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

[IshChayil]

I'm going to push harder on the other title "bishop" in verse 2.
I get the feeling if we focus more on the real meaning of these titles we may get somewhere.

This discussion has been moved to thread:
Biblical Families: What in the world is an ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos) i.e. "bishop"

 

[IshChayil]

You wouldn't, because neither Jesus, Peter, or Paul sought to undo the Law.

But I think I see what you are saying. Is there a clear, concise way we could delineate "first, one, at least one, or only one"? If there is, and the koine didn't appropriate it, then we know it wasn't saying "only one". Right?

Ok so here are the answers to this question about "chuckleheads" from the 1st century lol @andrew
and @Mojo 's further elaboration.

To be concise, if Paul wanted to make it very clear by adding the modifier "only" he could have used the adjective mona feminine form of mono like mono-poly, or mono-gamy (one-marriage). This would have distilled the issue.
to clearly say first one would write prota (fem. of proto) as in prototype (first of it's kind).
to say at least the construction usually employed is kan like the wrath of

 

[IshChayil]

I don't get it. Why not? In Portuguese, whether I mean "An apple" or "One apple" there is but one way to say it "Uma Maca"

Does Greek not support this?

Yeah in the Romance languages un/um/on the "a" vs "1" is more tightly coupled than in Greek. In Greek, like in Semitic languages, there was a feeling that you don't need to specify a lack of specificity (see what I did there ). It seems this did later evolve in Greek to behave more like the Romance languages; perhaps from increased contact between these worlds?

 

[IshChayil]

IC, could mia be taken out of the phrase and it would still mean a “married man” if that’s what Paul was wanting to say? Could it simply say, aner gyne, and that would mean married man?

yes.

 

[IshChayil]

I am not scholar enough to weigh in much here.

If someone were to be able to show me the proper Greek way to say "husband of one wife" and then the proper Greek way to say "Husband of at least one wife" in such a way that they would not be confused; and then show me which one is used in the text, we'd be on to something.

I kept husband plural like the verse so people unfamiliar with Greek inflections can see patterns easier.
Ok, so if we want to be specific (I color coded to match function, green is genitive etc.):
"husbands of one wife":
andres gunaikos mias
men of woman one

"husbands of only one wife" (more specific)
andres gunaikos monas
men of woman only one

"Husbands of at least one wife"
kan andres mias gunaikos
at least men of one woman

Now what's in the text:
andres mias gunaikos (I moved the position of andres to make the pattern easier to see. It's actually 3rd word in the bible)
men of one woman [contended translation]

Hope that helps

 

[Shibboleth]

Disclaimer: The following isn't an argument I want to like, but it seems to be a natural reading, taking the cultural context of the passage into account.

So... I just learned that in the Greco-Roman world of Paul, there was a well-known (and well-attested) cultural ideal known by the Latin term, univira, literally a one-man woman. This was considered in Roman culture to be a virtuous, but rare, trait -- a woman who was married only once: no remarriage allowed, even if widowed.

The theory is that, since he doesn't seem to be drawing directly from the OT, or from Christ, Paul had this concept in mind with the very similar Greek phrase henos andros gune (woman of one man). A counter-argument is that a more natural Greek translation of univira is monandros, and the objection that Paul wouldn't have had a secular/pagan concept in mind.

If Paul is referencing the Roman concept of univira in the widow passage, then it seems natural to suggest that the qualification passages are creating a gender-flipped version of the same concept, as unusual as that seems. Essentially, a man who is only married strictly once during his life, regardless of divorce, death, etc.

See:

Breif background on univira: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pudicitia

EDIT: Better background on univra: http://emilykq.weebly.com/blog/widows-and-the-univira-in-ancient-rome

Proponent of this interpretation: https://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-woman-man-in-new-testament.html

Counter-argument: http://sbcvoices.com/one-woman-man-examining-bart-barbers-univira-concept/

 

[Nikud]

Paul had this concept in mind with the very similar Greek phrase henos andros gune (woman of one man). A counter-argument is that a more natural Greek translation of univira is monandros,

First thanks for the links, cool stuff.

My question is if that was his intention to draw from univira why not use the words that most closely invoke the idea.

This would also be the point where the tradition of pulling pagan beliefs into Christianity began. It would set a president justifying the actions of the Catholic Church in doing such things.

