He cited a lot of scripture that threw doubt on that, examples of idios that seemed to mean exclusive ownership. I think I see where he wrong but we’re going to need to be sure.
-
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.
Mike Winger
- Thread starter Gadsden1791
- Start date
I can't claim any Greek proficiency, but after looking at a number of usages, my thought is that idios is meant to describe the self or identity of a person. The lexicon describes my thought fairly well under 1.c:
Acts 4:32 is important:
In this way, "each woman is to have her own husband" might be able to be understood as "each woman is to have a man to be called by", or "described by", or "be identified by".
But I'd really want someone who understands Greek to assess that.
Various usages are, for example:
- "His own farm" (the farm of himself)
- "His own language" (the language which describes him, his native language)
- "His own slaves" (the slaves of his, slaves by his name. While likely exclusive, that's possibly besides the point here)
- "His own blood" (the blood of Him. While obviously exclusive, that's beside the point, because it's referring to the nature of the blood being of God)
Acts 4:32 is important:
At face value it sounds like idios is being used as a marker of exclusivity as opposed to inclusivity (common property). But if read as "not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him had his name on it" (as in, it was not "of him"), then it still works. In fact, it tweaks the understanding of the passage just slightly: it implies they weren't just sharing, but considered it all to belong to the community.
In this way, "each woman is to have her own husband" might be able to be understood as "each woman is to have a man to be called by", or "described by", or "be identified by".
But I'd really want someone who understands Greek to assess that.
He's either the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow; or he's not. His Divine Instructions are either an everlasting righteousness, or they are not. Paul is not the Lamb that was sacrificed for your sins. He's a servant - and like all servants - we are submissive to the Master.
Hosea 4:6 NLT
My people are being destroyed because they don’t know me. Since you priests refuse to know me, I refuse to recognize you as my priests. Since you have forgotten the laws (torah) of your God, I will forget to bless your children.
The root cause of why Christians cannot see the truth in polygyny is simply because they do not know the Creator. The one that they claim to love and worship. They simply do not know him. Sure - they have bits and pieces here and there, but it's mixed with leaven. Which turns into a different Jesus that Paul warned about. The "Parable of the Wheat and Weeds" from Yahushua the Messiah tells us that the adversary is allowed to plant leaven:
Matthew 13:25
25 But that night as the workers slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat, then slipped away.
28 “‘An enemy has done this!’ the farmer exclaimed. “‘Should we pull out the weeds?’ they asked.
29 “‘No,’ he replied, ‘you’ll uproot the wheat if you do. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds, tie them into bundles, and burn them, and to put the wheat in the barn.’”
Jeremiah 29:13
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
Hosea 4:6 NLT
My people are being destroyed because they don’t know me. Since you priests refuse to know me, I refuse to recognize you as my priests. Since you have forgotten the laws (torah) of your God, I will forget to bless your children.
The root cause of why Christians cannot see the truth in polygyny is simply because they do not know the Creator. The one that they claim to love and worship. They simply do not know him. Sure - they have bits and pieces here and there, but it's mixed with leaven. Which turns into a different Jesus that Paul warned about. The "Parable of the Wheat and Weeds" from Yahushua the Messiah tells us that the adversary is allowed to plant leaven:
Matthew 13:25
25 But that night as the workers slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat, then slipped away.
28 “‘An enemy has done this!’ the farmer exclaimed. “‘Should we pull out the weeds?’ they asked.
29 “‘No,’ he replied, ‘you’ll uproot the wheat if you do. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds, tie them into bundles, and burn them, and to put the wheat in the barn.’”
Jeremiah 29:13
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
This article may be of some help in terms of idios:
Does 1 Corinthians 7:2 Make Husbands and Wives Sexual Equals?
1 Corinthians 7:2 is a verse that is commonly used to try and teach that God no longer allows polygamy in the New Testament and that husbands and wives mutually and exclusively own one another. So …
biblicalsexology.com
Not without looking at ALL of His Word, as Written.
If you ignore Matthew 5:17-19, and everything that goes with it, you don't have a prayer.
Either He is consistent, from Genesis 1:1, and meant what He said, including every 'jot and tiddle' about marriage, or you have no Rock to stand on.
Thanks Mark, but the obvious response of the skeptic is that “Jesus never said polygyny is okay.” We need to get out of our stultified boxes and deal with the arguments being presented.
This is what I’m talking about! I’m going to start a new thread so we can focus on this issue.
Yeah but that is not even a little persuasive. What happens when a woman considering this starts doing her own research? What are our responses to Winger’s claims about idios? Just tell f her she doesn’t know Jesus isn’t going to help anything. She’s literally (hypothetically) trying to learn what Jesus says on a topic. Unrelated slogans aren’t going to help her.
This is of course entirely false. I know, the whole internet knows, that you have an axe to grind that is much bigger than patriarchy and biblical marriage, but you could spend a lifetime in Matthew 5 and never once get to marriage. We’re concerned with marriage. Specifically making an iron clad case for why all believers should accept that polygyny is allowed in scripture (a stance that ironically Winger agrees with). This case can not hinge on agreeing with you on all other matters of theology. It has to stand alone.
Idiocy. Or worse. Obviously, you haven't read the chapter. But do you even read what you write before you post such a transparent lie?
Don't argue that with Catholics - it doesn't matter. Scripture is not 'primary' - the pope is.
And don't argue it with people who believe - whether they admit it or not! - that Paul trumps his own messiah.
The argument fails from the postulate.
