From my 12 years or so experience in the polygamy community, I would have to say the "mia" discussion is the #1 most discussed and debated topic.
-
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.
Must a deacon be monogamous? What does Greek heis/mia/en mean here?
- Thread starter IshChayil
- Start date
-
- Tags
- polygamous deacon
From my 12 years or so experience in the polygamy community, I would have to say the "mia" discussion is the #1 most discussed and debated topic.
I think on the mia subject, I’ve kinda landed at the spot where I’m convinced that Paul was an incredible communicator. I do think that @LoveisaLion has it right, that Paul often is communicating ambiguously to be able to relate to multiple audiences without offense.
If Paul intended to say that the Bishop/deacons must be married to any woman, there is a word for that, “heis”
If Paul intended to say that the Bishop/deacons must be married to all the women, there is a word for that, “pas”
If Paul intended to say that the Bishop/deacons must be married to THE first woman, (Eve) there is a word for that, “protos”
If Paul intended to say that the Bishop/deacons must be married to a woman, he’d have just not used a modifier before “gyne”
If Paul intended to say that the Bishop/deacons must be married to multiple women, there is a way to say that (though I’m not certain the words, I believe it was Irenaeus or Clement of Alexandria that referred to multi-nuptials) It very well may be poly-gyne
I’m sure I’m probably missing another way that Paul could have framed the directive, but the way that he framed it IMO, is that a Bishop or deacon must be the husband of/to the “mia” wife which could be the only wife that he was married to, but it wasn’t exclusive to that wife nor was it intended to be exclusive to that wife. Just that he must still be married to the wife of his youth, IMO to provide an example of wisdom and discernment before and during the marriage, and an example of leadership, provision and faithfulness to his covenants for life, just as our Heavenly Father would example for us.
I think Paul communicated exactly what he intended to say on the subject. Someone from a polygamous culture would understand exactly what he was communicating and why, and someone from a monogamous culture would understand it through their own lenses, (thereby not creating an offense) and yet at some point, once they were confronted with poly and the lenses were removed, they could easily step into the deeper knowledge without being conflicted about scriptural contradictions.
If Paul intended to say that the Bishop/deacons must be married to any woman, there is a word for that, “heis”
If Paul intended to say that the Bishop/deacons must be married to all the women, there is a word for that, “pas”
If Paul intended to say that the Bishop/deacons must be married to THE first woman, (Eve) there is a word for that, “protos”
If Paul intended to say that the Bishop/deacons must be married to a woman, he’d have just not used a modifier before “gyne”
If Paul intended to say that the Bishop/deacons must be married to multiple women, there is a way to say that (though I’m not certain the words, I believe it was Irenaeus or Clement of Alexandria that referred to multi-nuptials) It very well may be poly-gyne
I’m sure I’m probably missing another way that Paul could have framed the directive, but the way that he framed it IMO, is that a Bishop or deacon must be the husband of/to the “mia” wife which could be the only wife that he was married to, but it wasn’t exclusive to that wife nor was it intended to be exclusive to that wife. Just that he must still be married to the wife of his youth, IMO to provide an example of wisdom and discernment before and during the marriage, and an example of leadership, provision and faithfulness to his covenants for life, just as our Heavenly Father would example for us.
I think Paul communicated exactly what he intended to say on the subject. Someone from a polygamous culture would understand exactly what he was communicating and why, and someone from a monogamous culture would understand it through their own lenses, (thereby not creating an offense) and yet at some point, once they were confronted with poly and the lenses were removed, they could easily step into the deeper knowledge without being conflicted about scriptural contradictions.
Honestly, I don't get why monogamy advocates even bring this up. It only serves to highlight the lack of condemnation of polygamy and it is ridiculous to claim (as they do) that all must be held to the same standard as elders and deacons. For to do so is to require all must be married in clear contradiction of Paul elsewhere.
I think that's too subtle and political a lens to apply to a personal missive to his protege, Timothy. This was not an open letter, but a set of instructions given to an individual. If I were Timothy and Paul wanted me to make sure that deacons were married to a woman or multiple women, I would have expected him not to use a modifier. Since he did use the dreaded word, if I were Timothy, I would not assume "Well, he's just cleverly writing for a broad audience so as not to offend them if anyone gets their hands on this letter, I'll go ahead and appoint deacons with 2 or more wives if they are otherwise qualified." I think I would just appoint deacons with one wife.
