-
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
I am pretty sure that only applies if there is seed of copulation, and if he keep his seed to himself, there is no
I think Lev 15:16 applies whether there is a woman involved or not.
I only use the word ceremonially out of habit. I don't know why you're crossing it out. Is it related to typing G-d instead of God?
At any rate... unclean and defiled are synonyms. And more to the point, I'm pretty sure that the uh... Law of Moses usage of unclean is at least a physical representation for a spiritual defilement.
Like how leaven isn't necessarily sinful, but it plays the part for spiritual instruction. I would posit that unclean and defilement are more than synonyms, but are in fact type/antitypes.
At any rate, Jesus and His companions have already been modeled for us. When David went with his companions to eat the unlawful bread of the tabernacle, the only requirement that the Priest had was that the men had to have been kept from women. I think the similarities are another example of a type/antitype
I only use the word ceremonially out of habit. I don't know why you're crossing it out. Is it related to typing G-d instead of God?
At any rate... unclean and defiled are synonyms. And more to the point, I'm pretty sure that the uh... Law of Moses usage of unclean is at least a physical representation for a spiritual defilement.
Like how leaven isn't necessarily sinful, but it plays the part for spiritual instruction. I would posit that unclean and defilement are more than synonyms, but are in fact type/antitypes.
At any rate, Jesus and His companions have already been modeled for us. When David went with his companions to eat the unlawful bread of the tabernacle, the only requirement that the Priest had was that the men had to have been kept from women. I think the similarities are another example of a type/antitype
Reading your posts, @Slumberfreeze, a question keeps rising in my mind. You seem to have a great many reasons why having more than one wife is at best a rather unsavory prospect, so my question is, why would you want a second?
You know I've wanted to ask that of a few people, not @Slumberfreeze, but few who by what they post at best completely despise women and think them worthless. I think slumber just enjoys making us scratch our heads.
That first sentence is brilliant.
I think you are right, a properly run household (and he wouldn't be qualified for elder if it wasn't) wouldn't be too busy for him to be elder. The only reason left with is that he has pleasing many wives on his mind a la 1 Cor 7. But I don't think that flies either or it would disqualify any married.
The only reason I see left is a cultural appeal, be all things to all men and have good reputation amoung monogamous gentiles. Possible explanation but I don't think it's enough to force the translation. One can be cross cultural and still have a good reputation in the community. The Roman world was a very multicultural one.
I think there is a distinct difference between's Pauls "all things to all men" approach and Augustine/early church father approach of "must do it this way because it's wrong (by our culture) but if you corner me on it I can't condemn you" approach.
If I do, it's mostly unconnected to this topic. The inability to be a deacon or elder is not something that bothers me at all. I would say serving as an elder in this present climate is unsavory. If you read something I have to say against poly, I wouldn't file it under 'distaste' but acknowledging the hazards of the thing. Before I kindle a campfire, I'd want to be more acquainted with the common campfire rules and the disastrous consequences of ignoring them; than the fun and utility of having one. That part is a given.
Before I was married, I was highly critical of women and marriage because no matter how lonely I was, I'd seen enough wreckage and folly associated with women to know that I wouldn't engage unless I was absolutely sure. My mother knew I was in love with Rainy long before I did because I never had anything negative to say about her, and once even paid her a compliment.
Now that I am married, I have had years to grow and reform opinions, but my basic approach hasn't changed. I focus more on the negative because I will not bring ruin to my family. Ginny's thread that I enjoyed so much http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/a-letter-from-the-front-line.13122/#post-143387
does not portray poly as very savory, but woe betide the household that doesn't soberly reflect on it!
Because although "women" in general are a haystack, and every straw in it is disaster, nevertheless there was a needle in it that God found and gave to me. She was perfect. (not meaning without flaws, but matched to me according to higher wisdom). She was located, hidden within the haystack, and her help has given me strength. My household stands like a lighthouse calling the lost home and giving the wayward their bearings. If the Father were to bring me an additional woman according to His wisdom, I'd be silly to refuse. Lord only knows what works He would have in mind, but I bet they would be staggering!
