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

[Verifyveritas76]

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"

Question, what does a bishop with a large church and one deacon do? Answer, adds some more deacons

Does more deacons equate to the ability to do more work, or less?
Does the addition of these deacons equate to more time for the bishop to do the work of God or less?
Can the addition of more deacons mean more headaches? Sure, but ONLY if they don’t understand that their responsibility is to take care of the smaller matters so that the bishop can do what only he can do. A needy deacon is a bad deacon and shouldn’t be in that role.

Lightbulb!!!! I just realized that the role of the deacon in the church is the same as the role of the wife in the home. That of a helper. The differences are 1)that the deacon’s ordained realm is within the church body and the wife’s ordained realm is within the familial body and 2) the deacon’s role is masculine and the wife’s is feminine. Can anyone truly say that a bishop is to be the pastor of only one deacon?

The fallacy that I see repeated in this conversation is that more wives (in ALL cases) = less ability/time to do anything for God. IF the household is well ordered and established (strong, intelligent self sufficient women) the inverse of that fallacy will be true and it will equate to MORE ability/time to do whatever for God.

The issue seems to be the leadership structure. It’s not that every plurally married man would make a poor bishop due to his family dynamics, just some of them.

If you build a strong general/weak lieutenants structure? = No time for the ministry because you’re having to compensate with time and energy for your inefficient or needy helpers.

If you try building a weak general/ strong lieutenants structure, = this may work somehow in the home, but will disqualify the man for assembly leadership due to his own inabilities.

Build a strong general/ strong lieutenants model = the ability to not only example the Christ model, but also (in the words of that spiritual giant, Buzz Lightyear). To infinity, and beyond!!!

 

[steve]

@Verifyveritas76, a most excellent post.
I would just add that in western culture building a well integrated/ well blended family will take a lot more time and energy initially than it did in a culture where the daughters were raised to consider poly normal. I also believe that most of us would strive for a higher degree of cohesiveness than we see in some of the Scriptural examples.
This, of course, would tend to raise the experience level of the successful patriarch and make him a better candidate for leadership.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

This is a link to the Clement of Alexandria thread. Thought that this was interesting. Full passage here

Ode 20

1. I am a priest of the Lord, and Him I serve as a priest;

The thought continues thru the next ode.

Ode 21

1. I lifted up my arms on high on account of the compassion of the Lord.
2. Because He cast off my bonds from me, and my Helper lifted me up according to His compassion and His salvation.
3. And I put off darkness, and put on light.
4. And even I myself acquired members.

More of this in the Clement thread here

From the Odes of Solomon. Some have debated whether or not these were actually written by Solomon or by some pseudographical writer in the 1st century posing as Solomon. Either way, this passage is germane to the topic of this thread, especially if its a pseudographical author due to time context post crucifixion.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Parabolically speaking, God is an unjust judge.

I assume you are speaking of the parable of the unjust judge in Luke 18?

If so, to say that God is portrayed as an unjust judge, in that parable, is an utter misreading of the passage.

 

[rockfox]

Good point about decon's. Though I think you make the role bishop to sound less than it is in scripture.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Because the grammar in these passages dealing with qualifications is not completely clear either way (and i know everyone thinks it’s clear the way they are reading it, but that just shows how unclear it is) we cannot use these verses to govern verses that are clear on polygyny and even polygyny in leadership.

Clear verses govern unclear verses.

Parsing the grammar, which is still unclear, isn’t helping. It is simply leading to a case of not being able to see the forest because the trees are in the way.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

If so, to say that God is portrayed as an unjust judge, in that parable, is an utter misreading of the passage.

The passage is clear that God is being contrasted with an unjust judge. Give me a little credit that I wouldn't miss that!

Aside from saying that, I intend to remain bowed out of a dissection on the nature of parables.

 

[mystic]

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

If I understand your gist here, Ish, it's that the man with a larger, more complex household is overqualified, not deficient, for the particular role of deacon as helper, and hence the remark in Timothy.

Yep, game-changer and lightbulb moment indeed.

And if so, then it pleases me that Andrew's answer to folk who see deficiency in a husband of more than one — "Fine, don't make me a deacon in your church" — needs no amending for others who see excellence in the same.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

The passage is clear that God is being contrasted with an unjust judge. Give me a little credit that I wouldn't miss that!

Aside from saying that, I intend to remain bowed out of a dissection on the nature of parables.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

You are by no means the only person who looks at me like that.

Which part am I getting the squint-eye about?

