Mia and NIV 2010 changed on Monogamy Only Position

[MarvelousMarvin]

Mark C said:

Any passage which is INTERPRETED to contradict Him is being interpreted WRONG!

Well said, Mark.

There is one Bible, not a Jewish Bible and a Christian Bible. It's all God's Word, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

sweetlissa said:

So, if an elder must be married, a pastor who has never been married would be against scriptures, right?

IMHO, yes. And he must have children, as a plain reading of the entire context, without the preconceived notion that polygyny is "sin," reveals. Only by some twisted interpretation can the three "one wife" passages be thought to prohibit polygyny by any man, whether Bishop, Deacon, Elder, or any other born-again Believer.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Mark C said:

Any passage which is INTERPRETED to contradict Him is being interpreted WRONG!

Well said, Mark.

There is one Bible, not a Jewish Bible and a Christian Bible. It's all God's Word, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

sweetlissa said:

So, if an elder must be married, a pastor who has never been married would be against scriptures, right?

IMHO, yes. And he must have children, as a plain reading of the entire context, without the preconceived notion that polygyny is "sin," reveals. Only by some twisted interpretation can the three "one wife" passages be thought to prohibit polygyny by any man, whether Bishop, Deacon, Elder, or any other born-again Believer.

If he is unable to cause his wife or wives to conceive does he have to adopt so he can have children in order to qualify?

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

So Roman Catholics should require deacons to marry!

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PP.HTM

 

[Scarecrow]

"So Roman Catholics should require deacons to marry!"

I think the Priests should also be required to be married...might keep them away from the little boys...

 

[Anonymous]

Very interestng DTT.

This is indeed an improvement for this verse. For years the NIV had inserted the "but" into the clause so that it read "the husband of but one wife."

The top two options for this text are that either that man is to be with a lady or that he is to be faithful to his lady. So this does place this verse in a better position grammatically and contextually.

Dr. Allen

Hi K.R.,

Yes, I agree about the interpretation of "mia" in this passage. I've studied this issue numerous times over the years. One of the best articles I've seen simply pointed out the various possible meanings of the context of the "one wife" passages, and concluded that "one wife" could not rationally have anything to do with polygamy.

"Mia" and "heis" are the same word. In 1 Timothy 3:2, 12, and Titus 1:6, where "mia" is found, there are several possible meanings:

(1) one wife -- These passages prohibit polygamy.
(2) first wife -- Must not have been divorced, because he's still married to his first wife.
(3) a wife -- Must be married.

Both (1) and (3) are approximately the same. We use the words "a" and "an" in English to signify "at least one", and it appears that in Koine Greek "mia" was treated the same way. The way we can tell the difference is substituting "a/an/at least one" or "even one/only one/one" into the passages in the New Testament where "mia" is used, to find the two senses in which the word is used, whether as "a/an" or as "one".

There are a number of passages in the New Testament that use the word "mia" in the English sense of "a" or "an": Matthew 5:18, 21:19, 26:69, Mark 10:8, 12:42, Luke 5:12, 5:17, 8:22, and so forth. (I got tired of looking them up, and I think I may have got one wrong, but it should generally prove the point.)

Now we analyze these possibilities in light of the possible meanings...

"Do not let a widow be enrolled having become less than sixty years old, the wife of one man." (1 Timothy 5:9)

The "wife of one man" part uses "heis" for "one" just as in the passages we are looking at.

Now this could mean that the widow should be the wife of a husband, or must not have been divorced, or must not have committed polyandry, if we compare the form to the use of "mia" in "one wife".

Now proponents of "one wife" tend to ignore this passage, because it contradicts the idea of polygamy. Polyandry was nearly unknown at the time Paul wrote those passages. (There was only one myth that even suggested that polyandry could exist.) No woman committed polyandry in that society. Yet if we take this in the same sense as the other three passages, then we MUST assume that this refers to polyandry. But such an interpretation makes no rational sense. Paul was addressing existing situations, and polyandry was not a situation that those people had ever encountered!

So we can use this when addressing the "one wife" passages:

(1) It means no polygamy -- Well it really cannot, since 1 Timothy 5:9 can't mean polyandry, and these are identically constructed passages. Beyond that, Timothy was a pastor/evangelist to gentiles, and in the areas that Timothy was ministering, polygamy simply didn't occur.

