• 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.

Moses As A Polygamist

I know we are getting off a bit from Moses so if someone wants to split the thread off feel free.
I was thinking about how we can often just run with a cognate from one language in another assuming they are the same/similar thing.
I got to thinking, "what if diakonos in Greek doesn't really map to English 'deacon' or 'bishop'"?
I remember memorizing this word as "deacon" or "bishop" which is kind of a strange combo as they are really quite different roles.

So I decided to dig a bit on "deacon" in Greek and I got an interesting idea from these definitions:

② one who gets someth. done, at the behest of a superior, assistant to someone (the context determines whether the term, with or without the article ὁ, οἱ is used inclusively of women or exclusively) Mt 20:26; 23:11; Mk 10:43;
...
One who serves as assistant in a cultic context (Hdt. 4, 71, 4 ‘aide, retainer’; Pausanias 9, 82, 2 ‘attendants’) attendant, assistant, aide (the Eng. derivatives ‘deacon’ and ‘deaconess’ are technical terms, whose mng. varies in ecclesiastical history and are therefore inadequate for rendering NT usage of δ.) as one identified for special ministerial service in a Christian community ....
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 230–231). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

This makes me think that Paul is saying an "aid to the minister" is not where you put a polygamist; a man who would remind many in that culture of the patriarchs and who are certainly blessed by the L-rd as (a man who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the L-rd).
So what if Paul is qualifying it as "this is a good office for someone to prove themselves in ministry before we promote them to handling heavy stuff".
As an "attendant, assistant, aide" the husband with just 1 wife (i.e. small family for now) is trusted with a little bit in the ministry and then in time gets trained up. To qualify for this "starter" position as "assistant" he must already have proved himself as a good family man with good kids and 1 good wife.

What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
I like to start the conversation about the bishop and deacon having one wife being proof that there were commonly polygynous households in the first century church. Once that has been digested, it is easier to address whether its one wife or the first wife of said deacon or bishop.
 
Yeah, the clear implication of the presence of that requirement on the list is that it's okay to be a polygamist. Whether it's okay to be a polygamist and a church overseer or minister is the real discussion.
 
andrew said:
@IshChayil, I'm missing something. Where are you getting eis? I thought we were discussing mia, as used in 1 Ti 3:12....
Click to expand...
sorry I should have mentioned "eis" is the lexical form of "mia" (both mean 1, but 'eis' is masculine form, and 'mia' is feminine)
they are the same word.
 
Okay, then eis/mia is translated as 'first' and 'a' at other places in scripture. Are you saying you believe currently that those are mistranslations?
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I like to start the conversation about the bishop and deacon having one wife being proof that there were commonly polygynous households in the first century church.
Click to expand...

I think it’s a stretch to call it a “proof”. It is a plausible explanation, but it is not a proof.
 
Last edited:
IshChayil said:
So what if Paul is qualifying it as "this is a good office for someone to prove themselves in ministry before we promote them to handling heavy stuff".
As an "attendant, assistant, aide"
Click to expand...

Thank you for this rendering. I have recognized that the term 'Bishop' is used in a general sense of 'overseers' in general, but I saw the term specifically as a separate office, such as an assistant minister or one "apt to teach" but not necessarily called to full time ministry.
 
http://www.sounddoctrine.com/an answer.htm

I have been researching the "one wife" topic for a friend who is a pastor and now feels convicted about leading a church because he is divorced. I came across the site above. It's from the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. It has a section on polygamy.
 
andrew said:
I've written about this passage in the Scripture Index on our main site.
Click to expand...
I generally like what you've written there, but I have one little nit to pick, if I may. In saying that Paul here isn't listing things that apply to all Christians, you point out that he doesn't list murder or adultery. But you neglect that he does list not being covetous (I Tim 3:3), which is another of the Big 10. That doesn't negate the point that not all Christians are, e.g. apt to teach, but it does weaken the argument that nothing in this list is a adressing sins. (or, more specifically, that "he wouldn’t have to say anything about any activity that no Christian ought to be doing," because apparently, he did.)
 
Kevin said:
http://www.sounddoctrine.com/an answer.htm

I have been researching the "one wife" topic for a friend who is a pastor and now feels convicted about leading a church because he is divorced. I came across the site above. It's from the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. It has a section on polygamy.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. Is the author approving or disapproving of polygyny?
 