 

[andrew]

Yeah, and this is where I'm happy to let you gents carry on without me, since we've basically proven my whole argument (as published on the web page). The word mia admits of several translations, so it's virtually impossible for us to say today what exactly Paul had in mind, because he's using a curious, non-standard grammar that has confusing implications. Looking at the alternatives, there are a couple that make unforced sense (assuming we believe that the scriptures are coherent and we 'let scripture interpret scripture'), namely 'a wife' (married) and 'first wife' (faithful), and one that makes sense with a little head scratching, namely 'one wife' (monogamy? never remarried due to divorce or death? what?), if you assume that Paul is not actually legislating polygamy out but promoting monogamy as a practical qualification for elder/bishop/deacon, but nothing that presents itself as the obvious meaning that Paul intended Timothy to get out of it. And I'm fine with all of them and really don't care where other folks end up, and what happens generally in a case like this is we'll all choose whatever sounds best to each of us and move on to another topic.... Enjoy!

About the only thing we can say with any unity is that this is a poor choice of proof text to take into a battle of wits against the witness of the rest of scripture. Works for me!

 

[NetWatchR]

The word mia admits of several translations, so it's virtually impossible for us to say today what exactly Paul had in mind, because he's using a curious, non-standard grammar that has confusing implications.

This brings me to my hypothesis: Paul did this intentionally because his point was that the answer is E) all the above.

EDIT: To clarify: Just as all these other versions clarify, or favor, a particular case, it comes at the cost of excluding another. That includes the option of speaking specifically to a particular church at the time. If he had worded it any differently, one or more of these other possibilities would become invalid. How does one word such an important key phrase so that it applies not only directly to the church in the next province over this week, but also to the guys on another continent, speaking another language, thousands of years later?

 

[IshChayil]

maybe it's gematria ...
does anyone know how to do numerology with Greek letters? There's a secret encoded message in this verse which allows the wielders to convince any woman with a word that polygany is the right way
Thanks Paulos!

 

[IshChayil]

So here is my conclusion for now, I think you guys can agree from the linguistic discussion:
heis/mia/en pretty much means "1" in Koine Greek unless it's a day of the week.
It seems the only time to translate it as "a" is if the English sounds weird to bring across the literal "1" that's happening in the Greek, i.e. "I heard 1 voice and then the 2" yields "I heard a voice..." as better sounding in English while we could leave it literally as "1" to be closer to the Greek. In the verse we've been discussing there is no problem in English saying "1 wife" here.
It's smooth and accounts for the otherwise superfluous mia which is not required had Paul wanted to say "a wife" and not the construction we would expect for "at least 1 wife".
This is why almost all English translations translate mia as '1' here.
I checked these:
LEB, KJV, JUB, ISV, ICB, GNT, GNV, BRG, ASV, AMP, ESV, NET, NASB, MEV, RSV
They all render "1".

Currently it seems to me that @Slumberfreeze 's assessment is correct with what we currently know.

Seems Paul is restricting polygamists from the "offices" of "assistant" (Greek deacon), episkopos (whatever that means), and presbuteros (elder).
I'll try to research more the original meanings of these positions but the plain meaning of the text to me, is we aren't allowed to do those things...whatever those things are.
I don't like it, but that seems to be the plain meaning. Assuming we fit in the target audience Paul had in mind. That's a big IF there.

A call to research.
What needs clarifying:
1) Scope of Paul's restriction. It would be very useful to tightly get the context of the communities Paul is dealing with there. Remember Paul's strategy is: to the Jew as a Jew and to the Greek as a Greek so he often takes cultural considerations not to put stumbling blocks out there for various sub-communities of believers. Let's flesh this out.
2) What was the 1st century understanding of these terms?
What are the other offices not restricted to monogamous or celibate males?
How about pastors? How about Apostles? Prophets? Judges? Teachers?
3) Why? If this is a universal restriction on these offices or a localized restriction ... why?

Not saying that if any you brothers are already operating in these rolls seemingly restricted by the Apostle to non-polygamists that you should step down or anything. I'm researching "bishop" a bit deeper; it may take a while but it seems to be a highly flexible word. My gutt feeling is the issue lay in the terms themselves but I could easily be wrong on that. I know we can draw logical conclusions about Moses and others about why Paul wouldn't restrict us in such a way... but let's be sure.

Personally, I've been building a network of congregations I would "oversee" ... I'm pausing that effort for now until I understand more clearly if I'm in violation of the Apostolic command. Sometimes the written word corrects what we think the spirit is leading us to do; a check and balance.

 

[IshChayil]

Disclaimer: The following isn't an argument I want to like, but it seems to be a natural reading, taking the cultural context of the passage into account.

So... I just learned that in the Greco-Roman world of Paul, there was a well-known (and well-attested) cultural ideal known by the Latin term, univira, literally a one-man woman. This was considered in Roman culture to be a virtuous, but rare, trait -- a woman who was married only once: no remarriage allowed, even if widowed.