(2) It means never divorced -- Given that God hates divorce, and that divorce would suggest that a man does NOT know how to properly run his family, I'd believe this to be accurate. After all, the church is compared to a family throughout the New Testament. Whether "mia" means "first" (which is hotly debated) or "one", this meaning DOES carry the implication that a leader in the church should not have been divorced.

(3) It means he is married -- That seems to be part of the meaning, regardless of which translation of "mia" we use. At the very least, we can insist that a leader in the church must be a married man. If a man had been a good family man but became a widower, I'd think that he would qualify just as well as a currently married man.

From the manner in which "mia" is used in these passages, and because it cannot rationally apply to polygamy, it appears that "mia" could NOT be restricted to the sense of "one wife", but MUST carry the meaning both of "first wife" and "a wife", as a warning against appointing divorced or unmarried men to church leadership.

Now I've heard complaints that Paul and some of the other apostles weren't married, so how could they be in leadership then? The answer is simple: Paul and other unmarried apostles were not in a local church's leadership. The were assigned by God to bring the churches into being, but not to be in leadership within the local churches. When Paul entered the local churches, I believe it is apparent in Scripture that he accepted their leadership within the local church.

I'm tired, so if there is an error above, chalk it up to my lack of sleep...


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Mark,

The "King's Covenant" of the "Word of Yah", Original Scriptures E1 is probably a fake, as I have studied the manuscripts of the New Testament for years, and no Hebrew "originals" have ever been discovered, and nothing has popped up in recent years. I've often wondered how these people get away with propagating these myths that they have used a "Hebrew original" for the translations of the New Testament...

From what I've studied, there weren't ANY Hebrew originals (nor Aramaic originals) of any of the books of the New Testament. Only the book of Matthew may have been written in parallel, both Greek and Hebrew. While there are Hebraisms in the New Testament, they are within original Koine Greek that hasn't come from translations--at least that's the opinion of most competent linguists and scholars.

I don't believe there were any Hebrew originals, because that would be at cross-purposes with God's plan for the world--to give His Gospel to all mankind. Where the Old Testament was particularly written mostly in Hebrew, because it was FOR the Israelites, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, because it was for everyone.

Obviously that particular version you mentioned couldn't be an original anyway, because it translates "μιας γυναικος (mias gunaikos)" as "echad isha", which would be inconsistent of every Greek manuscript known. (We would expect at least SOME of the Greek manuscripts to follow that Hebrew were it original.)

The idea that it could also be translated as "at one with a wife" or "in unity with a/his wife" is quite interesting and I never considered that possibility, but it isn't a possible translation with the particular Greek phrasing in the passage.

The most rational conclusion I have seen suggests that "one wife" would be better translated as "at least one wife" AND "his first wife".


John for Christ

Perhaps the "Nearly Inspired Version" is demonstrating some sensitivity to (justifiable) criticism of the rendering.

Interestingly, the rendering of those verses in a text I have (called the "King's Covenant" of the "Word of Yah", Original Scriptures E1, which purports to be a new translation of the "new testament" from originals in the Hebrew) is translated from echad isha. (I have personally discussed those translations of the verses with one of the principle publishers.)

So, husband of "BUT one wife" is clearly an addition to that language. But "at one with a wife", or "in unity with a/his wife", or similar variants would not be.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Victor,

Your understanding of the text is clearly based upon your Roman Catholic religious viewpoint. The early church had no priesthood, which is abundantly clear even in the writings of the early church fathers. The priesthood is a spurious addition by the Roman Catholic church, but it's not in the original. These passages have nothing whatsoever to do with a priesthood, but rather with the "layman" leadership of the local house churches (as institutional churches did not exist at that point in history). (In reality there was no separation between so-called laymen and a priesthood. Believers ARE a priesthood.


John for Christ

I hate the NIV. It is notorious for using loosey-goosey "dynamic equivolent" translations instead of as faithfull as possible to the original text translations. The NIV or the RSV translations are best in English. The whole dynamic equivolent nonsense is born from the original Protestant chimera of perspicuitous text. The Bible is simply often difficult to read & to understand. It says as much. Jesus himself said His parables were meant to be misunderstood.

