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

[The Revolting Man]

If I may paraphrase brother Slumber I believe what he's saying is that there's nothing wrong with being polygynous but it is a choice that narrows your options.

In the Marines there comes a point in an enlisted man's career when he has to decide if he wants to be a technician or a troop handler. One becomes a Master Sergeant and the other a First Sergeant. They have very different roles but very equal ranks. Both are honorable, both are profitable but you have to be one or the other.

I don't agree with him that the verse in this case means "only one wife" but I am very much in awe of the clear eyed and logical approach to the question.

Some are called to be hands and some are called to be feet. I'm personally called to be an asshole. The qualifications are different for each one and trust me you'd never want to confuse them but you'd never want to be without any of them.

I agree that it's hard to hear that one would be disbarred from being an elder but Slumber's point is that it wouldn't throw shade on polygyny if that were so.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

LOL yes that is very much my point. Oh lord I'm gonna be chuckling all night now...

 

[andrew]

A king executes justice and kills the enemies of the people. He runs the affairs of state on behalf of the people. -Primarily War and Justice
An elder devotes himself to ministry of the word and to prayer. -Primarily Seeking God and Sharing His word

A king rules by decree-
An elder rules by consensus with other elders-

(Forgive my short response, I have a feeling if I I try to go deeper I'm not going to be coherent)

Perhaps I've got a deficit of experience, but I haven't ever seen a pastor I thought would make a good head of state, and I haven't seen a head of state I would trust as a pastor.

Those are job descriptions. Where are the KSAs?

 

[andrew]

I agree that it's hard to hear that one would be disbarred from being an elder but Slumber's point is that it wouldn't throw shade on polygyny if that were so.

Oh, I got that, and like you I think Slumber has done a yeoman job of arguing for translating mia as 'one'. We're off on a tangent now (maybe) because Slumber was picking on David and I'm picking on him about the difference between kings and elders, but eventually we'll get back to something that resembles the original thread topic.

 

[steve]

Just an observation, rereading 1Timothy 3, every single qualification is non-specific (open to judgement) with the exception of mia.
Maybe, just maybe, mia was intended to be less specific than we want it to be?
Looked at through that lens, it only eliminates being non-married.

 

[Cap]

I do know that when this discussion is done with 'church' people in regards to whether polygamy is of God or not, and the same round and round goes on, no understanding is ever made, and eventually the 'church' people throw up their hands and claim, WELL POLYGAMY IS JUST NOT RIGHT.

So, if we are confused about it, no wonder those who oppose can't figure it out. Even though it's not a salvation issue it does seem to cause problems for the polygamy crowd to say that the requirement is ONE wife.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The argument that plural men are too busy or too focused on pleasing their wives to help oversee the fellowship is bogus, a red herring, and one of those last pockets of resistance where we have bought into the cultural model of marriage without realizing it. "Many hands make light work", and a properly organized biblical family will actually empower the man to be of more service to the church, while a "happy wife, happy life" family will suck the life out of him.

This

 

[IshChayil]

Very well. Bishops are henceforth stricken from the record.

"bishops are right out!"

 

[IshChayil]

Not going to try to address the details of the debate, but I think it's worth considering the 'what makes the most sense' ... 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. ...

... with the possibility that the argument for one is an argument from wisdom (operating within a mono culture) or simply arbitrary (it's a mystery, He's God, He can do what He wants), or take a longer look at first or a for the translation.

Two big reasons.
1) Someone who lacked the wisdom and skill to keep his first wife is much more unlikely to give good advice to others. This goes along with ruling his house well and keeping children under control. This is the main reason..

Problem with this as we hashed out earlier is that mia doesn't mean "first". @Verifyveritas76 correctly listed the way to say first in Greek is "protos" or protea in this case.

