Thoughts on Polygamist Pastors?

[Slumberfreeze]

Ok.. so my mind knows... on this pure intellectual level, that you guys aren't just trolling me. You're both serious dudes who do intense research with real conviction.

on the other hand:

Ack! And zec too! lama sabachthani!

So VV says that mia can only ever mean the first one in a sequence.

And yet this woman loses one.... just one... coin which is reiterated to be singular in the next verse. If mia really can only grammatically be understood as the first in a sequence then she in fact lost multiple coins of which the coin in question was only the first. She lost drachmas not drachman. The parable loses grammatical number agreement. To be clear, I'm not saying that mia can't mean the first in a sequence, just that it doesn't always by definition have to.

I do seeeee what you're saying vv, but you have to see from my point of view that it looks like you're stretching awful far to make this word mean what you are relying on it to mean.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Ok.. so my mind knows... on this pure intellectual level, that you guys aren't just trolling me. You're both serious dudes who do intense research with real conviction.

on the other hand:

Ack! And zec too! lama sabachthani!

So VV says that mia can only ever mean the first one in a sequence.

And yet this woman loses one.... just one... coin which is reiterated to be singular in the next verse. If mia really can only grammatically be understood as the first in a sequence then she in fact lost multiple coins of which the coin in question was only the first. She lost drachmas not drachman. The parable loses grammatical number agreement. To be clear, I'm not saying that mia can't mean the first in a sequence, just that it doesn't always by definition have to.

I do seeeee what you're saying vv, but you have to see from my point of view that it looks like you're stretching awful far to make this word mean what you are relying on it to mean.

I would stop short of saying it can never be anything else but it seems to frequently be “a” and not 1.

 

[FollowingHim]

I disagree with VV, I don't think it's only ever the first in a sequence.
It's either "a" or "first". I think it can be either. And either way, pastors can be polygamous.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Ok.. so my mind knows... on this pure intellectual level, that you guys aren't just trolling me. You're both serious dudes who do intense research with real conviction.

on the other hand:

Ack! And zec too! lama sabachthani!

So VV says that mia can only ever mean the first one in a sequence.

And yet this woman loses one.... just one... coin which is reiterated to be singular in the next verse. If mia really can only grammatically be understood as the first in a sequence then she in fact lost multiple coins of which the coin in question was only the first. She lost drachmas not drachman. The parable loses grammatical number agreement. To be clear, I'm not saying that mia can't mean the first in a sequence, just that it doesn't always by definition have to.

I do seeeee what you're saying vv, but you have to see from my point of view that it looks like you're stretching awful far to make this word mean what you are relying on it to mean.

My point is more that it will never be the second or third or fourth. That may be a better way of putting it.

It is a singular coin, but due to the usage of Mia, it had to be the first. If it was one of the other ten, there are multiple other words for ‘one’ that could have been used.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

My point is more that it will never be the second or third or fourth. That may be a better way of putting it.

It is a singular coin, but due to the usage of Mia, it had to be the first. If it was one of the other ten, there are multiple other words for ‘one’ that could have been used.

Oy! Matthew 24:41 makes me sorely incorrect in my assertion of “ever”

 

[steve]

Question: she lost one coin, does that rule out the possibility that she could lose another in the future?

 

[steve]

So submit, obey, yield, trust those who command, rule, lead you for they watch over your souls and must give an account for you.

Who has the responsibility for your soul?
Teachers must take responsibility for those that they mislead, but, outside of the family structure, who takes on the responsibility for another’s soul?
@Soldier's Psalm, to whom have you given the responsibility for your soul? You can walk out of any church and remove their accountability for your soul. They can only be held accountable for driving you away.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Question: she lost one coin, does that rule out the possibility that she could lose another in the future?

For sure not at all, but to me for such a 'limited in scope' parable the 'only first' definition carries implications that I don't think were intended. I believe that heaven rejoices over every sinner that repents, not just the first one, if you take my meaning.

 

[PeteR]

For sure not at all, but to me for such a 'limited in scope' parable the 'only first' definition carries implications that I don't think were intended. I believe that heaven rejoices over every sinner that repents, not just the first one, if you take my meaning.

But, the point isn't that heaven rejoices only over the first sinner, it is the degree of the rejoicing over each sinner is like.....

 

[Slumberfreeze]

hmmm I don't see degrees in this passage anywhere.. wanna underline it for me?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Just a reminder, we shouldn’t start trying to read poly in to this parable. The parable came up as an example of the use of the word “mia”. I believe the parable itself is silent on marriage of any kind.

 

[steve]

Just a reminder, we shouldn’t start trying to read poly in to this parable. The parable came up as an example of the use of the word “mia”. I believe the parable itself is silent on marriage of any kind.