But supposing Paul was being clever and ecumenically minded: What good would it do to be ambiguous? Timothy rolls into town and appoints elders and deacons, some of which are in plural marriages and some not, citing this letter Paul wrote.
Well the people who interpret it one way believe that the appointees are valid, and the people who interpret it the other way believe the appointees are invalid. There is question about whether a deacon is fit to handle Church business right from the get-go, which is the opposite of the intention of having standards in the first place. Ambiguity in standards is a horrible thing. f we have a standard, we need to understand it and stick to it. Otherwise we don't actually have a standard. If a trumpet makes an uncertain noise, who will prepare for battle? If an deacon may or may not be qualified, who will let him handle their donated money?
I'm of the opinion that Paul used the term on purpose, not for the purposes of viewing it through multiple lenses and viewpoints, but because he was being specific. As you pointed out, there were multiple other was that he could have said it, but he chose to use the deplorable word. If monogamous minded people see monogamy everywhere, is it impossible that plural-minded people might see plural everywhere? Might it not be that there are multiple acceptable paths: Celibate, Mono, and Plural; and that each path has options exclusive to it? Celibate has it's undistracted fellowship with God, Mono has the ability to serve in Offices, and Plural excels in patriarchal family building? We have no problem excluding celibates from deaconship, why balk at excluding the plurally married, except that we are zealous to defend the orthodoxy of plural?
If Paul has already used precise language to give direction does he need to go full monty python to make it clear?
"If thou desirest the office of a deacon, then shalt thou get one wife. No more, no less. One shall be the number of women thou shalt marry, and the number of thy marrying shall be one. Two thou shalt not marry, nor either zero, excepting that thou then proceed to marry one. Five is right out. Once the first wife, being the only wife, is married, then thou mayest serve as a deacon."
If he has not used precise language, then is the answer just to have a big fight in any town that is actually trying to appoint plurally married deacons? Because you know that's exactly what it will do. Right at the moment when you are deciding leadership is when people will be zealous for 'doing it right' and you have a standard that could mean one of two things depending on which eye you're squinting? My gut tells me that isn't the wae.
I went thru the post above several times to try to make sure I was understanding what you were trying to say. I’m not sure I completely got it but I’ll try to reply briefly.
So are we to assume that the instructions/ restrictions for a bishop or a deacon apply only to Timothy and Titus (which follows the same tone and is only to Titus).
Perhaps you are correct and Paul was not intending to be ambiguous. I still hold that he deliberately wrote and communicated very intentionally. This stands on its own whether I’m correct or not on the ambiguity issue.
If it’s true that Paul truly intended for a Bishop or Deacon to be the husband of only one wife, there’s a way for him to easily express that. He would have written aner monos mia gyne (husband of only the first wife) or aner monos heis gyne (husband of only one wife [though she doesn’t have to be the first])
The problem with the interpretation that he can only be married to one is that it’s just not written that way. The only excluding language is towards an unmarried man. Anything else is simply adding to the verbage.
My point is that Paul used mia on purpose. It means both one and/or first. It can be used either way without doing gymnastics with the Scripture. It is an and/or word and provides for the broadest application without admitting a covenant breaker or celibate. Anywhere that Mia is used in a sequence it will always be the first of a sequence. It may be used outside of a sequence in some instances as the number one but these instances are the exception instead of the norm and to my knowledge are not exclusive so much as indicative.
Anyway you approach the phrase, there is nothing other than cultural bias to exclude additional wives and nothing demanding that he must have additional wives. Added to that, there are so many ways that he could have easily limited it or expanded it with a single additional word. He didn’t.
IMO, a man whose first wife left him in most cases wouldn’t be disqualified because he’s not the covenant breaker, she is. He’s still married to her, (?) she’s just absent.
As always, peace love and all the fuzzy stuff.
So are we to assume that the instructions/ restrictions for a bishop or a deacon apply only to Timothy and Titus (which follows the same tone and is only to Titus).