This Greek word does not mean first fellas; I explained early in this thread. There are only a few possible mistranslations we were able to put to bed and first wife is one of them.
Here's a summary for your convenience:
************************
****** translating heis/mia/en as FIRST - what the heck happened? *****
The cases where we translate heis/mia/en as “first” have to do with the underlying Hebrew oddity for those getting carried over into the semitized Greek. For example. In Hebrew, Sunday is called “day 1”. Yom echad. This is a semitic way of thinking (construct state for those studying Hebrew) where you can force the 2nd, 3rd etc word in a “contruct chain” to function adjectivaly. In modern times we use the adjective “first” rishon so we say “yom rishon” but still the biblical “yom echad” gets used as well. Literally “Day of 1” (Sunday in Hebrew) Monday is “day 2” … etc. these get carried over into the New Testament as “on the 3rd day such and such happened”. It’s a semitic oddity/influence on the Greek from that area or an attempt to be true to a lost Hebrew/Aramaic original.
********************************

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?

We discuss earlier in the thread the concept that deacon is more like an assistant or a "helper" to the pastor. It's just confusing because the English cognate has evolved to mean something much more. I was postulating that perhaps the reasoning Paul doesn't think polygamists should be in this role is it's kind of too low level for someone with leadership skills like a patriarchal type. Concerning the restriction on "bishops" it seems this is also an English-stealing-Greek-words-and-redefining-their-meanings issue.
Check out Biblical Families: What in the world is an ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos) i.e. "bishop"?
thread where we explore in depth the possible meanings of this word. There's a lot of good discussion over there.

There's still some unresolved issues but I personally see "episkopos" as one who visited the sick all over town(s), not an overseer, etc and as such is also inappropriate for someone like a patriarch (though @Shibboleth makes a good case for "overseer")

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Skills as I see them:

King: Needs to be adept in seeking the advise of knowledgeable subordinates but perhaps more adept at taking unilateral action despite the advise of advisers that don't share his vision
Elder: Needs to be adept in finding the truth of a matter, regardless of personal opinion, with the aid of several peers, and taking unilateral action only sparingly.

I believe it possible for a man to have both skill sets, but I do not believe they are the same, and I do not believe it is easy for one man to have them.

I submit as evidence this website, brimming with men fully in their element in taking independent action, but finding it hard to come to consensus. Zero offense meant to anyone, and I really mean that, but an Elder's council filled with sharp-toothed Patriarchs would be a great place to get one's iron sharpened (whether it needs it or not) but I don't see much cohesive Elding coming out of it. If men with a king's skill set and leanings were serving as elders, I foresee a lot of inadvertent factions springing up, because the differences of opinion would not easily give way to coherent actionable rulings for the city's church.

 

[andrew]

And you see having one wife v. more than one wife as having something to do with that, as a proxy for good king v. good elder? Something that could be used as a litmus test without any further explanation?

 

[andrew]

Just for the record, I would consider being a king (or military commander generally—anyone with unilateral command authority) to be the harder job, and in my experience men with military experience make great board members. I'd still love to have David or anyone with 1/2 his gifts as an elder in any fellowship I was a part of.

The reason we don't get along here is because we spend most of our time arguing abstractions with people we've never met. The situation on the ground IRL would be much different.

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

Problem with this as we hashed out earlier is that mia doesn't mean "first".

I mean, I think the principle still stands (that someone who has gone through a divorce might not be the wisest choice for an elder/pastor, although certainly there are exceptions and discernment would be called for...


But ok, so be it. In that case, what were the other possibilities linguistically?

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Hmm.. Since you put it that way, there may be some bleed over, but that's not how I actually see it, no.

My beef with the offices having more than one wife is almost purely the "If he says one, he means one, and how on earth would it mean two?" If 1 Cor 7:2 read "each man is to have one wife and each woman one husband" I would never have made it to this website. But if Paul would have said "Each man is to have one wife and each woman only one husband. Then not only would I have been here, but I could readily accept @Verifyveritas76 's interpretation as the clear and only possible choice.

That's the main dish. The side dish which is not really touching the main dish because I'm that kind of eater is in regards to king leadership vs elder leadership.

Am I reading David wrong? Whenever I read about David I feel like he's driven almost totally by impulse and emotion, and collateral damage follows him wherever he goes. He's a good guy, and I would go on an adventure* with him and have fun**, but I would like to know my family is only benefiting from the culture he is protecting, not the one he is directly influencing.

*I would not go on an adventure on purpose, but still
** It would only be fun in hindsight

I would consider being a king (or military commander generally—anyone with unilateral command authority) to be the harder job,

I'm pretty sure I agree with you there.

and in my experience men with military experience make great board members.