The theory is that, since he doesn't seem to be drawing directly from the OT, or from Christ, Paul had this concept in mind with the very similar Greek phrase henos andros gune (woman of one man). A counter-argument is that a more natural Greek translation of univira is monandros, and the objection that Paul wouldn't have had a secular/pagan concept in mind.

If Paul is referencing the Roman concept of univira in the widow passage, then it seems natural to suggest that the qualification passages are creating a gender-flipped version of the same concept, as unusual as that seems. Essentially, a man who is only married strictly once during his life, regardless of divorce, death, etc.

See:

Breif background on univira: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pudicitia

EDIT: Better background on univra: http://emilykq.weebly.com/blog/widows-and-the-univira-in-ancient-rome

Proponent of this interpretation: https://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2010/04/one-woman-man-in-new-testament.html

Counter-argument: http://sbcvoices.com/one-woman-man-examining-bart-barbers-univira-concept/

There are numerous gravestones with Greek inscriptions that use this language in referring to a man who never remarried when his wife died.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is starting to sound very Augustinian to me.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Wouldn't it be amazing if we had a living Apostle; and instead of trying to figure out what a 2000 year old Apostle meant for that place and time, we could ask him what the will of the Spirit was for this place and time? (Don't give me the argument that the Spirit will reveal to you what is His will, when your path is not to ask the Spirit, but rather to try to decode the instruction of the dead Apostle.) Don't we all agree it is not a question of doctrine, but rather of conduct? Wouldn't a living Apostle be able to set proper conduct for now in this time, even if it reversed a code of conduct set 2000 years ago? Couldn't a future apostle set guidelines for conduct that would be different than conduct established for today? Proper understanding of doctrine should not change, but code of conduct is subject to change by the will of the Spirit. To address certain concerns, there were instructions given to the Corinthian church that did not apply to all churches... nor for all time; although, some would try to implement them universally... 'women keeping silent,' for example.

1 Tim. 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
As I remember Paul accepted to teaching of Priscilla to Apollos. Philip had for daughters that did prophesy.

Acts 18:24-26
And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. [25] This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. [26] And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

As I recall, the Tennessee retreat allowed women to speak and even have their own meeting; and there is a section where only they can speak on this forum. If we recognized the difference between doctrine and conduct, that would be a start. If we accepted gifts and callings of the Kingdom, that would set guidelines for the exercise of faith that would apply to the church as a whole (at least to the portion of the church that accepted the authority of the Apostle). For example, in a local church maybe a Pastor would establish guidelines for his congregation, as long as they were not taught as doctrine; a husband and father could establish guidelines of conduct for his own house; and a mother could set guidelines for her children the same way.

 

[Sonny Chancelor]

According to blueletterbible.org both 1 Timothy 5:9 and 3:14 use the word heis G1520. I don't see where mia is used in 1 Timothy. Although I am familiar with 'mia' being used in Matthew 28:1. Am I correct that 'mia' is used in the ordinal sense in Matthew? "The first day of the week"

 

[The Revolting Man]

Wouldn't it be amazing if we had a living Apostle; and instead of trying to figure out what a 2000 year old Apostle meant for that place and time, we could ask him what the will of the Spirit was for this place and time? (Don't give me the argument that the Spirit will reveal to you what is His will, when your path is not to ask the Spirit, but rather to try to decode the instruction of the dead Apostle.) Don't we all agree it is not a question of doctrine, but rather of conduct? Wouldn't a living Apostle be able to set proper conduct for now in this time, even if it reversed a code of conduct set 2000 years ago? Couldn't a future apostle set guidelines for conduct that would be different than conduct established for today? Proper understanding of doctrine should not change, but code of conduct is subject to change by the will of the Spirit. To address certain concerns, there were instructions given to the Corinthian church that did not apply to all churches... nor for all time; although, some would try to implement them universally... 'women keeping silent,' for example.

1 Tim. 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
As I remember Paul accepted to teaching of Priscilla to Apollos. Philip had for daughters that did prophesy.

Acts 18:24-26
And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. [25] This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. [26] And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

As I recall, the Tennessee retreat allowed women to speak and even have their own meeting; and there is a section where only they can speak on this forum. If we recognized the difference between doctrine and conduct, that would be a start. If we accepted gifts and callings of the Kingdom, that would set guidelines for the exercise of faith that would apply to the church as a whole (at least to the portion of the church that accepted the authority of the Apostle). For example, in a local church maybe a Pastor would establish guidelines for his congregation, as long as they were not taught as doctrine; a husband and father could establish guidelines of conduct for his own house; and a mother could set guidelines for her children the same way.

No it wouldn't. There is no way given to identify these apostles and no instructions given for their conduct.