I may be wondering around lost, as usual, but I thought we were simply discussing how Mia can be used.

 

[Nikud]

So VV says that mia can only ever mean the first one in a sequence

Yeshua cursed mia fig tree. Matthew 21:19 a certain one, not one in a sequence because it's not the first one to exist though metaphorically He could have been cursing that fig tree in the garden, but literally not the first one. No others followed the curse. There must be a sequence here for mia to always mean first in a sequence.

 

[Nikud]

Mia is best realized as a or one as in a minimum of existence. It there is not at least one person or a person present in a room then the room is empty.

 

[FollowingHim]

Oy! Matthew 24:41 makes me sorely incorrect in my assertion of “ever”

Interesting point I hadn't noticed before: Matthew 24:40 uses "heis", while 41 uses "mia". The only difference is the gender of the subject: 40 talks about two men and 41 about two women. When I check the concordance more carefully, "mia" is said to be simply the feminine form of "heis". I am not sure why I didn't see this before. In other words, they're interchangeable. But "mia" is used when discussing wives simply because it's the feminine form.

An argument I've used in the past is that if Paul had intended to say "only one", he could have used "heis". But if "heis" and "mia" are interchangeable, and "mia" is the appropriate word when referring to women, then this argument makes no sense.

The better point is that both "heis" and "mia" may mean the number 1: however in context, that could be interpreted as "no more than one", "only one" or "at least one", which are all completely different. But universally, all involve adding words that aren't there.
Most Christians would interpret this to mean "no more than one" or "exactly one", depending on their level of insistence that all church leaders be married. "No more than one" is actually more common in practice, given that most denominations accept celibate clergy as at least an option, while one mandates it.
But why "no more than one"? Why not "at least one"? It is more consistent with the text, because someone who has three wives does have one wife, while someone with no wives does not. And it's more consistent with the OT as mentioned previously.
But "first" is the most consistent with leaders setting an example for others to follow.

 

[frederick]

When I check the concordance more carefully, "mia" is said to be simply the feminine form of "heis". I am not sure why I didn't see this before. In other words, they're interchangeable. But "mia" is used when discussing wives simply because it's the feminine form.

An argument I've used in the past is that if Paul had intended to say "only one", he could have used "heis". But if "heis" and "mia" are interchangeable, and "mia" is the appropriate word when referring to women, then this argument makes no sense.

You are correct, Samuel. Each word has gender and mia is feminine while heis is masculine, and each is used in it's appropriate context. Shalom

 

[Verifyveritas76]

An argument I've used in the past is that if Paul had intended to say "only one", he could have used "heis". But if "heis" and "mia" are interchangeable, and "mia" is the appropriate word when referring to women, then this argument makes no sense.

I had seen that, however what popped my balloon was the use of the word Mia for both the first woman mentioned as taken as well as the second woman who was left.

I think it is also not entirely accurate to say that Mia is entirely feminine because of its use in regards to the first of the week in Matthew 28, its use on the fig tree, (which may have been the first approached/seen) as well as other instances. Though its use in Ephesians 4 would indicate that the body and the baptism were both in the feminine realm.

 

[FollowingHim]

In languages that have masculine / feminine words, there is generally an appropriate use of each. Maybe it's appropriate to refer to fig trees using the feminine form of 1? @frederick could elaborate.

 

[rockfox]

however in context, that could be interpreted as "no more than one", "only one" or "at least one", which are all completely different. But universally, all involve adding words that aren't there.

So are you saying that this really should be translated "one woman man" and that's a 2000 year old idiom? I.E. married and doesn't sleep around.

 

[FollowingHim]

No, I think it makes most sense as being "Man first wife", ie someone who has been faithful to the wife of his youth and can set an example to the remainder of the congregation of the faithfulness that all Christians are to have to their wives, to each other, and that God has to us.

Having said that, given there is forgiveness and life is complex, that may also apply to a man who retains the wife he had at conversion even if he had divorced and remarried prior to that. It might also apply to a man who has attempted to the best of his ability to retain the wife of his youth, and in the view of the elders is not responsible for her failure to reciprocate this faithfulness. Real life is complicated, some of these things may be guidelines rather than set in stone.

But the word "first" indicates they are setting an example that is strongly encouraged elsewhere, so fits into one consistent scriptural message.
The interpretation "a" means they should be married, which is plausible but doesn't really match up with other passages.
The interpretation of "only one" or "no more than one" contradicts the general thrust of the remainder of scripture, so isn't valid in my view. And if it IS the correct interpretation, and I am wrong, God will recognise that it was quite easy to get that one wrong and won't be too harsh on those people who disobeyed through misunderstanding.