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

[IshChayil]

Jim, I liked a lot of what you wrote in that post so I'm only responding to this one part in a playful way but a way which I think also adds to the discussion about this.

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?

Not if that living apostle was Barnabas
I think he may very likely unravel plenty of what Paul said

 

[IshChayil]

This is starting to sound very Augustinian to me.

without the castration I hope

 

[Mojo]

This is starting to sound very Augustinian to me.

Please expound.

 

[IshChayil]

So I think we fairly well demonstrated that the modern word "deacon" is not what this word means in scripture.
It seems to be more like a servant or aide of a minister or others in ministry.
In further investigating offices to which it seems Paul recommends limited to monogamists, let's delve further into
Biblical Familes: bishop what does that word really mean? The link is to a separate thread for that conversation.
We can continue deacon, or heis/mia/en type discussions here in the current thread

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Not if that living apostle was Barnabas

Thanks for the playful response

What would you do if it was Peter? He walked with the Messiah, yet Paul withstood him, as well.
Even Paul said that he (Paul) was not perfect. How can God use imperfect men to lead the Church, or to be husbands and fathers? Faith and grace must factor in, as well as everyone doing their best to follow the Spirit; yet, God still calls men to be husbands, and fathers, and elders, and Pastors, and even Apostles. It is too bad that our understanding and our faith level is so weak that we have such trouble recognizing and receiving them. In spite of their imperfections, they are still chosen by God to be leaders... whether it be to their family, or a local congregation, or a greater segment of the Church at large.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

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

I am going to present three thoughts for consideration here, the first to springboard off the quoted post:

1. If we are to be wildly literal about the "husbands/men of singularly 1 female", then why isn't the doctrinal position that deacons must be in a Polyandrous marriage and, in fact, every last one of them married to the same woman? I obviously don't believe the Apostle was advocating thus.

2. I have oft wondered at the many people arguing these things from a concordance/backs of PhD's level when it almost certainly wasn't written thus. Was Paul/his Greek translator a scholarly master in both languages? Even if they were, we have masters today who obviously can't agree on the meaning of specific words and phrases. Who is to say it was any different 2k years ago? In fact, the evidence suggests that Jewish scholars of Paul's time hotly debated the meaning of the text with no consensus view. This may smack of being dangerously close to minimizing his command of the language just to delegitimize something I don't like, but take it as a personal contemplation, and not a stance.

3. What I find the more likely is that Paul was probably drawing halachic inspiration from the injunction against kings multiplying wives for themselves. Why would this specific injunction be levied against deacons, some ask. Well, we could equally ask why it was levied against kings. Perhaps the concept is similar to the advice that Moses' father-in-law gave him about appointing rulers of 10s, 50s, 100s, and 1000s. It is understood that a ruler of the people should not spread themselves too thin, lest some of their responsibilities get neglected. If you, as a ruler of your people, are managing 14 wives and responsible to keep an eye on 10 men and their households in your community, do you think you are really up to that level of direct management?
On the other hand, no community that I have seen today follows the kind of Eldership structure that places an elder over 10 men in the community to mediate their issues and to act as a direct shepherd over them... So while we use the terms Elders, Deacons, and Bishops, does this injunction apply to offices that are not functionally the same even if the names are linguistically derived from translations of the text?

There are Catholic "Priests", but they are neither sons of Aaron, nor do they operate according to the rules of Biblical Priests... does that mean that everything the Bible says about Priests applies to them. I don't think so. So, to sum up:

A. Is this a Paulie halachic injunction, based of Torah principle, but not necessarily a command in its own right?

B. If it is a command, like the injunction against Kings multiplying wives, does it apply to offices that are functionally different than the offices Paul was referring to?

C. Even if it is a direct injunction, like against a king, the king injunction precedent shows very well that this was an exception to a broader rule because the king had special responsibilities to the people, thus confirming the idea that such an injunction by no means places a restriction on the people as a whole. In other words, it may be understood that some men shepherd women, and some men shepherd other men (in a non-creepy way).

