• 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?

Mojo said:
Wait, is that the "only begotten"?
Click to expand...
You''re thinking of "only one of the kind" monogeniys, there is no "only begotten" there.
We used to think monogeniys came from mono+ginomai (to become, come into existence, etc), but in recent decades the resolution of this word was improved through the discovery of additional texts. We now know it's mono+genus like a genus in biology so it's more like "the unique son" same word maps to Hebrew yachiyd referring to Isaac as Abraham's "only son" which certainly he was not the only one, he's the "species unique" one...

@Asforme&myhouse
Yes to what you wrote about "just one woman" it's possibly to further qualify in this way. A good argument for folks wanting to translate "a" here could be "why didn't paul use mono to make it extra clear" though a counter to that argument could be "the audience to whom he was writing were fluent in the dialect of Greek he was using so he was free to write how he felt/was inspired"
 
"A" would allow for both monogamists and polygynists. He has to be the husband of a wife, obviously a man with two wives ex the husband of a wife.
 
First thought:

It would certainly be convenient, and I still favor that translation, but I agree with Slumber that if one is persuaded that the grammar is 'one', then we just deal with it. It would help my human brain rationalize something that would otherwise be counter-intuitive to know what it is God has against polygamists, ;) but with or without a good reason, we have to deal with the words as written, as best we can figure out what that is in translation.

Second thought:

Overall, for all the discussion that has gone into this (on this board and over the past 20 years), I think we're left with some ambiguity and have to leave room for conscience. To me, 'first' and 'a' make more logical sense (see my comments above in this post), while 'a' and 'one' are more grammatically defensible (see the whole discussion above), so for me, personally, I award 'a' first place, with 'one' a very close second and 'first' a distant third. But I know others I respect see it differently, and that's that. I will always be willing to discuss this with others, but never to argue over it (see Rom 14).

Third thought (a bit of free association, maybe):

I was reminded then of what I think is one of the more curious verses in the NT, 1 Cor 11:16, wherein Paul is closing out his discussion of head coverings:
Paul said:
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Click to expand...
Based on what we've already said about Paul's instructions (a) to Timothy and Titus, (b) in the first century (so potentially time, place, and person specific) being a possible nod to keeping the peace with an inherently matriarchal (monogamous) surrounding culture, I wonder if there's a connection here. I find it interesting that in both cases the central topic is male headship, and certainly in one case and arguably in the other Paul is arguing for a low profile when dealing with outsiders, to the point of even denying that that is in fact our practice if/when faced with an argument. I wonder if there's a word of wisdom in there for us....
 
andrew said:
It would help my human brain rationalize something that would otherwise be counter-intuitive to know what it is God has against polygamists, ;)
Click to expand...
images
:p:p:p

andrew said:
But I know others I respect see it differently, and that's that. I will always be willing to discuss this with others, but never to argue over it (see Rom 14).
Click to expand...

Baller.

andrew said:
I find it interesting that in both cases the central topic is male headship, and certainly in one case and arguably in the other Paul is arguing for a low profile when dealing with outsiders, to the point of even denying that that is in fact our practice if/when faced with an argument. I wonder if there's a word of wisdom in there for us....
Click to expand...

mmmmmm... serpent wisdom?
 
Slumberfreeze said:
mmmmmm... serpent wisdom?
Click to expand...
'Splain, Lucy....

ZecAustin said:
I will never accept that anything in scripture is any man's opinion on how to deal with a specific culture.
Click to expand...
Suit yourself. Would you accept that much of scripture describes particular events in the past that we can learn general principles from that are useful today, but we can't just appropriate as proof texts to apply to our particular situations? Since I don't see you selling everything you have, preaching naked, or building a boat in your backyard, the correct answer is yes....
 
andrew said:
'Splain, Lucy....


Suit yourself. Would you accept that much of scripture describes particular events in the past that we can learn general principles from that are useful today, but we can't just appropriate as proof texts to apply to our particular situations? Since I don't see you selling everything you have, preaching naked, or building a boat in your backyard, the correct answer is yes....
Click to expand...