I... have not had that experience. I have good relations with a fair number of veterans, but I actually feel the same way about them as I do David. They might be hurt to hear me say so, but then again... they know what they did.

The reason we don't get along here is because we spend most of our time arguing abstractions with people we've never met. The situation on the ground IRL would be much different.

Well I'd be lying if I said I didn't totally agree with that.

 

[Cap]

Hmm.. Since you put it that way, there may be some bleed over, but that's not how I actually see it, no.

My beef with the offices having more than one wife is almost purely the "If he says one, he means one, and how on earth would it mean two?" If 1 Cor 7:2 read "each man is to have one wife and each woman one husband" I would never have made it to this website. But if Paul would have said "Each man is to have one wife and each woman only one husband. Then not only would I have been here, but I could readily accept @Verifyveritas76 's interpretation as the clear and only possible choice.

That's the main dish. The side dish which is not really touching the main dish because I'm that kind of eater is in regards to king leadership vs elder leadership.

Am I reading David wrong? Whenever I read about David I feel like he's driven almost totally by impulse and emotion, and collateral damage follows him wherever he goes. He's a good guy, and I would go on an adventure* with him and have fun**, but I would like to know my family is only benefiting from the culture he is protecting, not the one he is directly influencing.

*I would not go on an adventure on purpose, but still
** It would only be fun in hindsight



I'm pretty sure I agree with you there.



I... have not had that experience. I have good relations with a fair number of veterans, but I actually feel the same way about them as I do David. They might be hurt to hear me say so, but then again... they know what they did.



Well I'd be lying if I said I didn't totally agree with that.

Based on the skill sets given to David in the Word of God, the lessons about life and failures, and very strong devotion to God, I would consider him an elder in my book any day. If I needed a mentor in life he would be at the top for me.

And he had more than one wife, so he fits the king and an elder I would respect. If a monogamist elder is better suited for others, that's ok with me too. But I prefer an elder that knows about life, particularly a plural a life.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Maybe this is part of why I'm drawn towards this discussion even though I truthfully find it grating. This church needs men of a caliber that hardly exist. This discussion proposes men that the church won't accept. The solution evades me, but I keep picking at it like a scab.

IMO the biggest problem is the perceived “correct” structure of our modern day assembly. You know, where a pastor is this super Christian and there’s this ecclesiastical pyramid structure that in some cases becomes de facto papal in nature and authority. The home is subject to the ecclesiastical authorities. While I agree that the bishop of an assembly should be a tsadik man, this modern day idea of righteousness is far extended beyond what God intended and ultimately leads to the idea that celibacy is the highest righteousness. This couldn’t be further from the truth, but it’s the exact same mindset that began restricting this Bishop/deacon to only one wife. They couldn’t logically enforce celibacy because the Scripture speaks so much about marriage, but they could argue a higher standard of “righteousness” (though unbiblical and unprovable) and did so quite successfully with the help of the papacy.

True religion and undefiled before God is to take care of the women and children in the family of God. Obviously the widows and the orphans but also the married and fathered because if he doesn’t, he’s worse than an infidel or unbeliever.

A man who has abandoned or divorced the wife of his youth has contributed to the ranks of the unmarried and unfathered therefore unrighteous and not eligible for that position. A man who takes care of his widows is worthy of double honor, especially if he labors in word and deed.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

My beef with the offices having more than one wife is almost purely the "If he says one, he means one, and how on earth would it mean two?"

I was thinking about this yesterday and the parallel to age came in. I’ve often been asked by younger children how old I am. If they try to guess my age, I will always say yes to any number they guess that is true. My actual age is now pushing 42, but if they guess 21 I will admit to it because I am 21 years old. I am also every number between 1&41.

It’s the same with children, Sir, do you have one child? Yes. Do you have two? Yes. Do you have three? Yes. And so on until you cannot truthfully answer in the affirmative.

I think it’s the same with this phrase. Assume for the sake of this argument that I have 3 wives.