 

[Nikud]

I'm confused, How is it that any position working for the kingdom can be beneath a man? I can understand making the requirement of having a biblical marriage to prove leadership abilities to meet the standards of an office in service to the
L-rd, but is sounds like it's being said if a man exceeds those standards then the office is beneath him and he's to good/important to serve in that position. If that's the case than maybe I shouldn't cosider plural marriage. I would rather be last now fulfilling a role for the Kingdom that some one else felt was beneath them, than to put myself first and above any position in service to the L-rd. "For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the L-rd commends."2 Corinthians 10:18 Im sorry I just can't agree that having a Biblical Family with more than one wife makes a man any more important than a Man who has a Biblical Family with only one wife ,which the position of deacon is not beneath, or that having more than one wife makes an office in service to the kingdom beneath that man. I thought it was the capability to lead efficiently regardless of type of marriage and how that is reflected in scripture and what is the scriptural backed meaning of mia that was being discussed.

The idea that a man with more than one wife and a large family that is an affective leader is to busy to hold an office is as ludicrous as the idea that a man in a monogamous marriage with alot children who is an affective leader is to busy to to hold and office. Leadership skills overcome numbers. If it didn't the the size of congregations should be limited, because there might be to many for the ministry team to handle. Families then should be limited in size despite the fact that G-d says children are a blessing from because they'd make a man to busy to to serve the L-rd.

I've had the pleasure to meet men in Bilical Marriages with more than one wife like Andrew amonst few others who would excel at any leadership role in a church. I've been fortunate enough to have the displeasure to Meet Elders of H.O.Y. (a "Messianic" Cult that denies the divinity of Yeshua but allows polygamy) who have more than one wife and are poor leaders allowing themselves and their families to become slaves to the "two witnesses spoken about in Revalation". I know a man who is monogamous, owns his own business, has 13 children, is working on his Doctorate in theology, and is more than capable of leading a Church but serves as a Deacon because that is what's needed of him. Then we all have known monogamous Men who have held the title of deacon and failed the position. Its all about leadership ability, what scripture says and the meaning of mia. Most of us agree that it's not one.

Can anyone who believes that the office Deacon is beneath a polygamous man suport it with scripture? Can anyone show where any service to the L-rd is beneath a man?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

You are by no means the only person who looks at me like that.

Which part am I getting the squint-eye about?

Are you saying that you knew the statement “Parabolically speaking, God is an unjust judge” was untrue, but used it anyway? I’m not pickin’ up what you’re layin’ down, so to speak.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I say that the same way I would say: "Metaphorically speaking, Jesus is a mother chicken" referencing Luke 13:34.

Obviously with full knowledge that Jesus is not actually a chicken, and God is not actually an unjust judge. The comparison/contrast serves to illuminate either the way that Jesus desires to gather His people, or the way people should pursue answers from God.

There are similarities between God and the unjust judge. (position of authority, viewed as apathetic or uncaring) and differences (Just... lots) but it is unquestionable* that the judge is parabolically the Father in this case. If the judge were in no way any form of a portrayal of the Father, there'd be no point to telling the story at all. It simply wouldn't apply.

Which is to say for me it is not a contradiction that God is parabolically an unjust judge, and God is being contrasted with an unjust judge. I do not see those terms as mutually exclusive.

FULL CIRCLE: I am a big fan of taking every jot and tittle into account, because I think every syllable is pregnant with meaning, but I am hesitant to put much weight on a parable for anything but it's intended moral. Every analogy eventually breaks down if you read too much into it. The unjust judge does so sooner than the wise and foolish virgins IMO, but eventually you can lean on it harder than it will support. Especially if I'm to take it literally and personally and individually at the same time. Which I cannot because I am not any kind of virgin at all.

Even if I have failed in communicating just now: The main takeaway is I didn't say something I knew to be false. I said something I believe in.

Dangit. I didn't want to actually think about this. All this term defining has really set me back on my rehabilitation. I'll probably be a computer through Saturday afternoon at least. Now you have to pray that God gives me grace. It's the least you can do, really.

*As if.

 

[IshChayil]

I'm confused, How is it that any position working for the kingdom can be beneath a man? I can understand making the requirement of having a biblical marriage to prove leadership abilities to meet the standards of an office ... Im sorry I just can't agree that having a Biblical Family with more than one wife makes a man any more important than a Man who has a Biblical Family with only one wife ,which the position of deacon is not beneath, or that having more than one wife makes an office in service to the kingdom beneath that man.