Yeah, makes sense.
yes...I agree...he was being 'all things to all men' 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
Last edited:
I still say the reason is right in the verse... he needs to have at least one so that we know he can rule his own house well... plain and simple
Its not just that, but generally there is a inner imbalance when the complimentary opposite is not present to balance and complete the male - and vice versa.
Another point is that the man as a married elder is less prone to distraction by needing the company of the opposite sex and possible temptation to adultery...
Women worthless?? why would anyone think that? and why would they want them if they do?
I would say the opposite, that men want them because they are quite valued and appreciated - and more ...
Yeah this actually expresses better the point I was trying to make. I'm starting to see the opposite to be true; if the verse means '1' then how can this be?
That leads me to either the office is something that doesn't require much skill so don't subjugate a patriarch to it (elder is a problem though for this), which leads me to the speculation that perhaps back in the day...illiterate gals were less helpful and made more for the guy to manage. I'm actually in agreement with your take on it, in that I'm postulating that in the current age, in the 1st world, the case may be the opposite. In ancient Israel a woman wasn't supposed to even travel alone, so this puts more to do on the man unless they have servants.
Today, she's got a car what's the big deal. She can buy stuff, make slides, etc.
I knew a programmer in a very happy marriage where they ALWAYS ate out or ordered in. They never cooked ever.
This kind of infrastructure is available today. That said, I never dated a gal who couldn't cook. where are these shrews hiding!?
well I suppose it depended on culture. Jewish tradition teaches differently...that is that the ancients spent far more time teaching the children than we do today.
This is often used in drashes (sermons) as a shame-on-you-guys for not spending more time teaching our own kids or at least hiring tutors.
Anyway I originally wrote a very long post responding to all the Amish stuff, the glory or Roman women, etc., then I decided to have mercy on everyone and their time and shorten it to this.
The sum of my point is that, in seeing that mia can only be translated here to mean "1" or "a" we have no problem if it's "a". The problem scenario is if it's "1" (in my opinion it is). So then the entire thought process is "how the heck can that be? that doesn't jive with the totality of scripture and righteous figures". Which leads me to notice a deacon in Greek is not a deacon in English. It's low level office like a personal assistant. Bishop is not a bishop it's likely one who visits the sick all over town and orphans and widows, etc. Elder causes the issue for me. so why? So in the spirit of proper exegesis you don't have to agree with the example I provided about women not speaking in the assembly, I only included it because I thought my reasoning wouldn't get much pushback. I still stand by the notion that women in Greece and Israel were vastly illiterate in those days, and so were men. ; heck almost nobody even owned a bible. So I use that to approach the verse. Things have changed, the abilities of women (and men) today are augmented by technology and literacy.
Back then in many cultures a woman couldn't go anywhere alone; this is more burden on the man. Today she can drive a car and do all the shopping. Then she could not educate the children, today she certainly can as many homeschoolers know the mommy's are often at the helm teaching today. So really my point was just an attempt to wrestle with the text IF it means "1". shalom
C
Cap
Guest
Ok sorry one more swing at the poor animal.
I really don't understand the significance between 'a' and 1. 'a' can equal 1, like 'couple' can mean 2, 'few' mean 3 or more, but as @Verifyveritas76 said doesn't mean NOT more than 1.
The important word would be 'only'. Does the Greek or Hebrew sentence structure support or imply the concept of 'only 1'?
I really don't understand the significance between 'a' and 1. 'a' can equal 1, like 'couple' can mean 2, 'few' mean 3 or more, but as @Verifyveritas76 said doesn't mean NOT more than 1.
The important word would be 'only'. Does the Greek or Hebrew sentence structure support or imply the concept of 'only 1'?
Last edited by a moderator:
Like, mono mia gynaika?
Wait, is that the "only begotten"?