Must a deacon be monogamous? What does Greek heis/mia/en mean here?

[Verifyveritas76]

One of the things that puzzle me is why God presents Himself as the husband, married to two wives in Jeremiah 3. He is the ultimate Bishop and the ultimate Servant/Steward according to the passage as well as Ezekiel 16. Add in Isaiah 65 where He is “found” of a people that He has not called/chosen and you now have a 3rd wife (Gentiles).

Why would God the Father present himself as polygamous, Christ as polygamous, many of the Hall of Famers as polygamous or from poly families, and Christ himself born through a lineage of several plural wives. The idea of a monogamous only bishop, steward, deacon, elder etc does not compute if we are to be conformed to His image.

Be conformed to His image in every way possible, . . . . except for the leaders of the church, and only in this one aspect. Everybody else, its ok to be conformed to Him in everything, just be careful to never aspire to do much for Him or to be used of Him in any leadership capacity, cause you know, if you wanna do that, you cant be like Him. Just saying.

When you consider that He is the “husband” to every widow and “father” to all the fatherless, to be conformed to His image gives new light to “true religion and undefiled”.

P.S. Does this also mean that God would never call a man to serve as a leader of an assembly who was polygamous?

 

[mystic]

Be conformed to His image in every way possible, . . . . except for the leaders of the church, and only in this one aspect. Everybody else, it's ok to be conformed to Him in everything, just be careful to never aspire to do much for Him or to be used of Him in any leadership capacity, 'cause you know, if you wanna do that, you can't be like Him. Just saying.

Bam! Sarcastic gold.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Just because I'm determined to be a dog in the manger... and apostles have gotten shoe-horned in

1 Cor 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Aside from the obvious joke that Paul is clearly advocating for polygamy among apostles because he talks about sister-wives. (ba-dum-tssss)

He speaks of himself and Barnabas as a plural "We" and sarcastically asserts their rights to have "A" singular wife.

Since the scriptures make it clear that he is not suggesting that he and Barnabas have a right to share a wife, it seems like he is saying he and Barnabas have a right to have "A" wife, each.

The sentence would have been perfectly intelligible (from my standpoint anyway) to both confirmed monogamists and staunch polygamists if he had said "have we no power to lead, sisters, wives..." because you could pretty much take it either way and Paul's actual point would still be valid.

But why did he not say so, even if the practice of the other apostles was only to have one wife? Did they not all have the power to take on multiple wives?

This is just food for thought, in my mind what an apostle may or may not do doesn't link up to deacons directly.

If it did not die out with those who received directly from Jesus, then how did apostleship die out? If it did not die out, how are they perpetuated?

Those are pretty useful questions.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Christ as polygamous

Be conformed to His image in every way possible, . . . . except for the leaders of the church, and only in this one aspect.

Christ is parabolically polygamous, and eschatologically married. However, on earth He was a single man and even now at the Father's right hand He is but betrothed.

To be conformed to His Image must of necessity have nothing to do with marital status. If His image means poly, or even married, then we are left with the proposition that Christ Himself during His walk on earth did not conform to His Own Image.

I rather thought the Image of Christ was to be viewed as conforming to His Character and Conduct. He Himself did not go around adopting orphans and marrying young widows.

A person MAY do so, but that means they can't be celibate and devote themselves entirely to Christ. A person MAY do that, but then can't be an Elder.

In my view all of these people may be equally conformed to the Image of Christ. They are all of incredibly high value to the Kingdom, it's just that a sapphire is not an emerald and an emerald isn't a ruby.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Christ is parabolically polygamous, and eschatologically married.

Parable or not, why would He inaccurately portray His wedding.
There is one instance I’m aware of where he used a parable with polygamy to portray His wedding. There are multiple places like John 17 that show clearly that His Father has given/betrothed all flesh and that there will be others who enter into this all flesh union with Christ. I am unaware of any places in Scripture where Christ is presented as mono only. It may be there but it would surprise me. Some might try to use the phrase the bride of Christ to prove a mono position, but IMO, that’s being intellectually dishonest as the bride singular is composed of all Christians plural.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they twoshall be one † flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

If Christ is currently betrothed but unmarried until his return, does this mean that we must do likewise and only betroth our ladies until His return?

Or are we rather to understand that as Christ and God behaves toward their “spiritual” or abstract wives, so we should be to our own wife(s) in everything. I.E. be conformed to His image and as He/They example fatherhood and spiritual leadership, we should also portray as accurate an example as possible in proportion to our ability and understanding.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Parable or not, why would He inaccurately portray His wedding.

Parabolically speaking, God is an unjust judge. Utilizing inaccuracies to accurately convey a truth is the point of a parable. If absolute accuracy exists in parables, then it will also be possible to determine the identities of the groups that each of the 10 virgins represents. Which may be! But I don't have that kind of wisdom.

but IMO, that’s being intellectually dishonest as the bride singular is composed of all Christians plural.