As for these qualifications for bishops. I am convinced they are talking about priests who are candidates for elevation to episcopacy. The word used for "rule" here is also used in I Tim. 5:17, "proistemi." It says that priests who rule well are worthy of double honor, a double honor goes to a legitimate 1st born son in Genesis, & for Elisha after Elijah. Prostemi obviously has to do w/ the performance of the priestly office.

The meaning in essense: If priest has run his parish well, if the members of that parish have learned orthodox teachings & are of true Christian virtue, make them a bishop.

This explains the discussion of deacons which follows. Deacons would be elevated to the priesthood once a priest is made bishop. The one wife (or rather woman) is his parish. In reality, this is a proof of priestly celibacy. A priest is to be married to his church only. No other wives to distract him w/ worldly affairs. This would be highly consistant w/ St. Paul's teaching in I Cor. 7. I never really thought too deeply on this matter, but I growing daily in my insight by reading this site.

 

[Anonymous]

I hate the NIV.

Me too! I don't trust it at all. I have one but I never use it for any serious study. It's not reliable at all, IMHO.

Blessings,
Fairlight

Hi Fairlight,

That's not so. The NIV is a generally accurate version. Sure, there are some flaws, but that's true of every English translation I've read. I don't personally read it--I like the New King James--but I don't mind reading the NIV too. It's just not my preference.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Victor,

DiscussingTheTopic pointed out something interesting concerning "one wife". The most common rendering of "mia" is the cardinal number "one". (The ordinal number "first" isn't really a valid rendering from the Greek point-of-view, but is used where the sense would "feel" wrong to English speakers.)

DTT pointed out that deacons shall be a husband of one wife. But what is meant by that? That phrase can have two possible meanings: (1) "the husband of ONLY one wife", or (2) "the husband of AT LEAST one wife". Both are completely valid translations of that phrase.

Based upon the context of the passages in question, the only rational translation would be "AT LEAST one wife". Paul couldn't have been forbidding polygyny, because he'd be forbidding something that didn't exist where Timothy and Titus ministered, nor would they encounter polygyny much if at all in the Roman Empire. Also, Paul would have to be not only contradicting the rest of Scripture and inventing a new rule changing God's position on polygyny, but would also be forbidding a completely unknown practice of polyandry in his same message to Timothy.

It is rationally impossible and a contradiction of the rest of Scripture for "one wife" to be a restriction of only one wife for bishops and deacons.


John for Christ

If a man has a 2nd wife, he by definition has a 1st. To say that mia only means a 1st wife defies all commonsense & logic. If my point was that a man should take a 2nd wife or even can take a 2nd wife, I'd say,"He should be of 2 wives." or "he can have a 2nd wife if he wants to." This is another absurd attempt to force a meaning from silence. In effect the person who wrote this article is saying, "A 2nd wife is not directly forbidden here, thus it somehow implies we are permitted to have 2 wives." This kind of argument from silence (an absurd claim of silence as any common sense reading of pasage does show forbidding of two wives) is not defensible.

If I tell my son not to hurt his sister, he can not interpret this as permission to kill her.

You simply can't shoe horn polygamy into the NT.

 

[Anonymous]

So, if an elder must be married, a pastor who has never been married would be against scriptures, right?

SweetLissa

Hi SweetLissa,

Yes. An unmarried pastor doesn't have the experience of leading a family as a parent, and the New Testament church is compared frequently in analogy to a family.

That doesn't mean that a person cannot minister or teach or prophesy or any number of other things in the church. It only means that they need to willingly follow the church's proper leadership in whatever role God places them. These are LOCAL church leaders too, not leadership of the Church as a whole. Apostles, evangelists, and others were somewhat outside the local church systems, except when they came into one--in which case they subordinated themselves to the local church's leadership.


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

sweetlissa said:
...And he must have children, as a plain reading of the entire context...reveals.

If he is unable to cause his wife or wives to conceive does he have to adopt so he can have children in order to qualify?

Hi DiscussingTheTopic,

Very good question! I've never considered that at all. Very good!

It seems to me that the purpose of having elders, overseers, and deacons be married men with children "who rule their households well" is that they will be leading that local church portion of the family of God.

Now if a married man has no children, how would it be possible for him to function as a family leader with no experience?