I think you are missing the perspective or perhaps I was too vague, let me clarify:
The directive is to the leadership regarding whom to choose for office of "secretary/helper", it is not to the individual big-family-man to be haughty and say "that's beneath me!"
Just because we all should endeavor to act with humility does not mean that good leaders should endeavour to humiliate those under them.
From a leader's perspective, deciding who to slot as "low level intern/errand fetcher" it makes very little sense to put someone there who has already passed this stage in life (in addition thus denying the spot to someone who needs that spot for personal growth).

... to have the displeasure to Meet Elders of H.O.Y. (a "Messianic" Cult here in Abilene that denies the divinity of Yeshua but allows polygamy) who have more than one wife and are poor leaders allowing themselves and their families to become slaves to the "two witnesses spoken about in Revalation".

Hey Kev I just want to make sure others understand since there is a cooky leader who calls Messianics a cult in general (Michael Rood-ironically an ex-leader of the cult "the Way").
What @Kevin is talking about here is a specific congregation which is not chartered with any of the Messianic organizations; they are just abusing the word "Messianic" as many have done in the past decade+. These guys are not "Messianic"

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I say that the same way I would say: "Metaphorically speaking, Jesus is a mother chicken" referencing Luke 13:34.

Obviously with full knowledge that Jesus is not actually a chicken, and God is not actually an unjust judge. The comparison/contrast serves to illuminate either the way that Jesus desires to gather His people, or the way people should pursue answers from God.

There are similarities between God and the unjust judge. (position of authority, viewed as apathetic or uncaring) and differences (Just... lots) but it is unquestionable* that the judge is parabolically the Father in this case. If the judge were in no way any form of a portrayal of the Father, there'd be no point to telling the story at all. It simply wouldn't apply.

Which is to say for me it is not a contradiction that God is parabolically an unjust judge, and God is being contrasted with an unjust judge. I do not see those terms as mutually exclusive.

FULL CIRCLE: I am a big fan of taking every jot and tittle into account, because I think every syllable is pregnant with meaning, but I am hesitant to put much weight on a parable for anything but it's intended moral. Every analogy eventually breaks down if you read too much into it. The unjust judge does so sooner than the wise and foolish virgins IMO, but eventually you can lean on it harder than it will support. Especially if I'm to take it literally and personally and individually at the same time. Which I cannot because I am not any kind of virgin at all.

Even if I have failed in communicating just now: The main takeaway is I didn't say something I knew to be false. I said something I believe in.

Dangit. I didn't want to actually think about this. All this term defining has really set me back on my rehabilitation. I'll probably be a computer through Saturday afternoon at least. Now you have to pray that God gives me grace. It's the least you can do, really.

*As if.

God is God, in the parable of the unjust judge, and the unjust judge is an unjust judge. Here is the passage:

Luke 18:1-8 KJV
“[1] And he spake a parable unto them to this end , that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; [2] Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: [3] And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. [4] And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; [5] Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. [6] And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. [7] And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? [8] I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”

I’m sorry, but at no place this passage, is God the unjust judge.

I agree with you that parables have an intended moral and we should not lean on them too heavily. We should learn the moral or morals and apply it in whatever way the verse is intended to be taken. I totally agree about not applying things to our lives that are only narratives and obviously are not meant to be taken personally for one's own life. One thing I think is important though is that we don’t see God portrayed in any parable, as unjust, evil, or sinning.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Ah well, disagreeing with me isn't a crime....

yet.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

From a leader's perspective, deciding who to slot as "low level intern/errand fetcher" it makes very little sense to put someone there who has already passed this stage in life (in addition thus denying the spot to someone who needs that spot for personal growth).

Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but last I checked, the authority for choosing the bishop and the deacons rests in the laity per Acts 6, or maybe perhaps the apostles, but not the bishops. This is precisely the formula used to play politics within the pastor papacy.

In the case of the deacons, I’ve never seen anything indicating that they were a low level intern/errand fetcher. I guess I assumed that the requirements for maturity (not a novice) extended to them as well as they must first be proven before assuming their duties. A servant minded man, yes, but not a low level intern/errand fetcher. In fact, the initial qualifications for a deacon were that they were full of faith and wisdom, full of the Holy Spirit and full of POWER (dynamis) so much so that they were able to win many of the priests, and go head to head with the best of several synagogues, and do great wonders and miracles among the people. Though they waited tables, and no doubt did that well, the idea that they would even consider someone for the position who needed the spot for personal growth seems quite far fetched.


Christ’s statement that the ones who would be greatest among you must be servant of all comes to mind.

