Indefinite Article in modern Greek hints at Mia dillemma

[DiscussingTheTopic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Gre ... te_article

I read in Biblical Greek textbooks that there is no indefinite article in Biblical Greek and only a definite article but various forms of the word transliterated as Mia are sometimes not translated as one or first in King James and seem to be translated sometimes as an indefinite article based on strong concordance numbers being paired with Greek words. Some people have suspected that Mia meaning one is an indefinite article in the Mia passages (1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6) that MOPS (Monogamy Only PositionistS [Position+ists = People standing for a position]) (or Monogamy Only Position Syndrome supporters) misuse.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 3391&t=KJV

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

However this line might make it more difficult for me to support my point convincingly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Gre ... te_article

However, the indefinite article is not used in Greek as often as in English because it specifically expresses the concept of "one"

 

[steve]

somehow i just cannot force myself to care about it enough to even bother looking it up. knowing the character of YHWH is more than enough for me.

maybe someone brighter than myself can make this an interesting possibility, i am willing to wait.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I continue to have trouble with the idea that we need to prove our case on the shoulders of one Greek word. The reality is that if the Elder requirement is in fact a limit to one wife for an elder, it only means our leaders are supposed to be monogamous. No reason is ever given for this restriction (if it is one) and it can't be construed as "better" to be monogamous on this supposed requirement. Levites weren't better than Jews. This would be what you are supposed to think.

Over and over again through the years I've offered "So what?" when monogamy only advocates have claimed that elders are to be monogamous and therefore so should everyone else. To say this means that you have to believe that men are better than women. This is something I can't accept as scriptural.

In our church, if one wants to see the "mia" requirement as equivalent to monogamy for elders, so be it. It has no effect on the rest of us. I personally don't see it this way. I base my view on the fact that if I am the husband of ONE wife as monogamy only advocates claim from the passage, I am still the husband of one wife if I have twelve. Structurally, if the verse is an upper limit, it's just as reasonable to presume it is a lower limit. Therefore what the elder requirement is really saying is this: "Elders should be married."

 

[FollowingHim]

Structurally, if the verse is an upper limit, it's just as reasonable to presume it is a lower limit. Therefore what the elder requirement is really saying is this: "Elders should be married."

Good point there. The third possibility is that it is an absolute requirement, which then raises the question of whether someone would have to cease being an elder if their wife died. Simplest to just take it as "Elders should be married".

 

[steve]

then raises the question of whether someone would have to cease being an elder if their wife died.

in that case, it would be best to be married to more than one just in case you lose one :!:

seriously, i would be confident that YHWH's intention was not that a widower needed to be de-frocked.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

That would bring up two possible explanations Steve:

• 1. It is an upper limit.
  
  2. Things that change after you become an elder might not disqualify you from being an elder, such as you have a wonderful household, and later in life when a child goes bad on you, you must leave your office because they messed up.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Structurally, if the verse is an upper limit, it's just as reasonable to presume it is a lower limit. Therefore what the elder requirement is really saying is this: "Elders should be married."

Good point there. The third possibility is that it is an absolute requirement, which then raises the question of whether someone would have to cease being an elder if their wife died. Simplest to just take it as "Elders should be married".

If that was the case then Jesus could not be an elder unless he was married.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I think the office of Apostle is of a different description. Christ was the Apostle of his Father, the LORD. In addition, he was a Jew of Israel and stated he came to the "Lost Sheep of Israel." I've made the point several times that he was a Priest as well, and King.

He's not an Elder of the local church body.

 

[FollowingHim]

I'd agree about Jesus. Paul too was unmarried, and an apostle (think missionary), not an elder. Paul appointed local men as elders in the churches he planted.