On the other hand, whether the children "spring from his loins" or are adopted, I don't see that it matters, as long as he rules his household well.


John for Christ

 

[Mark C]

Hi Mark,

The "King's Covenant" of the "Word of Yah", Original Scriptures E1 is probably a fake...

I have considered that possibility, and conclude that the "jury is still out", at least until such time as the entire original texts are available for examination. (There is certainly no shortage of so-called 'scholars' who make the same claims about the entire Bible.) It is, however, (outside of these verses) a superior rendering of the text in most respects to the KJV, and without question more reliable than the Nearly Inspired Version, IMHO.

From what I've studied, there weren't ANY Hebrew originals (nor Aramaic originals) of any of the books of the New Testament.
...
I don't believe there were any Hebrew originals, because that would be at cross-purposes with God's plan for the world--to give His Gospel to all mankind. Where the Old Testament was particularly written mostly in Hebrew, because it was FOR the Israelites, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, because it was for everyone.

Wow. And here I thought that the house of Israel was what I sought to be adopted or grafted into. Suffice it to say that I don't agree at all with your conclusions or your scholarship. It would seem to me that there is much evidence from Scripture, from history, and from excellent translators, that I find compelling which you do not see...including the fact that He "changes not".

But it is good to see that we can agree on at least one conclusion:

The most rational conclusion I have seen suggests that "one wife" would be better translated as "at least one wife" AND "his first wife".

I have no problem with such an understanding, as I have expressed frequently here, and elsewhere. Husband of "but one wife" is quite simply WRONG, to the extent that it would represent Scripture contradicting itself, or Paul "adding to" it in a fashion he clearly knew was prohibited.

Blessings,
Mark

 

[Anonymous]

From what I've studied, there weren't ANY Hebrew originals (nor Aramaic originals) of any of the books of the New Testament.
...
I don't believe there were any Hebrew originals, because that would be at cross-purposes with God's plan for the world--to give His Gospel to all mankind. Where the Old Testament was particularly written mostly in Hebrew, because it was FOR the Israelites, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, because it was for everyone.

Wow. And here I thought that the house of Israel was what I sought to be adopted or grafted into. Suffice it to say that I don't agree at all with your conclusions or your scholarship. It would seem to me that there is much evidence from Scripture, from history, and from excellent translators, that I find compelling which you do not see...including the fact that He "changes not".

Hi Mark,

Hmmm... I've always been under the impression, based upon Scripture of course, that we are grafted into the Root, not Israel. The Root is Christ, as I understand it (Isaiah 53:2, Romans 11:17-18, 15:12, Revelation 5:5, 22:16), not Israel. Likewise we are adopted by the Father and Jesus the Christ (Romans 8:15, 8:23, Galatians 4:5-6, Ephesians 1:5), not by Israel.

Do you ever remember discussing "He changes not" on this group? I can't remember if it was here or not that I answered that issue.

Anyway, I'll just summarize. God DOES change. He speaks, acts, and causes. When He sent His Son, that was a dramatic change. When He gave the Law through Moses, that was a dramatic change.

Most people get the idea of an unchanging God from both philosophy and Malachi 3:6, "For I am Jehovah, I change not." However, that's not what it really says. In actuality Malachi 3:6 says in Hebrew, "I Yahweh duplicate/fold not." In context, this doesn't mean that GOD doesn't change at all, but rather that His judgments and counsels do not change. In English, we might say that God is not "duplicitous". The Septuagint has a similar rendering.

But it is good to see that we can agree on at least one conclusion:

The most rational conclusion I have seen suggests that "one wife" would be better translated as "at least one wife" AND "his first wife".

I have no problem with such an understanding, as I have expressed frequently here, and elsewhere. Husband of "but one wife" is quite simply WRONG, to the extent that it would represent Scripture contradicting itself, or Paul "adding to" it in a fashion he clearly knew was prohibited.

I'm sure we agree on many things. Our main issue seems to be the Jewish paradigm that you hold to, versus the Universality of God which removes the distinction between peoples and races in Him.

But I also am glad to hear that we agree on this point. Somebody needs to write a really good and consistent refutation of the mistaken "one wife" teaching, and put it out there to correct the false translation of Scripture...


