" from other Christian men still confirms that such others were not prevented from loving, blessing, and edifying more than ONE WIFE. Thus, again, the trap of the wicked, incorrect manmade doctrine of so-called "adultery" (as opposed to TRUE adultery) has been exposed. Yes, the LIGHT has pierced the darkness. And, unto the TRUE Children of the LORD, I say, quoting from 1_Peter 2:9e: "ye should shew forth the praises of him ((the LORD)) who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous LIGHT."
© October 4, 1995, The Standard Bearer
P.O. Box 765, O.O.B., ME 04064