The committee asks, Sir, we are considering you for the position of bishop. The requirements state that you must be the husband of one wife. Do you have one wife? My truthful answer would be, Indeed I do.
As long as they strictly adhere to the wording of the text, any man with at least one wife could answer this in the affirmative.

And why would they divert from the strict wording of the text if we are not to add to or take away from it? So that this chosen man (with only one wife) can be more righteous than another that is suddenly unrighteous or perhaps not righteous enough strictly because he husbands and shepherds more than one of God’s daughters? Or perhaps it is because he just won’t have enough time to shepherd the flock if he has more than one woman on his hands?

IMO, these are the only two “reasons” that I’ve heard for the perspective of only one for the bishop and deacons and both just seem to fall flat when taken to their logical conclusion or when exposed to someone with more than one like @andrew who attests to the huge help that additional wives can provide to a ministry.

The logical conclusion being that if a man with one wife is better suited to the role than a man with more than one, the a man with zero wives must of course be much better suited than a man with one wife. If this extrapolation is not true for obvious reasons, then the premise for your theory must be based upon faulty logic.

Thus, to assume that this is a negative restriction rather than a positive requirement soon finds no where to stand than other than misinterpretation

Peace love and fuzzies

 

[Slumberfreeze]

ultimately leads to the idea that celibacy is the highest righteousness.

Maybe not highest righteousness, but I have to believe there is some reason why Jesus does not admit married men into His 144,000 company. I have no doctrines, just suspicions.

I was thinking about this yesterday and the parallel to age came in. I’ve often been asked by younger children how old I am. If they try to guess my age, I will always say yes to any number they guess that is true. My actual age is now pushing 42, but if they guess 21 I will admit to it because I am 21 years old. I am also every number between 1&41.

My AQ is rising.
X =/= 21.
X = 42

Are they asking if your age is greater or equal to 21? Knowing kids, they were not asking if you were at least 21, they were guessing your age to see if you were right. They were looking for a factual confirmation but you are giving them a critical thinking exercise.

Which mathematically speaking, this is taking tiny little pickaxes to the back of my brain. From my perspective, I'm engaging in a thought exercise to see if 1=1. If I have to toy with if = = = at the same time I may have to bow out and spend some time huffing into a paper bag.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I will need to chew on this some.

 

[Cap]

I was thinking about this yesterday and the parallel to age came in. I’ve often been asked by younger children how old I am. If they try to guess my age, I will always say yes to any number they guess that is true. My actual age is now pushing 42, but if they guess 21 I will admit to it because I am 21 years old. I am also every number between 1&41.

It’s the same with children, Sir, do you have one child? Yes. Do you have two? Yes. Do you have three? Yes. And so on until you cannot truthfully answer in the affirmative.

I think it’s the same with this phrase. Assume for the sake of this argument that I have 3 wives.

The committee asks, Sir, we are considering you for the position of bishop. The requirements state that you must be the husband of one wife. Do you have one wife? My truthful answer would be, Indeed I do.
As long as they strictly adhere to the wording of the text, any man with at least one wife could answer this in the affirmative.

And why would they divert from the strict wording of the text if we are not to add to or take away from it? So that this chosen man (with only one wife) can be more righteous than another that is suddenly unrighteous or perhaps not righteous enough strictly because he husbands and shepherds more than one of God’s daughters? Or perhaps it is because he just won’t have enough time to shepherd the flock if he has more than one woman on his hands?

IMO, these are the only two “reasons” that I’ve heard for the perspective of only one for the bishop and deacons and both just seem to fall flat when taken to their logical conclusion or when exposed to someone with more than one like @andrew who attests to the huge help that additional wives can provide to a ministry.

The logical conclusion being that if a man with one wife is better suited to the role than a man with more than one, the a man with zero wives must of course be much better suited than a man with one wife. If this extrapolation is not true for obvious reasons, then the premise for your theory must be based upon faulty logic.

Thus, to assume that this is a negative restriction rather than a positive requirement soon finds no where to stand than other than misinterpretation

Peace love and fuzzies

Where is the Love button, I'd select that one for this post.

 

[Cap]

Slum, if memory serves me correctly, you will never stop arguing you point in this matter. It is entertaining though.

But then again I can't remember if I'm 39 or 57.