John for Christ

 

[dpohlman]

So, if an elder must be married, a pastor who has never been married would be against scriptures, right?

SweetLissa

Is that why Paul is an apostle, because he is unqualified for a local church leadership position? How about Jesus and John the Baptist? :roll:

I support the "first wife" thought, that is "the wife of his youth" or another way of saying not divorced his first (older) wife.

 

[Mark C]

Hmmm... I've always been under the impression, based upon Scripture of course, that we are grafted into the Root, not Israel...

Don't confuse metaphor with semantics. Children are adopted into a HOUSE. You're not "grafted" into a root in marriage either, but whether it is His house, or His kingdom, or a marriage that is the picture, understand that it is His Name, His character, and thus His rules that matter.

Anyway, I'll just summarize. God DOES change. He speaks, acts, and causes. When He sent His Son, that was a dramatic change. When He gave the Law through Moses, that was a dramatic change.

Not if He "knew the end from the Beginning", just as He said, and planned - long before Writing Genesis 3:15 - that the very same Alef-Tav Who was the Word in Genesis 1:1 will still be there when "heaven and earth" eventually pass away.

When a loving Father chastens His children for rebellion to Him on one day, but blesses them for obedience on another, is it Him that changes? Or is it perhaps the children who He has a plan to change?

 

[Anonymous]

Is that why Paul is an apostle, because he is unqualified for a local church leadership position? How about Jesus and John the Baptist? :roll:

I support the "first wife" thought, that is "the wife of his youth" or another way of saying not divorced his first (older) wife.

Hi Dpohlman,

Well, that's not WHY Paul was an apostle. It more like why Paul WASN'T a local church leader. However, the real reason is that God had other plans for Paul and he was sent out to start churches and spread the Gospel, leaving behind an understanding of correct doctrine. He relied upon the elders in local churches to send him, not the other way around. He appeared to subordinate himself to their authority when he was in their churches.

Remember that it was Paul who set the standard that church leaders should be "husbands of a (or first) wife". So he essentially said that he himself did not qualify as a church leader...


John for Christ

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm... I've always been under the impression, based upon Scripture of course, that we are grafted into the Root, not Israel...

Don't confuse metaphor with semantics. Children are adopted into a HOUSE. You're not "grafted" into a root in marriage either, but whether it is His house, or His kingdom, or a marriage that is the picture, understand that it is His Name, His character, and thus His rules that matter.

Hi Mark,

Well, I don't mean to be cantankerous, but you really just skipped over the passages I offered you on that point. If Scripture calls Him the Root, then He is the Root. If we are adopted by the Father, then we are adopted by the Father. The house would be "the Father's house" or the "Kingdom of God" or something like that if we actually had to say that people had to be adopted into a house. (Which point I disagree with. I'd have to see evidence that was so.)

Anyway, the only point I was making is that we are not adopted or grafted into Israel, unless you are defining Christianity as Israel (as in the "spiritual Israel" or "spiritual Jerusalem"). That I could possibly accept, because that's consistent with being adopted and grafted into Christ. However, grafted into the physical nation of Israel we are not, because God ended that Old Covenant with the children of Israel for their disobedience.

Anyway, I'll just summarize. God DOES change. He speaks, acts, and causes. When He sent His Son, that was a dramatic change. When He gave the Law through Moses, that was a dramatic change.

Not if He "knew the end from the Beginning", just as He said, and planned - long before Writing Genesis 3:15 - that the very same Alef-Tav Who was the Word in Genesis 1:1 will still be there when "heaven and earth" eventually pass away.

When a loving Father chastens His children for rebellion to Him on one day, but blesses them for obedience on another, is it Him that changes? Or is it perhaps the children who He has a plan to change?

Change means that something has differed from one point unto another, whether in time or space. We see evidence of change in God in time and space. As I noted, he speaks, acts, and causes, and sent His Son at a specific time (which was not all throughout time) and He gave the Law at a particular time (which was not all throughout time). But His judgments and decrees never changed.

God planned the end from the beginning, but how does that come into this? That doesn't imply that He doesn't change. It implies that He planned how He would direct history from the very beginning. In Isaiah 46:10 God declares the end from the beginning, but it doesn't say He knows the end from the beginning.