God gave us everything we needed to know.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

The conclusion that I have come to in this discussion, after listening to everyone’s view point, is that these verses specify that a deacon be a married man, and a man who is dedicated to leading, providing for, and loving his wife, and leading his house well. I don’t believe it has anything to do with polygyny. If it were, it would be new doctrine, and it would be in conflict with the rest of scripture concerning G-d’s heart on plural marriage. G-d never shows any disapproval on the matter, and in-fact He outright speaks well of it. These verses seem to be reiterating things that should be common knowledge to believers, about being an example of Messiah to his body. If this was regulating plural marriage for leadership it would be a concept that is completely foreign to the rest of scripture. I could be wrong of course, but this is what seems to be inline with the rest of scripture.

 

[Mojo]

The conclusion that I have come to in this discussion, after listening to everyone’s view point, is that these verses specify that a deacon be a married man, and a man who is dedicated to leading, providing for, and loving his wife, and leading his house well. I don’t believe it has anything to do with polygyny. If it were, it would be new doctrine, and it would be in conflict with the rest of scripture concerning G-d’s heart on plural marriage. G-d never shows any disapproval on the matter, and in-fact He outright speaks well of it. These verses seem to be reiterating things that should be common knowledge to believers, about being an example of Messiah to his body. If this was regulating plural marriage for leadership it would be a concept that is completely foreign to the rest of scripture. I could be wrong of course, but this is what seems to be inline with the rest of scripture.

I don't think it would be in conflict. If it does apply only to leaders, Men weren't told they had to be leaders, thus monogamous. It was a position they could refuse. It was selective discrimination, not a universal prohibition. Many here have pointed out that the Law prevented some from marrying widows, but it was obviously not universal.

 

[IshChayil]

According to blueletterbible.org both 1 Timothy 5:9 and 3:14 use the word heis G1520. I don't see where mia is used in 1 Timothy. Although I am familiar with 'mia' being used in Matthew 28:1. Am I correct that 'mia' is used in the ordinal sense in Matthew? "The first day of the week"

Hi @Sonny Chancelor heis/mia/en are all the same word in Greek with different "inflections".
These are the Masculine / feminine / Neuter forms of this adjective in the Nominative case (Nominative means it's functioning like part of the subject in the sentence ... usually). Sometimes we see mian for example. That's just the feminine being used as a direct object...

The reason this word is used as "first" sometimes in the Greek new testament has to do with the underlying Hebrew mechanism at work in the writers' minds. In Biblical Hebrew, the "1st day" of the week is often referred to as "day 1".
So we see these bleeding through to the Greek; either they were thinking this way as they wrote the Greek (semiticized Greek) or the original was in Hebrew / Jewish Aramaic and the Greek translations we have are trying to be as close to the "original" as possible.
This is a phenomenon with Greek used in Israel or other areas by Jews at the time...

 

[IshChayil]

The conclusion that I have come to in this discussion, after listening to everyone’s view point, is that these verses specify that a deacon be a married man, and a man who is dedicated to leading, providing for, and loving his wife, and leading his house well. I don’t believe it has anything to do with polygyny. If it were, it would be new doctrine, and it would be in conflict with the rest of scripture concerning G-d’s heart on plural marriage. G-d never shows any disapproval on the matter, and in-fact He outright speaks well of it. These verses seem to be reiterating things that should be common knowledge to believers, about being an example of Messiah to his body. If this was regulating plural marriage for leadership it would be a concept that is completely foreign to the rest of scripture. I could be wrong of course, but this is what seems to be inline with the rest of scripture.

The issue at hand is the superfluous use of the adjective "1" in these verses.
As a polygamous man in the ministry I do not want to tie my hands unless it seems scripture is indicating to do so.
As a student of Greek, the plain reading of these verses suggests to me that it *IS* tying my hands for certain positions/roles. There is no need to us the word "1" here in Greek if it is to mean "a".
It's an extra word, an extra adjective that's in the mix. That's the significance.
Ironically, if these verses are about polygamous men then the verses actually BOLSTER our position that the bible acknowledges plural marriage as unsinful. The issue being investigated is what does it then mean for us polygamous men who are in ministry or desire to be in ministry. It is my inkling that either a) we do not properly understand the
terms for offices being used since we have cognate words in English which do not map neatly to the Greek or b) the restrictions may have been as @Jim an Apostle put it, for specific congregations at a specific point in time.
Either way, I think the investigation should happen in our effort to be obedient to scripture.
I agree, it is certainly not plausible that Paul would be openly limiting polygamous men (like Moses and David) from important ministry roles and as @andrew pointed out there is the full burden of the rest of scripture to contend with so this is supported by the rest of scripture. Currently if someone is in what seems to be one of these positions we do not have enough evidence from scripture to step down from that.