• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Heis and Mia

I'm having trouble getting into the dropbox link. I will redouble my efforts to get in .

As a brief response however (and I hope I'm not being stupid and addressing something you cover thoroughly in your booklet):

I gotta say that I am skeptical about 'first' as a viable translation for mia. Talking about a 'first of the week' is a standard english convention, but 'mia sabbaton' isn't quite that. The Jews of that day would not use 'dies lunae' or 'hemera Selenes' to refer to monday, as that would transgress the Law. As far as the days of the week were concerned, they were primarily interested with what the day was in relation to the sabbath. Friday isn't spoken of as "day six of the week" or "six of the Sabbath" or even "the sixth day", but as "preparation day, that is, prosabbaton" (before the Sabbath). Series isn't really in view. If it was, "protos sabbaton" or "arxe sabbaton" would have been a better fit, as they both are sort of legitimate translations meaning first. (first in a series and first in importance, respectively). And of course, merely translating it as "a" here conveys no information. If it had meant "a, but no particular Sabbath, it would have simply left mia out, as elswhere. And conveying the information of "on a day of the week" is a tautology of sorts, because all days are days of the week.

I don't find it solid enough ground to stand on using 'first' as a valid and reliable translation, when there are two other clearer words that mean first, when mia is used to mean 'one' far more often than it is translated as 'first'; AND when 7 of those 8 usages refer specifically to how Jew reckon the days of the week, which clearly differs from our paradigm by a wide margin. It may do no actual harm to translate it as such, as no matter what, we're talking about monday right? But to carry that squiffy translation into another verses is scary juju to me.

If you've already covered this issue in your booklet, just say so, and I'll shut mah word-hole.
 
I'm not sure what's going wrong with that pdf link, it's playing up for me too and I can't figure it out. Try this one for an html version, this seems to be working. It doesn't go into this in detail, I more think you'll find it interesting as you study the wider questions around marriage:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/74u7oh8r9cgbb ... .html?dl=0

You may have a more comprehensive knowledge of Greek than myself, you've studied "mia sabbaton" more deeply than I have done, I've just taken it at face value - as "first day following the sabbath". Your thoughts on this are very interesting, thankyou. But I don't think they affect the fundamental question.

Whenever we are trying to understand anything in scripture, we need to look at all the key verses related to a topic, and find an understanding that is consistent with all of them. And here we basically have three possible options.

1) A bishop is to have "only one" wife. But that would make this the only passage in scripture anywhere to limit the number of wives. It would contradict every other passage in scripture that accepts polygamy. And "mia" is an ambiguous term to use (given we're even debating it now), Paul could easily have used "heis".

2) A bishop is to have "a" wife. This is entirely plausible and could be correct. But it does seem to contradict Paul's many other statements that strongly support celibacy as an option, and his own life. Why would a celibate apostle require church leaders to be married?

3) A bishop is to still have his "first" wife. Throughout the NT divorce is spoken against repeatedly, Paul is particularly strong on this. If church leaders are to still have their first wives, they must be people who work through their issues and are able to preserve marriage, giving a good example to the church. This translation is both plausible in itself AND it aligns with and backs up many other statements in the NT. So I think it's far more likely to be correct.

We cannot consider this issue in isolation purely as a grammatical question. The remainder of scripture should also influence us as to which translation is more likely to be correct. As far as I can see all three are at least plausible grammatically. However, 1 appears clearly wrong as it is inconsistent with the rest of scripture. I can't be certain between 2 and 3, but regardless of which it is polygyny is an option for church leaders.
 
I think it important to point out that even if this passage does disallow poly for certain people in church leadership, it would not be a blanket statement that applied to all "church leaders". Priests, rabbi, Kings, disciples, apostles; none of these are mentioned. Additionally, as I have seen pointed out elsewhere, what we term "elder" and "deacon" in the modern church bears little to no resemblance to what that term meant then. I would argue that this particular passage is largely academic, and primarily serves to highlight that poly is just fine for most people.
 
But it does seem to contradict Paul's many other statements that strongly support celibacy as an option, and his own life. Why would a celibate apostle require church leaders to be married?

I don't think this in anyway contradicts what Paul was stating earlier about celibacy. After all celibacy was a matter of gifting to individuals not necessarily leadership especially elders.
If running your own home is practice and proof of ones ability to run a church then a person who has no children or has not been married would have none of those experiences and/or qualifications. However like Paul as a missionary apostle there are other callings that God puts on those that work great for those called to the single life.
 