If ANYONE can change what He Wrote about marriage - even Yahushua Himself, much less Shaul/Paul - then you HAVE NO LEG to STAND ON.
EVERY argument against polygyny - even the worst stupidity on Romans 13 - trumps what "no longer applies." "Mia" doesn't matter. "Idios" doesn't matter.
If 'Paul' changed something that Yahushua said He would NOT in I Corinthians 7 - then SOMEBODY is lying.
There ARE 'hard teachings' in the Bible. This ain't one of 'em.
I was just going through the comments and reading what everyone wrote. I agree that we are winning. We have moved from the ignoring phase and into the mocking, which is why they chose me. Strangely, I feel flattered. The fighting stage is next and I fully expect it to get very, very nasty. God issuing all this to expose the monogamy-only lie. Many people are smart enough to see through it and at the very least will research the topic for themselves and go to God in prayer about it. I know I would have if I had only heard someone mention it ever, and sadly I didn't. Think of it this way, two weeks ago 99% of Christians (or much higher even) didn't even know there were people like us out there who held this belief. At least now they know there is a different school of thought, and that will benefit us. But I agree with Zech, we need to level up in our ability to explain and educate people with scripture. Time to get off the bunny slopes 
Either his divine instructions (torah) are an everlasting righteousness - or they are not. Either he’s the same yesterday, today, or tomorrow; or he’s not. Either his divine instructions (torah) is perfect - or it’s not.
Paul does not have the authority to teach contrary to the divine instructions, because the Creator in the flesh said it’s easier for heaven and earth to pass. He didn’t say until my servant Paul shows up. He didn’t say until Constantine. He didn’t say until the popes.
Polygyny, done according to His Word, is proven righteous (not sin) time and time again in the scriptures. One tiny verse from Paul - which there is even doubt on what Paul meant - is not enough to overthrow something iron clad as biblical polygyny. Nowhere near enough. If there was a righteous judge in court - and a righteous judge was proceeding - who fears YAH and doesn’t deviate to the left or right - would throw this case out the door.
Paul does not have the authority to teach contrary to the divine instructions, because the Creator in the flesh said it’s easier for heaven and earth to pass. He didn’t say until my servant Paul shows up. He didn’t say until Constantine. He didn’t say until the popes.
Polygyny, done according to His Word, is proven righteous (not sin) time and time again in the scriptures. One tiny verse from Paul - which there is even doubt on what Paul meant - is not enough to overthrow something iron clad as biblical polygyny. Nowhere near enough. If there was a righteous judge in court - and a righteous judge was proceeding - who fears YAH and doesn’t deviate to the left or right - would throw this case out the door.
There is a bread leavened with deceit and wickedness; and there is a bread unleavened with sincerity and truth.
Proverbs 20:17
Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.
Choosing the leavened bread with deceit may attract the larger crowds. It may attract the mega big donors. You will likely get rich, and gain a large following. But in the end you will end up 6 feet under like everyone else, and there is a Creator whom you will give an account to.
Proverbs 20:17
Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.
Choosing the leavened bread with deceit may attract the larger crowds. It may attract the mega big donors. You will likely get rich, and gain a large following. But in the end you will end up 6 feet under like everyone else, and there is a Creator whom you will give an account to.
He never said flying in an airplane is OK.
What He did say is that He wasn't changing what He had already Written.
The 'skeptic' doesn't believe Scripture anyway. And that goes for people who can't or won't study what He actually Wrote. You won't convince them regardless, since they prefer platitudes. Wipe the dust...
Actually, if i'm not mistaken, he edited the Adam argument to make it sound worse than the original when they were laughing at the absurdity of that argument as compared to MO arguments that claim polygyny is the cause of jealousy and strife.
He used smoke and mirrors leading the audience to believe I was leaning on one verse... he read a dozen other verses and HAD to see some of these....:
John 4:44
Acts 1:19
Acts 2:6
Acts 2:8
Acts 13:36
Acts 25:19
Rom. 11:24
Rom. 14:4
1 Cor. 14:35
1 Th. 2:14
His mia argument was just as bad..
He'll fall on his sword to prove 'mia tov sabbaton' says 'FIRST day of the week'...
'cuz if he says 'ONE of the sabbaths' he'll have a whole new challenge and come to Jesus moment! 
Back when I was a normal Churchian and later as I walked a deeper Walk, I totally accepted the idea that polygamy had somehow dried up and blown away in the time period between Malachi and Mathew. I did feel a pull towards taking in single women, though.
It was when a brother brought up Isaiah 4:1 that I ran head-on into the realization. Suddenly the God-who-never-changes didn’t square with a God who abandoned polygamy for the NT period, but will accept it again when things get rough in the end times. Too much of a flip-flipper.
All that to say that dancing to their tune of debating over the exact meaning of a couple of Greek words is an example of what Yeshuah referred to when he accused the Scribes and Pharisees of tithing their mint and cumin while ignoring the weightier matters.
I don’t serve a flip-flopping god, I serve Yah-Who-Never-Changes.
It was when a brother brought up Isaiah 4:1 that I ran head-on into the realization. Suddenly the God-who-never-changes didn’t square with a God who abandoned polygamy for the NT period, but will accept it again when things get rough in the end times. Too much of a flip-flipper.
All that to say that dancing to their tune of debating over the exact meaning of a couple of Greek words is an example of what Yeshuah referred to when he accused the Scribes and Pharisees of tithing their mint and cumin while ignoring the weightier matters.
I don’t serve a flip-flopping god, I serve Yah-Who-Never-Changes.