Disapproving. By my reading, I think he's saying "mia wife means one wife because this is about polygamy, they had a big problem with polygamy back then because the Jews were "steeped in polygamy" from their old testament background, which is no longer applicable, and Paul was teaching them the new rules for the new dispensation of the church, starting by at least getting the church leaders to be monogamous, because now polygamy is wrong". Some of that take is from what he says directly about polygamy, the rest is what I gather from his general dispensational view expressed in the remainder of the article. I could be wrong but I think that's where he's coming from. He seems to be accepting that the general Christian reader will already "know" polygamy is wrong, so doesn't see a need to rehash that, the negative language he uses ("steeped in polygamy") shows this is where he's coming from. To my mind.
 
FollowingHim said:
Disapproving. By my reading, I think he's saying "mia wife means one wife because this is about polygamy,
Click to expand...
That's what I thought at first but, the more I read it the more I think its more about the eldership point of veiw than a polygamy is bad point of veiw. Maybe its the optimist in me clawing to the surface but from the rest of the article I get the impression that if the author's intent was disapproving it would be cut and dry stated.
 
andrew said:
Okay, then eis/mia is translated as 'first' and 'a' at other places in scripture. Are you saying you believe currently that those are mistranslations?
Click to expand...

"mistranslation" is harsh since Ancient / Koine Greek didn't really have an indefinite article it means any time you ever see "a/an" in English it's been supplied by the translator. I'm not taking such a strong stance as that (I know you mean specifically regarding this word so I'll address the 2 times ESV translates it as "a" in similar syntactical situations in my thread bellow). BTW I often ignore "breathing marks" in Greek as I'm not that concerned about Erasmian pronounciation. But... to be correct I should be writing "heis" instead of "eis" the 'h' is the breathing mark so ... just to be thorough so people don't confuse it with eis meaning "in to" same spelling different "breathing".
I think this is interesting enough to delve deeper though so I started a separate thread about this for those who are interested. I look at syntax issues and such over there.
Biblical Families: Must a deacon be monogamous? What does Greek heis/mia/en mean here anyway?
for anyone who wants to chase the rabbit trail on this issue without blowing up this Moses thread.
I wanted to extend the article title to "what's a deacon anyway?" but the name is already quite long :)
 
Last edited:
Asforme&myhouse said:
If you wanted to go more in depth with your thoughts on this, it would be appreciated. I would like to deepen my understanding of this particular set of verses, if you have an interest in explaining farther.
Click to expand...

It is the same word that is translated "first" in Acts 20:8.

If 1 Timothy 3:12 is translated as "first wife" then this verse has a whole different meaning, as in "You must have been faithful to your first wife, the wife of your youth, to be qualified to lead the flock".

The actual meaning of 1 Timothy 3:12 is sort of ambigous and could possibly mean several other different things as well. It is hard to determine only from the verse itself.
 
Last edited:
IshChayil said:
Yeah @Asforme&myhouseMy focus is not on that issue but merely on what seems to be Paul acknowledging polygamists in those times.
I was only pulling out the verse in the context of having a conversation with someone who seems to think polygamy died with the new testament; viola, here is a verse where it seems Paul is talking about polygamous guys for whatever reason; and he's not ruling them out as sinful (as @andrew mentioned).
Click to expand...

That is a good point. The polygamy denier has a problem in that nowhere in the New Testement is polygamy condemned. So there is a temptation to say that it was not addressed because under Roman Law it did not exist and was not part of the culture at the time. If they take this path then 1 Timothy 3:12 can not be referring to polygamy. If they claim that 1 Timothy 3:12 does refer to polygamy then they have to explain why it is only prohibited to the leadership and not the whole church. They can not have it both ways.
 
cnystrom said:
That is a good point. The polygamy denier has a problem in that nowhere in the New Testement is polygamy condemned. So there is a temptation to say that it was not addressed because under Roman Law it did not exist and was not part of the culture at the time. If they take this path then 1 Timothy 3:12 can not be referring to polygamy. If they claim that 1 Timothy 3:12 does refer to polygamy then they have to explain why it is only prohibited to the leadership and not the whole church. They can not have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, they do try to have it both ways, which shows the inadequacy of their position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top