Perhaps you are correct and Paul was not intending to be ambiguous. I still hold that he deliberately wrote and communicated very intentionally. This stands on its own whether I’m correct or not on the ambiguity issue.
If it’s true that Paul truly intended for a Bishop or Deacon to be the husband of only one wife, there’s a way for him to easily express that. He would have written aner monos mia gyne (husband of only the first wife) or aner monos heis gyne (husband of only one wife [though she doesn’t have to be the first])
The problem with the interpretation that he can only be married to one is that it’s just not written that way. The only excluding language is towards an unmarried man. Anything else is simply adding to the verbage.
My point is that Paul used mia on purpose. It means both one and/or first. It can be used either way without doing gymnastics with the Scripture. It is an and/or word and provides for the broadest application without admitting a covenant breaker or celibate. Anywhere that Mia is used in a sequence it will always be the first of a sequence. It may be used outside of a sequence in some instances as the number one but these instances are the exception instead of the norm and to my knowledge are not exclusive so much as indicative.
Anyway you approach the phrase, there is nothing other than cultural bias to exclude additional wives and nothing demanding that he must have additional wives. Added to that, there are so many ways that he could have easily limited it or expanded it with a single additional word. He didn’t.
IMO, a man whose first wife left him in most cases wouldn’t be disqualified because he’s not the covenant breaker, she is. He’s still married to her, (?) she’s just absent.
As always, peace love and all the fuzzy stuff.
Absolutely!
Hmm. Well that's what it hinges on I guess. I don't really believe that, but it's a nice sturdy foundation, I'll give you that. It's not a dumb position at all.
So, for S&G's how many wives did Phoebe have?
You know I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but actually I really wonder if only an apostle or his designee has 'appointing' authority. It's not like anything like consensus is going to come out of the fragments that remain.
Not going to try to address the details of the debate, but I think it's worth considering the 'what makes the most sense' approach. Whenever God/the Holy Spirit speaks to something, I think usually it is OUR flawed understanding and human finite-ness that makes us confused and incapable ot seeing a clear picture. But there IS one to be had: God is a logical, reasonable God who makes sense within Himself. If He says something (like a command), it has a reason behind it and fits into who He is, right?
So, I always look at this issue as "WHY would _____ word be the case?" I think if you consider it from the perspective of what the other options are, it makes a lot more sense. As some have pointed out, primarily, the divorce thing and the family-solidarity thing. That is, you probably would NOT want someone who was divorced and/or had a poorly kept marriage relationship shepherding the flock of believers. Not only does their inability to keep their 'own house in order' speak to their own flaws and likely would stretch into their leadership capabilities, but it opens up a whole mess of questions about 'why did he get divorced'? 'Why didn't it go well?' 'Why can't he have a stable marriage, or the discernment of a good wife?' Etc. Looking through that angle, seems to me to make the most sense that the word ought to be taken to mean 'first'. 'the' or 'a' or 'only' just raise so many other questions and problems and, as we see here, debate and uncertainty. My understanding is God does NOT want those things, ergo, seems to me the most in-keeping with His character to read it in the way that makes the most sense. Hence, above
So, I always look at this issue as "WHY would _____ word be the case?" I think if you consider it from the perspective of what the other options are, it makes a lot more sense. As some have pointed out, primarily, the divorce thing and the family-solidarity thing. That is, you probably would NOT want someone who was divorced and/or had a poorly kept marriage relationship shepherding the flock of believers. Not only does their inability to keep their 'own house in order' speak to their own flaws and likely would stretch into their leadership capabilities, but it opens up a whole mess of questions about 'why did he get divorced'? 'Why didn't it go well?' 'Why can't he have a stable marriage, or the discernment of a good wife?' Etc. Looking through that angle, seems to me to make the most sense that the word ought to be taken to mean 'first'. 'the' or 'a' or 'only' just raise so many other questions and problems and, as we see here, debate and uncertainty. My understanding is God does NOT want those things, ergo, seems to me the most in-keeping with His character to read it in the way that makes the most sense. Hence, above
I think she was one of those vestal Virginians.
C
Cap
Guest
In all the possibilities, in all the positions of leadership, would God specifically single out Deacons for a restriction on marriage that no one else was restricted to?