IMO intellectual dishonesty is something the other guy always does, our side only ever makes honest mistakes based on incomplete data. But you're not exactly addressing my point. My point was that if marital status is a part of Christ's image, and God is molding us to it, then He is molding us toward a certain marital status, which is has to be false.

Or rather, corporately, He is molding us towards a certain spiritual marital status at the wedding supper of the Lamb, it's just that any marital status we have on earth has no bearing on our part in that.

If Christ is currently betrothed but unmarried until his return, does this mean that we must do likewise and only betroth our ladies until His return?

I think I already answered that.

Or are we rather to understand that as Christ and God behaves toward their “spiritual” or abstract wives, so we should be to our own wife(s) in everything. I.E. be conformed to His image and as He/They example fatherhood and spiritual leadership, we should also portray as accurate an example as possible in proportion to our ability and understanding.

Well that's fine and true. But when you say be conformed in every way possible, and that way is polygamy, I think you're overselling it.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Well that's fine and true. But when you say be conformed in every way possible, and that way is polygamy, I think you're overselling it.

Agreed, if That is what I was saying.

If nothing else, you’ve just proven my point only in reverse. For someone to say that if we, as leaders of any kind, want to be conformed to His image then we must be polygamous would of course be overselling the point. Likewise anyone claiming that leaders alone are restricted from conforming in this manner are underselling the point or creating an invalid restriction that does not accurately example the leadership structure given everywhere else in Scripture.

My point throughout the course of this thread has been that a bishop or deacon can be either mono or poly but they must be ‘gamous’. They must be married.

The beauty of the process of conformation is that it happens over time. The monogamously married man who is filled with the Spirit and elected to the position of Spiritual Leadership should naturally continue to be conformed in character and wisdom and understanding to be more like his Lord. IMO with time and maturity this makes him more likely to be a good candidate for additional wives as well as a prime living example and pattern of his own Lord to those around him.

Does he have to take additional wives? No. If he does, Does it invalidate the requirement that he has one wife? No. In fact, if something like the death of a wife were to happen, It would not disqualify this otherwise Godly man from the position.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Utilizing inaccuracies to accurately convey a truth is the point of a parable.

That really makes no sense.

Utilizing parallels of truth between two similar examples is the point or function of a parable. I would submit that Christ utilized a very accurate portrayal of his own wedding. If anything He has to drastically scale it down to a less mind boggling number so that the audience doesn’t get hung up on the multitudes that no man can number out of every nation tribe kindred or tongue that Christ, as the Bishop of our souls, will marry simultaneously without disqualifying Himself as the same eternal Bishop of our souls because He has married more than one.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Agreed, if That is what I was saying.

Totally thought you were, but if you weren't, then I really have no beef in this burger.

I'll leave the dissection of what a parable is or isn't for another time.

 

[The Revolting Man]

One of the things that puzzle me is why God presents Himself as the husband, married to two wives in Jeremiah 3. He is the ultimate Bishop and the ultimate Servant/Steward according to the passage as well as Ezekiel 16. Add in Isaiah 65 where He is “found” of a people that He has not called/chosen and you now have a 3rd wife (Gentiles).

Why would God the Father present himself as polygamous, Christ as polygamous, many of the Hall of Famers as polygamous or from poly families, and Christ himself born through a lineage of several plural wives. The idea of a monogamous only bishop, steward, deacon, elder etc does not compute if we are to be conformed to His image.

Be conformed to His image in every way possible, . . . . except for the leaders of the church, and only in this one aspect. Everybody else, its ok to be conformed to Him in everything, just be careful to never aspire to do much for Him or to be used of Him in any leadership capacity, cause you know, if you wanna do that, you cant be like Him. Just saying.

When you consider that He is the “husband” to every widow and “father” to all the fatherless, to be conformed to His image gives new light to “true religion and undefiled”.

P.S. Does this also mean that God would never call a man to serve as a leader of an assembly who was polygamous?

Does God present Himself as a bishop? I'm asking. This might shed a LOT of light on this whole topic.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

BTW, Maybe its nothing and maybe its something, but I just realized as I was posting in the Clement of Alexandria thread about Irenaeus, that I have yet to see any mention of the one wife issue in regards to these gnostic men who used their pseudo Christian religion to gain multiple consorts/wives. Everything else about their lives is picked apart, and yet no mention (as of yet) that a bishop of a Christian assembly is only to have one wife. Irenaeus calls them out for deluding and defiling these silly women, but I’ve yet to see him point to Pauls requirements once. Maybe its just me, but it seems that this would be reeeally low hanging fruit.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Does God present Himself as a bishop? I'm asking. This might shed a LOT of light on this whole topic.

1 Peter 2:24&25
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Shepherd in this passage is translated from the same word ‘poimeon’ that is translated as pastor in Eph 4:11

 

[andrew]

BTW, Maybe its nothing and maybe its something, but I just realized as I was posting in the Clement of Alexandria thread about Irenaeus, that I have yet to see any mention of the one wife issue in regards to these gnostic men who used their pseudo Christian religion to gain multiple consorts/wives. Everything else about their lives is picked apart, and yet no mention (as of yet) that a bishop of a Christian assembly is only to have one wife. Irenaeus calls them out for deluding and defiling these silly women, but I’ve yet to see him point to Pauls requirements once. Maybe its just me, but it seems that this would be reeeally low hanging fruit.

