Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Titus 1:6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Titus 1:6 namely, a man of unquestionable integrity, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of being immoral or rebellious. |
Subject: The husband of only one wife? |
Bible Note: Part 2, continued. I do not think that Paul intended his words to be taken in that way nor to be applied in the manner that arises naturally out of this translation, particulary when it touches on divorce that occured before a man became a Christian. This view rests on three areas of truth. First, the area of grammar. Those three Greek words may be translated more properly as "a man of one woman' OR "a one woman man." The expressions could have several meanings; (1) a man MUST have been married to no more than one woman; (2) a man who has been married to only one woman; (3) a man who is now married to only one woman; (4) a man whose pattern of life limits his intimate relationships to one woman. Any one of these terms pictures a truly monogamous man as opposed to the "alley cat" approach to life, which characterized pagan society and increasingly characterizes our own. I do not know exactly which of the four thoughts Pai\ul had in mind. Yet by examining the two uses of the phraes in their contexts I believe that, of the four,numbers (1) and (2) are the least applicable. In listing standards of life quality for both a bishop and elder, deacon paul used along with a series of adjectives and ajective phrases. This puts a meaningful emphasis on two things: (1) The character of the Greek grammer gives this phrase a sense that this is parallel to a one-word adjectival discription, suggesting that "a one-woman man" is the most appropriate translation. This means that Paul intended the phrase to discribe the man's character and his overall pattern of relationships with the opposite sex, rather than to describe a man's marriage history. (2) All the other terms that accompany this phrase are marked by an unavoidable fact: they cannot be applied to any person in a fixed, set, or ridgid manner. Examine every other expression in both lists. All of them treat generally notable traits or characteristics of personal, family, and church life. No one can apply any of these traits to the life of persons in such a way as to show a clear didvding point to be on one side means acceptability and to be on the other means non-acceptability. How would one draw such a line in making a strict application of "serious," "not double tongued," "not greedy for gain," holding "the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience," or managing "their children and their households well"? The way Paul wrote these paragraghs that he drew no distinction between the nature and application of these standards of "a one-woman man." Although Paul was no great Greek stylist, he knew how to draw sharp distinction in meaning. If he had intended to set this standard apart from others, several forms of expression that he used regularly were available to him. If he has intended to say what the traditional translation implies I believe firmly that he eould not have included this phrase as one of a list of trauts that wehave described above. Rather, he would have separated it and made it unqualifiedly specfic. At the same time I recognize that more cometent Greek scholars than I will ever be, have defended the traditional translation. The second area is the historical situstion. As good a breif discussion of this subject as you are likely to find is also in Barclay's work. Since in Paul's day all Christians were adults at the tome of their conversion, I find it hard to believe that a persons pre-conversion history of marriage had any place in Paul's thought. To Paul, the man in Christ has become new all over (2 Cor. 5:17). It sems obvious to me that a man's career in marriage agter his conversion becomes a matter quite distinct from his pre-conversion experience. And his his career in marriage after his conversion would have to be handled on its own merits. A thing that church people often tend to overlook in the fact that there are sorry women just as there are sorry men. Sorry men have devasted the lives of many good women. And sorry women have devasted the lives of many men. To lay down a strict rule based on objective, historical facts alone is contrary to Paul's entire approch to the workings of the Christian faith. Such a rule smacks of the Pharisee's and the Judaizers" approach to godly living. The third area is today's practical situation. This involves two distinct parts. the first is a practice that is indefensible. In Christian testimonies great emphasis has been put on what a new Christian has turned from. The more lurid, dramatic description of past sins one can give, the more glorious has his conversion seemed to be. To tell of gross immorality, vice, or crime and tell of how Christ turned one from it all, is a guararanteed way of producing many an emotional "amen" from an audience, unless one includes in that story the fact of a broken marriage. End of part two. Continue to Part three |