Following,
I feel most able to comment on point 2 of your post, especially because UntoldGlory has already broken ground on it. “Church Leaders” is a big bag, whereas only Elders and Deacons are singled out by Paul. And I strongly agree with his statement that what the Scripture calls and Elder or a Deacon bears almost no resemblance to what we call Elders and Deacons today. I regard this as one of the great failings of modern Christianity, that our practices are so alien to the Word that instructions to the Church become, as he said ‘academic’.
There is a huge responsibility gap between an Apostle and an Elder (or even a deacon). Elders and Deacons are responsible to and for their city. An Apostle (who isn’t also an Elder) is only really answerable to Elders when he is in their city, and cannot be held accountable to or for, say, the Corinthians when he isn’t around. It’s difficult to administrate multiple local Churches when you’re in a Roman prison after all. An Apostle is called by Christ personally and has no prerequisite qualifications. (One may in fact be an enthusiastic murderer of Christians and be called to Apostleship over the protestations of his victims). An Elder or Deacon must actually desire the job first and be found worthy and then appointed (by men) to do the job. Deacons and Elders are both huge long term continual investments of both money and trust. An Apostle’s relationship and demands on a local body are sporadic, and sometimes his judgments are based on incomplete information.
An Apostle has no need to qualify by proving his household managing skills because it isn’t his job to manage the ‘house’. Paul couldn’t even remember who or how many people he baptized in Corinth, his job was to preach the Gospel. Theoretically (and I really am talking out of school here) Paul could have been leading around an absolute train wreck of 4 wives and 17 squabbling children, all of whom hated his guts, and it wouldn’t have kept him from being an Apostle. I think it wiser that an Apostle limits himself to one, and wiser still to forego altogether, but I see no limitation imposed on him.
I concur that this highlights that polygyny should be regarded as just fine for most people. I also think that all Christians should make all effort to conform the practices of the Church to scripture, because our traditions are still making the Word of God of no effect, even today.
 
I like the conclusions from what all of you are saying, but I have to probe a bit as I'm not entirely convinced on how you've got there! :D

In the Bible we are told of only three types of leaders in the church that I can think of (correct me if I've missed something) - elders / bishops (different words but seem to be used interchangeably), deacons / ministers (same word), and apostles. These cover the main leadership roles that are required:
- Leadership, as an overseer (elder / bishop)
- Doing the stuff that needs to be done, servant leadership (deacons / ministers)
- Church planting, appointment of the elders and deacons (apostle)

These are somewhat interchangeable also, for instance we read of Judas in Acts 1:20 "and his bishoprick let another take" - in other words Judas was called both a bishop and an apostle. So the definitions appear very broad to me, not narrow.

As far as I can see any church leader IS at least one of these. Are you providing the leadership, making key decisions? You're an elder. Feeding the poor, managing the finances, teaching the sunday school? You're a deacon. And these passages showing what is required of key people in the church apply to you.

I don't see that you can avoid these clear instructions by just saying "I'm not an elder, I'm a rabbi", "I'm a priest", or "I'm a foosmigoldingerman" (insert whatever new titles your denomination has invented here). Sure the deacons might do different things now - when the church was persecuted the deacon had to act as a bouncer, now he might be filing a tax return - but that doesn't change the importance of being properly qualified for the role. Anyway, when persecution returns the treasurer-deacon might have to suddenly learn to become a bouncer-deacon again.

It's just too easy to say "well this doesn't apply TODAY because our church culture is different". (That's funny, I think I've heard that sort of statement before... :D ) It's relatively harmless to apply it to polygamy - but you could just as easily say "our church leader can be a drunkard because we don't call him an elder so the rules don't apply". Or "we can require our church leaders to be celibate because we call them priests"...

What "church leaders" do we have today that are not elders or deacons and to whom these rules would not apply?
 
HAH! Well, let me answer from the bottom up. (Should we start a new topic or something? We are totally off heis and mia) Also I would like to clarify that I do not claim any denomination (or non-denominational church) as my own.
Firstly I would say someone with the gift of teaching, whom teaches the Word, is a form of Church leader. If he has a temper and has kids who are in jail for drugs, he is clearly disqualified for Elder or Deaconship, and neither job should be offered or sought. Likewise prophets would naturally attain forms of leadership. I would gladly substitute “prominent men, full of the Holy Spirit” for the term “Church leaders” to more narrowly define what is being spoken of, to distinguish them from Elders and Deacons. (Deacons actually not being very much like a leadership ‘job’ although a man should surely be full of faith and the Holy Spirit to be a servant in this capacity)

I have very often heard that line about scripture not being applicable to our culture. I have actually had pastors hand it to me. I can’t bear it. You and I are in agreement that changing cultures and traditions and names does not in any way exempt us from conforming to Scripture.

