• 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.

1 Corinthians 7:2 (heautou vs idion)

There are some other recent conversations on this in the forum. We've recently discovered Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Possibly also Augustine. I'm sure there are more we haven't discovered yet.
 
rockfox said:
There are some other recent conversations on this in the forum. We've recently discovered Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Possibly also Augustine. I'm sure there are more we haven't discovered yet.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I wasn't sure if you were referencing others.
 
I think this thread went off track. He is not asking for general how to make the polygamy argument points. He wants information on this particular point.

Let us see if we can get it back on track?

PassionatePatriarch said:
Now I am aware of the argument thag both english words "own" in thag passage are translated from different greek words which inply different kinds of ownership (exclusive vs. Shared)...but in all honesty when checking out the interlinear and the lexicons and usages of each or these words elsewhere it doesn't seem to really hold water. Idion seems to be used in an exclusive possessive way at times and heatou seems to be used in the shared ownership way as well (his own city)....so I'm kind of stuck here.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are on to more than you think?

One thing that is clear is that knowing that different words are used in the original language emphasizes that the apparent parallel in English is a coincidence and is not intended by the author.

Also, if either word can have either meaning, then one thing we know for sure is that we do not know definitely what these particular words mean. The use of different words certainly suggests the possibility that the author intended different meanings (which favors a pro-polygamy explanation in my opinion).

Worst case scenarion, far from being a definite verse for monogamy, if nothing else, the verse is ambiguous. It could be pro-monogamy or pro-polygamy depending on which ambiguous meaning you select.

Therefore we must look elsewhere, or better yet the whole of scripture for God's will on this subject.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
Well, that is because (exclusive versus shared) is an oversimplification. I have done the exact thing you are doing, and cataloged every usage of both words in every context in the NT. The next step is applying filters and seeing the difference between the usage of both words when applied to owning inanimate objects and the usage when restricted to people owning people. You should see that the principle of which we are already aware stands out more clearly as long as you don't try to apply it to grammar that it was not intended to rule.

I highly encourage you to continue the study like I have outlined and see if you see what I saw.

The annoying thing is, just as @steve has said, it is ultimately a heart issue. I used to teach 1Cor7:2 as the proof for monogamy until I accidentally did my homework and got curious. Once I had proved out that this verse did not flip the scriptural attitude about poly, but passively affirmed what had already been said over and over aggressively, I soon discovered that there were few who wanted to hear how 7:2 actually meant something besides what they had presumed it to mean. For those people technicality is synonymous with chicanery and since it is easier to believe that I am a pervert than it is to understand some finer points of a language they do not to think about, Occam's razor lifts from them the burden of proving out what scripture says.

In the end it was only those people who weren't offended by the scriptures use of polygyny everywhere else who were open to the meaning of heautos and idios, and for them they needed little, if any, convincing.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry my response has been so delayed to all this but I want to first thank you all for your input and wisdom here...it's definitely helped direct me--particularly your post above @Slumberfreeze ! I have yet to do this but I plan on it; thank you.

A brother and I just met with the brother who is struggling with this alongside his wife. We had a great discussion for several hours. Ultimately I think after hashing out the Biblical arguments he was pretty convinced that this is not an issue to divide over--especially when he is openly acknowledging it's not a sin. But I think his wife needs time and softening as she is basically perceiving our fellowship as a threat in that we all generally agree on the moral nature of polygyny and she feels we are influencing him that way. ...which is greatly upsetting her.

Please anyone who reads this just pray for this couple that God would help Bill to gracefully navigate this scriptural mine field with his spouse, and that she would have her eyes and heart opened to God's truth on the matter. We really love them and would hate to see the enemy keep them away from all of us over this issue. He wants division. He wants doubt. He wants distrust and envy. May the Lord rebuke it all and grant them wisdom and understanding and grace.

Thank you all again!
 
I'll throw my two bits in.
A couple years ago i started (and didn't finish) a simple PowerPoint with Heatou and Idios as one of the topics in a section called "Lost in Translation: Who owns who?".

