I'm going to try to do this from memory instead of cut-and-paste, line-by-line.
@rockfox, you and I agree, sort of; you took half my sentence and argued with it, but the other half spoke to that. The idea that a plural man is necessarily "too busy" and therefore "doesn't have time" to be an elder is BS. To the extent that's actually true in individual cases, it's because modern women aren't so helpful. I call that reasoning "assumptions", you take those observations as given in this culture, but we're on the same page. A dysfunctional family gets more dysfunctional as it scales; a functional family gets more functional as it scales. Either way, justifying
mia as 'one' on the ground that plural men are obviously weighed down with domestic responsibilities is bunk. That doesn't mean 'mia'
isn't properly translated 'one', just means that "the man is too busy" is a lame justification for
determining that 'mia' should be translated 'one'.
@Slumberfreeze, you know I accept your determination that
mia should be translated one here and respect your commitment to the "that's what it says even if we don't like it" principle. I'm in the same boat (what God is actually saying is more important than whether that's what we wanted Him to say) and have said before and many times that if mia=one is what people sincerely believe after independent study (not regurgitation of pop dogma), I'm fine with not being an elder in their church. Respect for conviction, and everything Paul says about our not being the boss of each other, seems to me to be appropriate here. I just don't see 'one' as the definitive translation based on grammar rules alone, as per
@IshChayil's well-laid-out arguments above and elsewhere on the site. If you're settled on the grammar, then that settles it. I don't see the grammar as being so open-and-shut, and leave it to individuals to 'be convinced in their own mind'.
@Cap, you win the Rockfox Prize for opening my eyes to something I've never really considered before in this context, in two years of intensive study, 20 years of living it, and four years of engagement with this ministry. (Apparently an old dog can learn new tricks, it just takes longer....
) In this case, it's what you said about advice for married men. I wouldn't go for marriage advice to a single guy. I don't think childless women should be school teachers (uh oh...). And I don't see how a plural guy is going to recognize a mono guy as a tribal elder if that 'elder' can't counsel and advise him with any experience or wisdom through the kind of transition we're talking about here.
To recap: I'm presently seeing 'first' as off the list, as discussed by IC above (the Hebrew Idiom argument). I see 'a' and 'one' as both still arguably viable, with maybe a 60/40 or 70/30 lean (YMMV) towards 'one', but without being able to positively rule out 'a', so that brings us to context and the whole counsel of scripture. I still think 'a' makes more sense than 'one' legally and logically, but am open to the idea that "all things to all men" Paul would have had some reason for coaching Timothy and Titus to appoint only men of one woman. The only reason that makes sense to me at this point is the Augustinian one ('of course polygamy is okay, duh, but we don't do it today because of our "Roman custom"'). That would make sense for a first century guy charged with taking the gospel to the Gentiles who didn't want to pick a fight over a non-salvation issue while he's fomenting a spiritual revolution (
cf. Martin Luther in the matter of Philip).
I find our situation today a bit different (to put it mildly). While the Christian ghetto continues to flog monogamy-only, there's a big world out there, and the ruling oligarchy is not just breaking down the family (we're way beyond that), they're breaking down the basic understanding of what it means to be a man or a woman. If we're not already entering into "seven women will take hold of one man" territory, then we will be soon (and I'd argue we already are, we're just behind the curve and being reactive rather than proactive).
So I'm okay with mia=a, and as a matter of translation I'm okay with those who believe mia=one if we agree that what's important is that "each be convinced in his own mind". I'd say further that even if mia=one for Timothy and Titus, that doesn't necessarily mean, and certainly doesn't
prove, that Paul's word to TnT back
then is God's word to us
now, any more than Jesus's instruction to one guy to "sell all you have" back then has us all running to auction off all our stuff (although it seems to have worked for Francis...).
The bottom line—for me—is that I expect to see more fellowships with plural elders appearing as a matter of practical necessity, and some that restrict themselves to mono elders for conscience' sake or due to practical necessities of their own. And I'm speaking here of fellowships
outside the system; what happens within the government/corporate system will depend upon whichever way our culture goes.
More later; gotta run.