I think where we are disconnecting is our approach to conforming. You seem to be attempting to apply scripture to our current common method of assembling and organizing. I would like to change our method of organizing to match scripture.

A man who leads a local body solely by lecturing them for an hour every week and whom nominally occupies the top position of authority within the church, (church being defined as the people who gather into his building and have signed membership cards) is so greatly falling short of what scripture actually says that I could care less if he seems otherwise to meet the qualifications of Elder. He might make a fantastic Elder, but since that isn’t really what he’s doing, I’m not really concerned with what he’s called or what standards he’s held to. That came out maybe more sarcastically than I intended, but I have very strong feelings on this matter.

I would rather see us define church the way the bible defines it and hold Elders to Eldership the way scripture teaches it. Even good intentioned traditions become the enemy in short order if scripture doesn’t back them up.

Finally, your mention of Acts 1:20 is outstanding. I had already been feeling that my understanding of episkopos was lacking, and you just pantsed what was left of what I thought I had. Well done, you. I got nothing on this one, save to promise you that I’ll go do my homework now.
 
So the bible study I started a while back finished, and some people decided they liked the format and wanted to continue. One of the topics brought up as a potential study was "What did church look like". Since this topic has already derailed along these lines, I'd welcome some input and references to start building the topic with!
 
Slumberfreeze, we really are thinking very similarly.
Slumberfreeze said:
I think where we are disconnecting is our approach to conforming. You seem to be attempting to apply scripture to our current common method of assembling and organizing. I would like to change our method of organizing to match scripture.
Click to expand...
I'd like to do both...
A man who leads a local body solely by lecturing them for an hour every week and whom nominally occupies the top position of authority within the church, (church being defined as the people who gather into his building and have signed membership cards) is so greatly falling short of what scripture actually says that I could care less if he seems otherwise to meet the qualifications of Elder. He might make a fantastic Elder, but since that isn’t really what he’s doing, I’m not really concerned with what he’s called or what standards he’s held to. That came out maybe more sarcastically than I intended, but I have very strong feelings on this matter.
Click to expand...
A man serving a church in this way is exactly what he is usually called - a "minister", in other words a "deacon". Somehow our modern church has actually got their terminology right for once! He isn't an elder, and that isn't what he is doing. But he is a "minister", so should have to meet the qualifications of a "minister". Remember although a really bad minister might just lead for an hour a week, most have a full-time job where they're actually serving the congregation and the wider community in many different ways throughout the week - working as a deacon.

I would not look at him and say "you're not doing this job perfectly scripturally so you're not a minister / deacon". Rather I'd say "You're a minister. Why aren't you doing your job like the scripture says? Let's constructively improve things here". Same observation, but different response to it.

The "elder", or "bishop", is someone who is making the big decisions around leadership. A set of elders at a local Presbyterian or Brethren church for instance are a good example of eldership. But also, the Catholic bishops meeting in their recent synod are another example - they're providing the direction for their denomination. I wouldn't look at them and say "you're not bishops because you don't meet the scriptural qualifications". Rather I'd say "You're bishops / elders. Why aren't you married? Why are there so few of you trying to guide a global denomination, why don't you have several bishops / elders in each town like the scripture indicates?" Etc.

So once again I don't really see many church leadership positions that shouldn't be classified as eldership or deaconship, and then the people held to those standards.

Don't worry about going off-topic, we're humans, that's what we do...
 
UntoldGlory said:
So the bible study I started a while back finished, and some people decided they liked the format and wanted to continue. One of the topics brought up as a potential study was "What did church look like". Since this topic has already derailed along these lines, I'd welcome some input and references to start building the topic with!
Click to expand...
Awesome news, glad you're having such a good time! Try this:
http://www.livingtruth.com/PDF/housesthat%20change.pdf
 
Whoa! Nice link! I bear witness with almost everything I saw while skimming through it. (did not read in it's entirety)

It is my conviction that the church is primarily expected to meet in the houses. The last man that I considered to be 'my' pastor once said to me "What we do here on Sunday is supposed to be supplimental to the Christian experience". I agree with him. There is call for the whole body to come together and hear one man talk for hours, but infrequently. We should be much more regularly in each other's homes edifying each other and partaking of the Lord's Supper, without a pastor(shepherdelderoverseerbishoppresbutyr) present. Another translation for overseer is supervisor (if we take a left at latin). You don't need a supervisor watching your every move, you just need a visit now and then. More often, if you aren't doing your job.

