• 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.

Popular blog doesn't mess up on poly interpretation!

Sorry JAG but that's not how I'm reading it. Her topic in this paragraph is discounting the "literal meaning". She actually says that because taking it literally would also exclude polygamists and polygamy was already illegal by Roman law, it's not even discussing polygamy at all.
Remember, her overall point is to state that women are somehow NOT excluded from church leadership because of this verse. She's already heading the egalitarian line of Church Feminism and doubt she would agree that it also would allow polygamists.
If taken literally, polygamists would also be excluded from being church leaders. According to Roman law, however, bigamy (and therefore polygamy) was illegal, and it was uncommon in the Empire. Paul is not addressing polygamy here.
Click to expand...

As a side note, I searched the blog for anything else poly-related and this is the only article that even mentions it. This really doesn't surprise me now since I just read the website's welcome message.
Here you'll find articles about our new life in Jesus Christ, including biblical studies on the equality of men and women in Christian marriage and ministry, and more.
Click to expand...

Big Edit: Just realized the article was written by the head lady there. Changed he to she, etc.
 
Last edited:
NetWatchR is right. And the writer in her footnotes even quotes Tertullian to make clear her view that Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are anti-polygamy.

Her thinking seems to be thus:
  1. Men and women are equally suited for leadership and domestic roles, but the verses that say "husband of one wife", if taken literally, imply that leaders are men only.
  2. If taken literally, the verses also would prohibit polygamy.
  3. Polygamy was and is illegal and inconsequential.
  4. Speaking against something illegal and inconsequential is pointless.
  5. The NT writers wouldn't address something pointlessly.
  6. Therefore a literal reading is incorrect and the "husband of one wife" passages do not bar women from leadership.
So far as it regards polygamy, then, her message appears to be not that polygamy isn't barred, but that polygamy is already so thoroughly barred that one cannot legitimately speak of barring it.

P.S. NetWatchR, I didn't mean to restate what you spelled out; I just found her logic so obscure that I was compelled to diagram it for myself.
 
Last edited:
Woah, so apparently in my half asleep state of reading this I didn't read it correctly. I got some of the feminism stuff, but kinda skipped past it. This is me admitting I'm an idiot and will try and read things properly in the future.
 
mystic said:
NetWatchR is right. And the writer in her footnotes even quotes Tertullian to make clear her view that Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are anti-polygamy.

Her thinking seems to be thus:
  1. Men and women are equally suited for leadership and domestic roles, but the verses that say "husband of one wife", if taken literally, imply that leaders are men only.
  2. If taken literally, the verses also would prohibit polygamy.
  3. Polygamy was and is illegal and inconsequential.
  4. Speaking against something illegal and inconsequential is pointless.
  5. The NT writers wouldn't address something pointlessly.
  6. Therefore a literal reading is incorrect and the "husband of one wife" passages do not bar women from leadership.
So far as it regards polygamy, then, her message appears to be not that polygamy isn't barred, but that polygamy is already so thoroughly barred that one cannot legitimately speak of barring it.

P.S. NetWatchR, I didn't mean to restate what you spelled out; I just found her logic so obscure that I was compelled to diagram it for myself.
Click to expand...

I still can't follow her logic. Why doesn't it bar women from leadership? Because it could apply to Polygyny too and is thus so bizarre as to be meaningless?
 
mystic said:
I just found her logic so obscure that I was compelled to diagram it for myself.
Click to expand...
Oh i get that!!! It truly was a work of circular delusion. You did a great job outlining it.
Reminds me of another scene from Princess Bride:
Roberts (Wesley): Truly, you have a dizzying intellect
Vincini: Wait 'til I get going... where was I?

ZecAustin said:
I still can't follow her logic. Why doesn't it bar women from leadership? Because it could apply to Polygyny too and is thus so bizarre as to be meaningless?
Click to expand...
It's hard to follow because it really doesn't follow any logic at all. Even seeing mystic's outline doesn't help (it helps one see the hamster wheel spin but little else). It's one of those constructs that people create that are so confusing they "must" know what they're talking about.
 

Attachments

  • 3ac48b7cdee4d810fd313514b427b337.jpg
    3ac48b7cdee4d810fd313514b427b337.jpg
    129.1 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Been there, Done that, Brother.
 
Just to buck the trend, thanks for sharing this JAG. Not because your initial thoughts on it were correct, but because it raises interesting objections I had not seen before and are valuable to consider.

I don't dismiss something just because it has a position I disagree with. I investigate it. And some of what this post contends is challenging.

1)
Check out footnote 3, regarding the parallel of "one-woman man" and "one-man woman" (applied to widows to be accepted to be supported by and work for the church). This page contends that these two expressions parallel each other, and show that just as a man should have only one woman, a woman should have only one man. If correct, and these two did parallel each other, this would be a reasonable argument that we may misunderstand the text regarding "husband of one wife".
However, very interestingly, in "one-woman man" one = "mia" (one, a, first - a non-exclusive one). In "one-man woman" one = "heis" (the numeral one). This reaffirms that the treatment of men and women is quite different, and brings us back to the position that polygamy is permissible.

2)
She is right that the male pronouns do not appear in the text in the verses she cites. This is very interesting. I do not think that mystic correctly outlines her thinking process. She doesn't go through a long chain of tentative suppositions to conclude that these verses do not talk specifically about women. She just reads the Greek text. And as far as I can see (being no Greek scholar), she actually appears to be correct. For instance, 1 Tim 3:1 does actually appear to say "whoever desires the office of a bishop desires a good work". The word "man" does not appear in the text, and may have been the assumption of a translator.
Now our views on patriarchal leadership obviously come from a much wider set of principles than this, I'm not throwing everything away because of one blog post pointing out an issue with the text of a few passages. Nor is she necessarily correct, I could be misreading the text. But she does appear to have a valid point here, that I cannot adequately counter, and I would appreciate anyone else who can cast further light on this.
 
Agreed. As I said, our views on this do not come from the use of male pronouns in a few select verses, but from some much larger over-arching principles. However it is common to lazily point to the use of the word "man" in such verses to prove patriarchal leadership. If she is correct, and there is no such indication of "male" in those verses themselves, it means we have to be more careful about what verses we cite. 1 Timothy 2:12 is certainly a key one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top