Bishops are for Catholics only, remember. They don't apply. Also I don't like them, so...
Very well. Bishops are henceforth stricken from the record.
I'm not completely ready to agree with this but I must say it is simply and brilliantly reasoned and almost unassailable in it's logic. Major extra cool points for the Monty Python reference. This is the kind of thinking that keeps me eagerly coming back here day after day.
1 Timothy 3:2-12
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Over ruled by scripture. Scripture includes the Bishop "overseer" so whether we like them or not there in. Chathloics don't get exclusivity that's what the reformation was about.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Over ruled by scripture. Scripture includes the Bishop "overseer" so whether we like them or not there in.
Chathloics don't get exclusivity that's what the reformation was about.I've had this arguement. The word diakonos in the entire letter to Romans was used in the generic servant sense not the Deacon sense. Proponents who beleive that women should hold positions of authority in the church turn to Phoebe and try to make it the only time in the letter to mean Deacon therefore justify women in church authority.
Over ruled by scripture. Scripture includes the Bishop "overseer" so whether we like them or not there in.
I was 100% joking
I agree this is an important question to discuss, I just already have my opinion based off principles, like I mentioned (what makes sense)
By all means, I will be interested to see what others come up with
First, I think I'm understanding that that's going off the assumption (I mean this in the most kind and least aggressive way possible fyi
) that we're taking the interpretation of mia as 'one' and not 'first', correct? Which as I said, I think the second makes a lot more sense for, well, all the reasons brought up even by the very existence of this thread lol. Any time a lens immediately makes everything else in Scripture 'clear' and 'fit', I think that's the best choice of lens, barring direct evidence to the contrary.But, all that to say, I think for me the heart of this issue (about the verse) has nothing to do with the actual ability of poly guys to lead in the church (I don't much care either way personally), but rather because it is used as a seemingly strong argument against the orthodoxy of PM, as others have said. That is, I feel inclined to argue about the issue because we are constantly attacked about it, not out of any real feeling of ambiguity or import on my part. If the mono-only folks would stop using this verse as ammunition, I think we'd discuss it a lot less lol.
C
Cap
Guest
1 Timothy 3:2-12
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Over ruled by scripture. Scripture includes the Bishop "overseer" so whether we like them or not there in.
I've had this arguement. The word diakonos in the entire letter to Romans was used in the generic servant sense not the Deacon sense. Proponents who beleive that women should hold positions of authority in the church turn to Phoebe and try to make it the only time in the letter to mean Deacon therefore justify women in church authority.
Ok, Deacon AND Bishop are off my to do list.
Seriously, can someone explain why these positions require such a stipulation, in regards to wives, when it is clear that God himself does not hold to that standard, or require pastors or leaders of a church. And for us PM people, is not a requirement for the Son of God? What is so special about these positions? The other requirements in Timothy are requirements of any given follower of God, really so the ONE wife thing is odd in my mind.
I mean, that's why it doesn't make sense to me to read it that way. Hence why I think we should translate it 'first'.
But if someone like Slumberfreeze prefers to translate it 'single', then I'd think the reason has to do with the whole weaker/stronger brother thing and avoiding controversies in the Church. Remember that while Paul was writing this to Timothy he was in Rome. Roman culture, as we know in our own culture today, was strictly monogamous (ignoring the whole serial monogamy angle). They espoused monogamy. Seems to me Paul would want to avoid forcing a cultural value (polygamy vs monogamy, neither of which is wrong and the preference for which is entirely cultural) onto the structure of the Church. It's sort of like how today, many missions agencies won't send single female missionaries to Muslim countries: because they know that in that culture, that won't work. I suspect it's something like that.
Oh yes that would be wonderful. At the very least it would cut down the number of times I'm mistaken for still being under cultural conditioning!
I'm on this like stink on rice.
So what is special is that these are offices indeed: One must qualify to BEGIN serving. Every other Christian must strive for the moral requirements of a bishop/deacon, but is free to serve in the capacity God has gifted them for from the first moment of their salvation. Anyone can serve God at any time and be a faithful servant, but not just anyone is qualified to take public responsibility for God's beloved assembly. He won't allow it.