But go back for a moment to Malachi 3:6, and answer how "duplicate/fold" means not changing, especially in context where God has promised not to destroy the sons of Jacob. It doesn't say "change" at all. An unchanging God would not do or say or accomplish anything. He'd be no God at all.


John for Christ

 

[Mark C]

Hmmm... I've always been under the impression, based upon Scripture of course, that we are grafted into the Root, not Israel...

Don't confuse metaphor with semantics. Children are adopted into a HOUSE. You're not "grafted" into a root in marriage either, but whether it is His house, or His kingdom, or a marriage that is the picture, understand that it is His Name, His character, and thus His rules that matter.

Hi Mark,

Well, I don't mean to be cantankerous, but you really just skipped over the passages I offered you on that point. If Scripture calls Him the Root, then He is the Root. If we are adopted by the Father, then we are adopted by the Father.

He CAN be and IS, and WILL BE...the Root, the Netzir (Branch - of Jesse, of David), the King, the Master, the Husband...and a WHOLE BUNCHA other metaphors. To say He is symbolized by one thing is not to deny others...unless one is trying to prove somehow He "changes".

The problem seems to be that you insist on wanting to fit Him into "one box" and ignoring others. The result is to not only to make Him less than He is, but to twist words to make Him a liar as well.

The house would be "the Father's house" or the "Kingdom of God" or something like that if we actually had to say that people had to be adopted into a house. (Which point I disagree with. I'd have to see evidence that was so.)

I'm glad to be able to help, because it's not only easy, but central to His Word.


People can be born into a house, OR adopted in!

There is more than way to enter a House! Scripture ALSO uses the metaphor that the only PROPER way is "through the Door" ('delet' - another metaphor, as well as Truth); it is thieves who try to break in another way.

Caleb was NOT born into the tribes of Israel! He "came out" of Mitzraim (Egypt) along with the 'mixed multitude', showed himself faithful to the Father, and was ADOPTED into the House of YHVH! Not only that, but into the line of kings (Judah) as well.

Do you remember who Shaul (Paul) was most often writing to? It was often NOT those who were native born into Israel ('goyim', other 'nations' - meaning tribes or peoples) but those who sought to be adopted (whether they knew their ancestry, and may or may not have been part of the 'lost tribes' by blood is no barrier, in other words).

"The sons are free!" (Even if some behave like the prodigal.) But if you want to be adopted into the Father's House, you should learn and respect the Father's Authority! (And the other metaphors still apply!)

Anyway, the only point I was making is that we are not adopted or grafted into Israel, unless you are defining Christianity as Israel (as in the "spiritual Israel" or "spiritual Jerusalem"). That I could possibly accept, because that's consistent with being adopted and grafted into Christ. However, grafted into the physical nation of Israel we are not, because God ended that Old Covenant with the children of Israel for their disobedience.

The hideous fallacies here should be obvious at this point. If not, please start over and read what He says, from the Beginning. You cannot build "doctrine" on a foundation of shifting sand.

YHVH keeps His Covenants! ALL of 'em...whether we BREAK them or not! THAT is what "I change NOT" means! It is His Name that speaks to His character, and what it means for anyone to "come in the Name of YHVH". Do you not understand why He caused Abraham to fall into sleep, and then walked between the pieces of the sacrifice for that Covenant IN HIS PLACE? The Father KNEW 'from the Beginning' that MAN would fail to honor the Covenant...and He KEPT IT ANYWAY! [side note: Please do NOT assume that does not mean He fails to "chasten those whom He loves"!]

Anyway, I'll just summarize. God DOES change. He speaks, acts, and causes. When He sent His Son, that was a dramatic change. When He gave the Law through Moses, that was a dramatic change.

Not if He "knew the end from the Beginning", just as He said, and planned - long before Writing Genesis 3:15 - that the very same Alef-Tav Who was the Word in Genesis 1:1 will still be there when "heaven and earth" eventually pass away.

When a loving Father chastens His children for rebellion to Him on one day, but blesses them for obedience on another, is it Him that changes? Or is it perhaps the children who He has a plan to change?

Change means that something has differed from one point unto another, whether in time or space.

[yes...I am skipping over extraneous stuff here, rather than repeat error. I fully expect to see David, Eliyahu, Moses, and Adam at some point, for example...]