I would not. Christ didn't tell me to sell everything that I have and follow Him. He told the rich young ruler to do that. He didn't tell me to preach naked. See how easy it is to take it at face value?
 
andrew said:
'Splain, Lucy....
Click to expand...
"be you therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

In reference to keeping a low profile when dealing with outsiders. I have to believe a certain amount of deceit is implicit in 'wisdom of a serpent'. He could have used the wisdom of any of the 4 established 'small but wise' animals but threw the serpent out instead.
 
ZecAustin said:
I would not. Christ didn't tell me to sell everything that I have and follow Him. He told the rich young ruler to do that. He didn't tell me to preach naked. See how easy it is to take it at face value?
Click to expand...
Yep. He didn't tell you to appoint elders at all, let alone what criteria to use. See how easy it is to take that at face value? ;)
 
Slumberfreeze said:
"be you therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

In reference to keeping a low profile when dealing with outsiders. I have to believe a certain amount of deceit is implicit in 'wisdom of a serpent'. He could have used the wisdom of any of the 4 established 'small but wise' animals but threw the serpent out instead.
Click to expand...
Derp. I went straight to 'serpent in the garden'....

So now that I get it, a quick Strong's refresher (sorry, @IshChayil!) gives three different Greek words for wise (at least), and distinguishes the one used here with words such as 'cautious' and 'discreet'. Maybe we would say 'prudent'.

So I wouldn't have any objection to deceiving enemies in a conflict, and that might apply here, but I'm getting more of that cautious/prudent vibe, as in the only 'wisdom' I think of in association with a serpent is the wisdom stay hidden and not get underfoot (often by means of camouflage), not really trying to pick any fights (unless they're trying to kill and eat something), but able to defend themselves. Something like that, anyway. In any event, yes, "wise as serpents, innocent as doves" seems to apply here.
 
andrew said:
Yep. He didn't tell you to appoint elders at all, let alone what criteria to use. See how easy it is to take that at face value? ;)
Click to expand...

Incorrect, the instructions about elders weren't limited in their scope. It would apply to any one who was involved in appointing elders. Again, you have to take it at face value.
 
So you're an apostle and you have authority to appoint elders? How are you getting Paul's instructions to Timothy or Titus to be marching instructions for you?
 
I would think that the ability to appoint an elder would be a group effort and not one held be an individual. I would also assume that a group aligned with monogamy would want an elder that had 1 wife. BUT a group that has an understanding of polygomy would more prefer an elder familiar with plural relationships. At least that's the way I would cast my vote.
 
andrew said:
So you're an apostle and you have authority to appoint elders? How are you getting Paul's instructions to Timothy or Titus to be marching instructions for you?
Click to expand...

I said they were for anyone involved in appointing elders. That may or may not be me directly but it would apply to all elders and how they are appointed.
 
Mm hm. So who do you think has the authority to appoint elders (and deacons), and on what scriptural basis do you think that?
 
Cap said:
I would think that the ability to appoint an elder would be a group effort
Click to expand...
On what basis would you think that?
 
andrew said:
I was reminded then of what I think is one of the more curious verses in the NT, 1 Cor 11:16, wherein Paul is closing out his discussion of head coverings:

Based on what we've already said about Paul's instructions (a) to Timothy and Titus, (b) in the first century (so potentially time, place, and person specific) being a possible nod to keeping the peace with an inherently matriarchal (monogamous) surrounding culture, I wonder if there's a connection here. I find it interesting that in both cases the central topic is male headship, and certainly in one case and arguably in the other Paul is arguing for a low profile when dealing with outsiders, to the point of even denying that that is in fact our practice if/when faced with an argument. I wonder if there's a word of wisdom in there for us....
Click to expand...

I always understood that as Paul saying, if anyone wants to be contentious about this they can take a hike because this is how it’s done, period. o_O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top