Secondly: When we pull back from focusing on poly we will see that there are some other requirements that are not common to all believers:
1st: Desire to be an overseer (cheap shot I know, but technically it's a requirement to serve)
2nd: Able to teach (IN 1Cor 12 Paul said that God had only set 'some' in the Church to be teachers, and in Hebrews 5 it is seen that ability to teach is something that can only come with time. I don't see how it is a responsibility of every Christian to be able to teach. I can think of one dear friend of mine that will not ever be able to teach unless God works a miracle in his brain matter.
3rd: Manages and Rules his own household well keeping children under control with all dignity - Leaves Eunuchs, Celibates, and the barren out. As well as men who simply do not know how to rule, or men who have newly discovered how to rule but are late to the party and it's too late to get their oldest out of prison.
4th: Not a new convert - Being a new convert is not a moral failing. This requirement means that if a new believer meets every other requirement on this list, the amount of time he's been saved will disqualify him from service.
5th: Good reputation with those outside the Church : That's just not going to happen for some. If the late Hugh Hefner had converted to Christ, and been able to meet the rest of the requirements, his reputation would have barred him from this particular service. You can do a lot to help your reputation by good works and godliness, but one's reputation with those outside the church doesn't just mean your current conduct but also which grudges you've accumulated in your past. And many Christians have a past that the world won't be in a hurry to forgive them for.
Qualifying for these offices, one is qualifying for a public office that serves as a public face for the Church while simultaneously setting the tone and providing the much needed chain of command and organized logistics for the Assembly. It requires not just a mature Christian, but an "Ideal" one. I put ideal in quotes because I need that to mean it's actual definition. "satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable."
There are many callings that are actually perfect but do not satisfy the conditions for the offices:
A serial monogamist has given half the ladies in town his last name and then divorced them. He then gets saved and repents his wicked ways; now he and his current wife (who converted with him 10 years ago) run a homeless shelter and rehab clinic. Whenever you talk to him you realize how deeply the grace of God has moved in his life and you are always impressed by his reverence for the Lord. There are a number of people that bear a personal grudge against him because of his past and many in the community say he's lowered the value of the street his shelter is on because of all the vagrants and tweakers he attracts. Parents tell their children to avoid the vicinity because addicts have been seen passed out in front on the sidewalk.
A man who has been called by God to preach the Gospel to all corners of the earth continually drags his adoring family all over the globe in an ongoing adventure learning what the Lord. He's planted Churches everywhere, but when asked to stay and lead, he always tells them that he's already being moved to share the gospel somewhere else.
A man who is a pillar in the community and is already widely respected by all has always lived his life in the tradition of his Mennonite parents full of good works and honest dealings. It is public knowledge that he has always been agnostic, but deeply respects those of faith because of his grandfather's example. His wife and children actually are Christian and to their great joy, one night he has a personal encounter with the Lord and gives himself fully and unreservedly to Him. However, although he is full of worldly wisdom and is the product of much godly training, he has but newly tasted of the goodness of the Lord and the idea of 'forgiveness' gives him trouble still.
A man who has given his life to the praise of the Lord just has never found the time to take a wife. People joke about when he's going to settle down, and he's gotten a number of proposals, but none of the dates he's been on ever really go anywhere. His songs are well known throughout the Christian world and he's in love with the Lord Jesus, and is at the time in his life where his health is failing.
None of these men are able to really fit the mold of what is required for a bishop/deacon. That doesn't mean they aren't doing EXACTLY what they are supposed be. They are all in the center of God's will for their lives and I'd be proud to join their non-deacon-compliant ranks.
Oh! It is my privilege to suggest to you that Pastor (as a leader of a church) is one of three titles for the same office. Elder/Pastor/Bishop (or Presbyter/Shepherd/Overseer) are linked together.
The reason why pastor doesn't have anything connected with it is because the word 'Pastor' shouldn't exist in the one place that it appears. All sane people agree that it should have been translated Shepherd. Once that is understood: 1 Peter 5 : 1-2 will link Elder/Shepherd/Overseer together well enough to be understood that Ephesians 4:11 isn't introducing a new word or concept to the New Testament.