 

[IshChayil]

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!

BTW: I wanted to make sure I wasn't too strong on this; I don't think you should take down the possible explanation of "a" from the site bible resources either. I only wanted to explore this further so nobody gets ambushed in a discussion with someone who is against polygamy if they are depending on that argument.
Also for the sake of completeness, one of my lexicons does have an entry which says "as indef. art." then it lists a few examples where the indef. art. is required in English to make the verse sound right in English. (this is my reasoning why it says "indef. art." to square it with the famous grammars I referenced before). It may, however be vindicating you and the grammars are wrong, lol.

1 of examples given is your "1 fig tree". Here's the entry:
ⓑ as indef. art. (s. at 3 above beg.) εἷς γραμματεύς a scribe Mt 8:19.
• συκῆν μίαν a fig tree Mt 21:19; cp. 26:69; Mk 12:42.
• παιδάριον ἕν J 6:9 v.l.;
• ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ Rv 8:13; cp. 18:21; 19:17;
• ἄρχων εἷς ἐλθών Mt 9:18.

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., p. 292). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

[IshChayil]

...
What I haven't heard yet is what else the translation would be for "he saw a fig tree" or "I heard a voice". Those are two examples of mia that don't really work for "one" or "first". If IC is correct that mia wasn't used as an article back then, then we need an explanation of what other idiomatic usage is defensible (if mia wasn't used as an article, then why was it used at all?).

I just noticed that one of my lexicons calls out this specific verse you mention here as an example where one should translate "a".
the lexicon says "indef. art."
See this post for that entry

 

[IshChayil]

Hey @jacobhaivri sorry I missed this earlier.
I read your post, filed it in my mind for later, then got a bit myopic researching things.
My wife pointed out to me I didn't respond to you yet, my bad.

I hope you don't mind if I go point by point as my mind isn't yet fresh this morning and I don't wanna leave something out.
I'll add emphasis (bold, etc) to parts of what you wrote so it's clear what I'm responding to.

I am going to present three thoughts for consideration here, the first to springboard off the quoted post:
1. If we are to be wildly literal about the "husbands/men of singularly 1 female", then why isn't the doctrinal position that deacons must be in a Polyandrous marriage and, in fact, every last one of them married to the same woman? I obviously don't believe the Apostle was advocating thus.

Hehe, right no polyandry here. Even literally the Greek wouldn't say that though; it's just like the English since Paul is writing "Let them be husbands of one wife"... (or "a wife") if we are justified to interpret it that way.

2. I have oft wondered at the many people arguing these things from a concordance/backs of PhD's level when it almost certainly wasn't written thus. Was Paul/his Greek translator a scholarly master in both languages? Even if they were, we have masters today who obviously can't agree on the meaning of specific words and phrases. Who is to say it was any different 2k years ago? In fact, the evidence suggests that Jewish scholars of Paul's time hotly debated the meaning of the text with no consensus view. This may smack of being dangerously close to minimizing his command of the language just to delegitimize something I don't like, but take it as a personal contemplation, and not a stance.

Maimonadies (the Rambam) tries to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy with Jewish ethics in his famous "A Guide for the Perplexed". Many Rabbis were skilled in Greek. I believe I discovered Yeshua making a word play to Nikodemus which suggests they were actually
conversing in Greek (born again, vs. born from heaven doesn't work in Hebrew/Aramaic but it does in Greek)...
I'm (relatively) certain our educated Rav Shaul here had quite a handle on Greek; I suspect he wrote most of His letters in Greek (or dictated) since they are to communities in the diaspora.
At the very least I find Paul's Greek harder for me than say the gospels.
Point well taken about Jews in the diaspora then arguing about terms since the various Septuagints / Targums were quite popular then.