[Slide 1 - His Own Wife]
  1. Heautou (G1438)
    1. The agent and the person acted upon are the same
    2. The Agent is receiving the Object
      1. Husband is Agent, Wife is Object
      2. “In his own mind”, his mind is his
      3. “To his own home”, the home is his, but may not be his only home
    3. Exclusive, She is his and his alone
  2. Other scriptural examples
    1. Jhn 6:61 “When Jesus knew in himself…”
    2. Jhn 20:10 “Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.”
    3. Rom 8:3 “…God sending his own Son…”
    4. 1 Cor 6:19 “… and ye are not your own?”
  3. Ownership is received towards itself
[Slide 2 - Her Own Husband]
  1. Idios (G2398)
    1. Specifically mentioned in the Lexicon under definition 1(b)
      1. Of what pertains to one’s property, family, dwelling, country, etc.
    2. The wife belonging to her husband
      1. Her own country
      2. Her own language
    3. Inclusive, Potentially corporate (more than one can belong)
  2. Other scriptural examples
    1. Luk 2:3 “And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.”
    2. Act 13:36 “…after he had served his own generation…”
    3. Rom 14:4 “To his own master he standeth or falleth.”
    4. Titus 2:9 “…servants to be obedient unto their own masters…”
    5. 1Pe 3:5 “… being in subjection unto their own husbands”
  3. Ownership is given towards someone/something.
If you take into account the intentions of these two words and the potentially corporate nature of Idios, one interpretation of 1 Cor 7:2 could look like this:

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife that belongs to him alone, and let each woman have their own husband that they belong to.
 
PassionatePatriarch said:
Idion seems to be used in an exclusive possessive way at times and heatou seems to be used in the shared ownership way as well (his own city)....so I'm kind of stuck here.
Click to expand...
if you can, please specify which verses these are. I haven't seen them reverse their usage like that. Perhaps we can tackle those specific cases. I'm really curious myself as I resurrect this old slideshow.
 
@rockfox, you hit the nail on the head - with regards to language and historical context, thank you. I also have struggled with this passage. You have to keep in mind who Paul was, and his celibacy.
 
PassionatePatriarch said:
But I think his wife needs time and softening as she is basically perceiving our fellowship as a threat in that we all generally agree on the moral nature of polygyny and she feels we are influencing him that way. ...which is greatly upsetting her.
Click to expand...
It seems like she might be seeing the implications of this, and is not happy about it. Now might an excellent time for Bill to show Mrs. Bill that his love for her is not and has not faded, and that he's not thinking about replacing her. That is to say; whatever gestures she perceives as a sign of his love for her, he should not spare to do. Cause her to feel loved and protected and that her situation is safe and stable thru this bumpy patch. He should be her stable rock. Those are my thoughts. Please use good discernment regarding what is appropriate to do or not do.
 
eye4them said:
It seems like she might be seeing the implications of this, and is not happy about it. Now might an excellent time for Bill to show Mrs. Bill that his love for her is not and has not faded, and that he's not thinking about replacing her. That is to say; whatever gestures she perceives as a sign of his love for her, he should not spare to do. Cause her to feel loved and protected and that her situation is safe and stable thru this bumpy patch. He should be her stable rock. Those are my thoughts. Please use good discernment regarding what is appropriate to do or not do.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Thanks @NetWatchR for the analysis.
But regarding your interpretation
NetWatchR said:
and let each woman have their own husband that they belong to.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't recommend suggesting to those who use this verse to oppose polygyny that this is a translation of the Greek text as the verb "to have" is singular. It's this fact that the OMOW advocates hold on to so tenaciously so we'd appear to be mistranslating the text to "prove" our point and that would be counterproductive.
 
I wouldn't suggest it as a translation either. It simply brings to light the potential of plurality. However, that can be ignored and focus redirected solely on the issue of ownership. "...let each man have his own wife that belongs to him, and let each woman have her own husband that she belongs to." Ownership within a marriage is a one-way street.

Another example of potential for plurality where a singular is used for the general rule is the One-Wife Trinity (1 Tim 3:2, 3:12 & Titus 1:6) and it's usage of "mia". "Mia" isn't numerical "one", but a cardinal "one". Cardinal One doesn't mean only one; it's one of a group, first of a set or as an indefinite article like "a car". These verses are a list of qualifications for a job. If this job was a pizza delivery service, one of the qualifications would be, Must have a car. If i have 2 cars, am i disqualified?

A few good books i've enjoyed that help deal with this are “Why do you believe that?” by B.A.Berean, “Marriage Covenant, The” by Joseph Herrin and “Resurrecting the Biblical Family” by Tom Shipley. They all address this issue in different ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top