Edit: I just happened to read the letter from Ignatius to the Philadelphians and he gave some interesting insights into everything I just listed above. Circa 115 AD

Since, according to your prayers, and the compassion which ye feel in Christ Jesus, it is reported to me that the Church which is at Antioch in Syria possesses peace, it will become you, as a Church of God, to elect a deacon to act as the ambassador of God[for you] to[the brethren there], that he may rejoice along with them when they are met together, and glorify the name[of God], Blessed is he in Jesus Christ, who shall be deemed worthy of such a ministry; and ye too shall be glorified. And if ye are willing, it is not beyond your power to do this, for the sake of God; as also the nearest Churches have sent, in some cases bishops, and in others presbyters and deacons.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Good point about decon's. Though I think you make the role bishop to sound less than it is in scripture.

I think we have developed an overinflated role and authority for the bishop particularly in our American Christian culture that oddly mimics the RCC model. In retrospect of 41 years in (specifically Baptist) American Christianity, and much study in early writings (up thru the 1600’s) to compare the two, I’d have to say that the closest I’ve come to witnessing First Century Christianity style assembly has come later in my life, in the home churches and studies I’ve been privileged to attend.

 

[IshChayil]

Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but last I checked, the authority for choosing the bishop and the deacons rests in the laity per Acts 6, or maybe perhaps the apostles, but not the bishops. This is precisely the formula used to play politics within the pastor papacy.

Be that as it may, the apostle is addressing persons in authority, Timothy & Titus, in the letters. He's imparting wisdom to the leaders he left behind.

In the case of the deacons, I’ve never seen anything indicating that they were a low level intern/errand fetcher.

You may have missed this, I reference it at the end of my post which started this thread; Here is the link again:
Deacon in Greek often means an assistant . Only my wife liked it so maybe it's no good (the other wife did not clic

************** Here's the definitions for Greek word deakon I listed over there for those who don't like to link hop*******
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.

The ... I removed many scripture references including Timothy and Titus as verses where this shade of meaning applies per BDAG scholars' opinions.

That's why I keep differentiating between English "Deacon" and Greek "Deacon" ... they aren't the same thing. For years I was fooled by this because whenever I'd study up on Greek vocabulary if I saw a cognate (word which looks the same, or related to a word in English) I would just ignore it and in this case many glosses just say "deacon" which is incorrect as BDAG points out above. Anyone getting in to Greek, beware not to repeat my folly. Just because the word sounds the same in Greek doesn't mean it's the same as it's cognate in English. That was sloppy studying on my parT... in essence, the English meaning changed on us but the translations didn't bother to update since it's already tradition.

 

[Nikud]

Hey Kev I just want to make sure others understand since there is a cooky leader who calls Messianics a cult in general (Michael Rood-ironically an ex-leader of the cult "the Way").
What @Kevin is talking about here is a specific congregation which is not chartered with any of the Messianic organizations; they are just abusing the word "Messianic" as many have done in the past decade+. These guys are not "Messianic"

That is correct they are not Messianic, they beleive Yeshua was a mortals man who was the Son of Joesph and Mary who was adopted by G-d. They use the trapings and traditions of Judaism and Christianity to manipulate people. Not every thing label Messianic is.

From a leader's perspective, deciding who to slot as "low level intern/errand fetcher" it makes very little sense to put someone there who has already passed this stage in life (in addition thus denying the spot to someone who needs that spot for personal growth).

Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but last I checked, the authority for choosing the bishop and the deacons rests in the laity per Acts 6, or maybe perhaps the apostles, but not the bishops.

Let's also remember that the Deacons duties were not to be servants to Bishops but to the congregation. They aided the Apostles by tending to some of the physical needs of the congregation so that the Apostles did not have to lay down the word of G-d. They distributed food to the widows and the poor on behalf of the congregation. Everything that was being done at a synagogue in the way of good works fell on the shoulders of the Deacon to get completed. This way the Apostles were able to Minister the word of G-d and the Bishops could visit the sick or oversee which every way you want to translate it. I beleive that no matter how over qualified a person may be, being chosen to serve as a Deacon would only be humiliating if the person being choosen had an inflated sense of ego. That's true even if it was the intent of those who chose the man was to humiliate him. It would only work if the man was ashamed to be seen as a servant or in a position in lesser prestige than his dignity demanded. "In a large house there are dishes and pots not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay. That is, some are meant for honorable use and some for dishonorable. If a person keeps himself free of defilement by the latter, he will be a vessel set aside for honorable use by the master of the house and ready for every kind of good work." 2 Timothy 2:20-21