3. What I find the more likely is that Paul was probably drawing halachic inspiration from the injunction against kings multiplying wives for themselves. Why would this specific injunction be levied against deacons, some ask. Well, we could equally ask why it was levied against kings. Perhaps the concept is similar to the advice that Moses' father-in-law gave him about appointing rulers of 10s, 50s, 100s, and 1000s. It is understood that a ruler of the people should not spread themselves too thin, lest some of their responsibilities get neglected. If you, as a ruler of your people, are managing 14 wives and responsible to keep an eye on 10 men and their households in your community, do you think you are really up to that level of direct management?
On the other hand, no community that I have seen today follows the kind of Eldership structure that places an elder over 10 men in the community to mediate their issues and to act as a direct shepherd over them... So while we use the terms Elders, Deacons, and Bishops, does this injunction apply to offices that are not functionally the same even if the names are linguistically derived from translations of the text?

Interesting take on this.
Just so others know, the "halacha" Jacobhaivri is referrring to (Jewish Law) is that the King of Israel was limited to a maximum of 18 wives. Jewish traditions says that Solomon thought he could go beyond this restriction due to his supernatural wisdom from G-d. Jewish tradition says King David had 18.

B. If it is a command, like the injunction against Kings multiplying wives, does it apply to offices that are functionally different than the offices Paul was referring to?

I was wondering this same thing. in the other post about "what does it mean to be a 'bishop'" I list some other offices I was wondering why Shaul didn't enumerate those. @Shibboleth has an interesting take on that.

C. Even if it is a direct injunction, like against a king, the king injunction precedent shows very well that this was an exception to a broader rule because the king had special responsibilities to the people, thus confirming the idea that such an injunction by no means places a restriction on the people as a whole. In other words, it may be understood that some men shepherd women, and some men shepherd other men (in a non-creepy way).

Well put
Shepherding women is surely more fun

 

[andrew]

I just noticed that one of my lexicons calls out this specific verse you mention here as an example where one should translate "a".
the lexicon says "indef. art."
See this post for that entry

I think the bottom line here is that it's an awkward and ambiguous syntax, so we can all throw out for discussion our best efforts to make it make sense in our heads, but when all the smoke clears, we'll still have questions, no one interpretation will 'win', and we'll go get a beer and talk about something else. Different fellowships will come to different conclusions and adopt different SOPs, and those of us who are plural will be welcome as leaders in some fellowships and not in others. And that's okay.

 

[cnystrom]

A cold beer sounds good to me.

 

[andrew]

Just a coupla more weeks!

 

[IshChayil]

This conversation has been fruitful gentlemen.
Before we had this chat, there was the notion that mia may mean "1st" as in a deacon/bishop/elder (whatever those offices really are) must still have his first wife (i.e. no divorcees or widowers). I think we've demonstrated linguistically that this is not the case (see the post about Hebrew 1st day underlying the Greek...).

The idea that Paul is using it to mean "a" has not (in my opinion) sufficiently been disputed; there's good reason to doubt it says that but it's still a possibility.
So if everyone is in agreement, I think we can clearly say that we have concluded that the only translation not suitable for these verses is calling it "1st wife" while "1 wife" and "a wife" are still in the wings.
You agree fellas?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

[QUOTE="IshChayil, post: 152659, member: 2034”]
So if everyone is in agreement, I think we can clearly say that we have concluded that the only translation not suitable for these verses is calling it "1st wife" while "1 wife" and "a wife" are still in the wings.
You agree fellas?[/QUOTE]

While I've enjoyed the studies you guys have done, and agree with lots of what's been said, I'm nowhere close to that conclusion for multiple reasons that I still don't have time to elaborate on.

At this point, the only thing that I've ruled out from that passage is that the bishop can be a single man and I'm not certain of that.

 

[andrew]

I'd say "first" is "more of a stretch" rather than "ruled out". (For my purposes, I don't take it seriously, but I'm not going to get into with someone who thinks it means first.)