My belief is that the Elders are supposed to jointly share the oversight over the city's congregations (with no divisions between 'my flock' and 'yours'). I believe they are supposed to argue about controversial issues, come to consensus, and then give themselves to teaching the word. I believe they are supposed to be, all together, "on call" in case anyone falls ill and calls for them. Their duties are not limited to these, but that's the gist of what I see.

I believe while the office of an Elder is to minister 'the word' the office of of a Deacon is to minister 'the tables'. I could be pretty wrong about that. What I do know is that the offices of elders and deacons are seperate offices, and I don't think they are to duplicate any of the elder's tasks as a job function. I believe Stephen was a deacon, as he was numbered among those who were appointed the task of making sure the widows' fund was fairly distributed, yet his 'office' was hardly the culmination of his Christian walk.

Those are just my thoughts. I don't really have a point though. The more I'm in this conversation the more I see that my studies into these matters have been anything but comprehensive. Lord help me to understand.
 
I also believe presbeteros or episkopos are the same person both being translated as elder the duty of episkopos being overseer and I also believe that pastor the Latin translation of shepherd is all 3 speaking of one person due to the fact Peter uses it exactly this way in 1 Peter 5: 1-2a (NKJV) The elders (presbuteros)who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder( presbeturos )and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd ( pastor)the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers( episkopos)

I also believe it is not just anyone that does it but that they must be chosen and hands laid on to signify their calling acts 6:3 (NKJV) Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business
And 1 Timothy 5:22 (NKJV) Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure.

At least that is my understanding from these verses
 
Oh wow, twohappy. It makes me happy to speak to someone else that has opened up 1 Peter 5 and taken a look at it. Finding that verse was the beginning of a very strange journey for me. No lie, one night (maybe 13 years ago?) I was in bed and I suddenly knew that God was not going to allow me to sleep unless I studied. I decided at random (or was led, depending on how you look at it) to do a study on pastors and was shocked to discover that the word only appears once in my translation, while poimane is used quite often. I didn't get clarity on the matter until kept pulling on that thread and found that passage and saw that it was tied together with Elder and Overseer. What a mess we've made of things!

Please tell me what led you to uncover this verse. I must know!

Also, do you take it to mean that Stephen and the other six men were Elders? If so, please help me understand how you arrived at that.

My understanding is that they were deacons, but FollowingHim has messed with my head now, so now I'm not sure.
 
Slumberfreeze, sorry to mess with your head! :)

As I understand it, Stephen was appointed as a deacon, someone who was practically serving the church (Acts 6:2-3), so that the apostles could focus on "prayer, and to the ministry of the word" (6:4). But the next thing we hear of Stephen he is doing "great wonders and miracles among the people", and teaching the word in the power of the Spirit (6:8-10). Which sounds like the job of an elder. Which simply says to me that the lines are extremely blurred.

My take is: The role of a deacon is to serve practically, the role of an elder is to lead spiritually, and someone may be one, the other, or even both. Stephen appears to have been both.
 
I agree with you following him. I think Stephen was appointed to the position of deacon over. Certain ministry. That ministry may or may not continued on for much longer or at least may not been Stephens permanent placement.
Which brings up two other things I tend to believe.
1- a person should not be appointed unless there is a reason or need for that position to be filled. Just because someone is qualified does not make them a leader they must have people they are leading. Giving out titles for title sake is useless for people and frustrating for the person. I also believe can be very dangerous when someone is given a permanent title with no direction or need.

2- sometimes when the job is done so is the position. And perhaps Stephen moved on from being a deacon to becoming an elder some place else.


One other thing you mentioned that I thought was very true was the blurring of the lines. Just because a person is not a deacon does not mean they can't serve and just because someone is appointed a deacon does not mean they cannot teach.

I think in our society we sometimes use titles to limit or control people rather than simply recognize what God is already doing in and through people.
 
Slumber freeze.
I came across this passage simply in my verse by verse studies which I often do in the Greek lexicon in order to not teach English translations or words that sometimes either are not in the original Greek but are placed there for better understanding (who's understanding? Gods or the translators ?) and also because sometimes an English word lacks the Greek words depth of meaning especially when you consider other words that they could have chosen so why this or that one ? It becomes very interesting for study.
 
1 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Just wondering where these verses fit in on biblical church leadership.

Aaron
 
I think those are the skillsets he has given to different people, to work within the church to edify the body. Different people may be one, or have a mixture of skills, and their role and skills may even change over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top