Intriguing....

 

[The Revolting Man]

1 Peter 2:24&25
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Shepherd in this passage is translated from the same word ‘poimeon’ that is translated as pastor in Eph 4:11

Okay, so let me make sure I'm up on what's going on. Is bishop the word connected to the whole "mia" debate? Because if so, and God describes Himself as both a bishop and a polygynist husband then mia can't mean one. It would have to mean "a". If bishop isn't the word connected to mia then please ignore this whole post. I'm having a hard time keeping up.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Yep. Same word. Episkopas

 

[The Revolting Man]

Yep. Same word. Episkopas

Well that ends that debate for me. God is a bishop. God is polygamist. A bishop can be polygamist.

 

[IshChayil]

One of the things that puzzle me is why God presents Himself as the husband, married to two wives in Jeremiah 3. He is the ultimate Bishop and the ultimate Servant/Steward according to the passage as well as Ezekiel 16. Add in Isaiah 65 where He is “found” of a people that He has not called/chosen and you now have a 3rd wife (Gentiles).

Why would God the Father present himself as polygamous, Christ as polygamous, many of the Hall of Famers as polygamous or from poly families, and Christ himself born through a lineage of several plural wives. The idea of a monogamous only bishop, steward, deacon, elder etc does not compute if we are to be conformed to His image.

Be conformed to His image in every way possible, . . . . except for the leaders of the church, and only in this one aspect. Everybody else, its ok to be conformed to Him in everything, just be careful to never aspire to do much for Him or to be used of Him in any leadership capacity, cause you know, if you wanna do that, you cant be like Him. Just saying.

When you consider that He is the “husband” to every widow and “father” to all the fatherless, to be conformed to His image gives new light to “true religion and undefiled”.

P.S. Does this also mean that God would never call a man to serve as a leader of an assembly who was polygamous?

Good stuff, and add to that how he paradoxically remains celibate (so it seems) the time He actually took on human flesh...
I'm sure you realize the weakness folks in the "G-d is such and such therefore I can be"... it is the son who is given for emulation and while it's true that one day He will return for his virgins with their lampstands, in the here and now he was actually celibate. We don't emulate the father...
(I also think we can be bishops now as I outlined above but not for the ...because G-d is polygamous reasoning which seems flawed). i.e. We should seek to rule over others because G-d rules over the universe? Do we kill our enemies because G-d kills His enemies? you can generate a fuller list on your own if you like.

 

[rockfox]

We don't emulate the father...
(I also think we can be bishops now as I outlined above but not for the ...because G-d is polygamous reasoning which seems flawed). i.e. We should seek to rule over others because G-d rules over the universe? Do we kill our enemies because G-d kills His enemies? you can generate a fuller list on your own if you like.

While you have a point, it would be stronger if this were the only argument on the issue. But given the other arguments at play, I think it's a pretty strong tiebreaker argument.

 

[IshChayil]

While you have a point, it would be stronger if this were the only argument on the issue. But given the other arguments at play, I think it's a pretty strong tiebreaker argument.

I almost clicked "like" on your comment because in sentiment I agree.
The problem is I'm a slave to my rational side and it's screaming at me that if an argument is flawed, it's flawed and that's it. It doesn't contribute or detract, it's weight is that of a feather.
Just to reiterate before someone screams at me, a reiteration of my conclusions on these issues based on our group language study (and this was a sincere soul-searching activity for me as it determines my own path in the near future):

1-deacon - not an office for a polygamous man as it's beneath him (the Greek meaning of deacon [secretary, pastor's helper, etc] not the English word which does have high responsibility etc. for an English understanding of deacon I see no reason to limit this to monogamous folks). For the Greek deakon it's a waste of talent to put a patriarch there and it closes the position to someone in their stage of life who should be there (for their personal growth).

2-bishop -Greek "visitor of the sick, etc." or even those who wish to translate it "overseer" (strong case has been made), I personally only see this limited to men with "manageable" families. So a monogamous guy who has adopted 20 kids I would say "focus on your family bro", If bin Laden were alive and converted I'd say "dude watch over your 40 kids a bit better",
a polygamous guy with under x-amount of kids and wives (where the number of souls he's responsible for is less or equal to the most souls a monogamous family has) I'd interpret these passages to greenlight him. Seems no set number more of a case by case basis as some men are obviously more talented at management and to that there is the paradoxically true axiom "to whoever has shall be given more"...
Let s=upper range of # of souls in a given monogamous man's care (wife and birth children, but big family, 15 kids?)
Let p=# of souls in a a polygamist man's care (wives+children)
in general,
if p <= s then permitted to be bishop
p can also be a monogamous couple which adopted lots of kids ..."managing his household well"

 

[steve]

1-deacon - not an office for a polygamous man as it's beneath him.....

BOOM
That’s quite a game-changer.