@IshChayil, I would agree with you in principle, that the frontrunners appear to be "a" and "one", with some of us being pretty certain it's "one" ("there can be only one..."), and some of us leaving more room for "a" or even preferring "a". "First" looks like a distant third at best.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Why did I think that "a" was the settled choice all along? Maybe I haven't followed this thread closely enough but hasn't that always been the concesus?

 

[andrew]

I think for a lot of us, "a" was the preferred choice. This convo has gone in the direction of some pretty convincing arguments for "one", without completely ruling out "a". The one that seems to be more of a stretch is "first", since there doesn't seem to be any real reason to prefer it other than problems with the other two (no underlying idiomatic Hebrew usage, etc). So for some of us "a" is still the preferred choice, some are still on "one", and some may have switched sides, but at minimum (and speaking for myself only) I'd say that a good case has been made for "one", sufficient to put this in the category of "agree to disagree" among those of us who see it differently.

 

[LoveisaLion]

With regards to Paul, I believe its important to keep these verses in mind:

1Co 9:19-27
(19) For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.
(20) To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
(21) to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
(22) To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.
(23) I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.


This tells us that Paul would write in a manner that would draw Romans, Greeks and Jews alike; by meeting to the greatest degree all their expectations. Since we know that monogamy was instituted by the Romans/Greeks for their own reasons, way before Christianity...It makes sense that Paul would write with a certain ambiguity to include all but not exclude any - to the best of his ability. This in my view is where some of the dilemma occurs concerning 'mia' and 'heis' etc...

To be consistent, all scripture must line up. This is the only way to take what is written in its most correct context. The facts are clear. Godly-biblical polygamy was commonly practised in ancient Israel and significant parts of the early Christian church/s.
At the time of the 3rd horseman of the apocalypse, where compromise crept into the church via mostly Constantine, council of Nicea etc, the Roman/Greek/Platonic influences were by all reports incorporated into 'doctrine' and monogamy was one of those clearly defined by all indications. Constantine had to pay the 'bishops' he gathered together there to 'agree on doctrine' to meld his empire together --- money to all agree, as there was much disagreement. Incidently, it was by one vote alone that it was decided that 'women had a soul'. What does that tell you? How frightening that the ignorant would be determining our spiritual future and state.

Its also important to note that Paul himself stated that some of what he writes is his opinion...

(1Co 7:40) But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.
(2Co 8:10) I give my opinion in this matter, for this is to your advantage, who were the first to begin a year ago not only to do this, but also to desire to do it.
(1Co 7:25) Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
(2Co 11:17) What I am saying, I am not saying as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting.

In summary, looking at the tapestry of Truth interwoven through time via Israel to the 3rd horseman, its clear that Godly - biblical polygamy is more than just the obvious appeal at face value. Its about cultivating and building up a strong spiritual family in the Most High based on love, understanding and mutual spiritual growth and support in the Most High - at its apex. This is the context I believe all these verses need to be approached. So 'only one' does not make sense - in that context. The only issue would be in how one appears in society based on the Roman/Greek system as instigated via Constantine into modern day Christianity and churchianity. Perhaps being more discreet would work best for some, and being more open - as led by the Most High - for others.

It is so important to be led by the Ruach Ha Kodesh - the Holy Spirit - in all things which gives true understanding and context in letters and in Truth.

Shalom

 

[Sonny Chancelor]

Wow, that's all I can say in response to @LoveisaLion

 

[cnystrom]

Like a lot of words in scripture, by using a transliteration instead of a translation, the translators gave us a "churchy" word that we can now make up a "churchy" definition and a "churchy" usage for.

"Pastor" is just a Latin word for "shepherd". "Apostle" is just a Greek word for "messenger". "Church" is just a sort of Greekishly substituted word for "gathering". Etc. If those underlying Greek words had been translated instead of Anglicized, we'd be better off....

So what was a description now became an office.