...

But go back for a moment to Malachi 3:6, and answer how "duplicate/fold" means not changing, especially in context where God has promised not to destroy the sons of Jacob. It doesn't say "change" at all. An unchanging God would not do or say or accomplish anything. He'd be no God at all.

Which is why it is VITAL to understand why --even in part -- He puts so much emphasis on His Name! (And, NO, it doesn't mean merely that it's about how to pronounce it, or that He doesn't have other 'monikers', that we may or may not even know.) In the Hebraic thought pattern, it means His CHARACTER. It means AUTHORITY. (When Eliezer went to find a wife for Abraham's son, he went "in his name", and authority. He literally had power of attorney. This is ALSO what Yahushua meant when He said repeatedly "I come in the Name of My Father!")

He "changes not" because He is not deceptive. He does not disguise Himself. (A fickle, changeable, inconsistent, lying, duplicitous "god" is the essence of the pagan/Greek archetype: like Loki, or Zeus, etc...demonic. They are not "Elohim".)

His CHARACTER -- His "Name" -- in the same "yesterday, today, and tomorrow". He is "I AM", always. And He keeps His promises...ALL of them, even if we fall short!

Back to the topic:

Man is forbidden to "add to" or "subtract from" what He has Written. Even Yahushua, who was the Word ('torah') Made Flesh [among other things, obviously!] made it clear that He came in the Name of YHVH the Father, and did not change "one yod or tiddle" of what He had Written, because (as promised) "heaven and earth" still exist.

So the simplest rebuttal to the false claim that Paul rewrote the requirements for leadership is to point out that "he knew better", even if a paganized 'church' has tried to do EXACTLY that ever since! YHVH never changed His "teaching and instruction" about marriage! The claim that Paul put a new "law" in place for elders that wasn't already clearly spelled out is just wrong. It isn't YHVH who has "changed", it's deceptive men who have -- unfortunately -- NOT changed either!

 

[Tlaloc]

(3) It means he is married -- That seems to be part of the meaning, regardless of which translation of "mia" we use. At the very least, we can insist that a leader in the church must be a married man. If a man had been a good family man but became a widower, I'd think that he would qualify just as well as a currently married man.

Sadly, I know a church that kicked someone out of their position in church leadership when their spouse died, even while still grieving!

Yuck!



Victor

The willingness of poeple on this site to engage in speculations based on what is not written is astonishing

Did you just say that to counter my assertion that you're position was not in scripture nor supportable by any sane reading? You're the one speculating about metaphorical group marriage of a priest too his church. I don't like where Scarecrow went, but what you're saying is soo wrong its hard for me not to go that direction too... You're idea of priestly marriage to the whole church certainly would go a long way to explaining a cretin tendency twords immorality in the Orthodox Catholic priesthood.

Actually the results of forced celibacy more than speak for themselves, not just the recent public cases either. Abuses where huge in some (probably most) Native residential schools, and huge at different times in history right back to the 1200's. I know enough people directly hurt by 'celibate' priests to be personally offended by this concept. If you deny the natural outlet for someones sex drive, then give them authority, you're asking for people to be hurt and violated badly. God knew better than to let leaders be celibate. Certainly its good for some people with a special gift of no drive or a controllable one, but if you're in charge, its wrong.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I think one of the reasons why it was good for the apostle Paul to be single (if he was single) was because he was a missionary and because he could control himself. Imagine the Apostle Paul getting stoned along with his pregnant wife or wives and children and bringing them to the next town to get stoned, also numerous other reasons it might be easier to be single if you are constantly traveling. That being said Peter was married ......

Single missionary men, leave more women, for men who stay in one place.

On the other hand, since women are supposed to be restricted in their speech and or teaching to some degree in excess of the restrictions that men should have (we should not just say any foolish thing, but should speak wisely), it makes less sense for as many women to be single missionary types as men, this might free up some extra women as opposed to having them be celibate nuns. That way none of the potential breeding supply is wasted because all the women can be able to produce children on account of the men who have multiple wives to make up for single missionaries having zero wives. It is important for maximizing breeding to increase the potential number of people receiving good eternal life.

These are some ideas to think about, I am not necessarily at the present time saying that everything I wrote here about being single vs. not single is necessarily correct.