• 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)

PassionatePatriarch

PassionatePatriarch

Member
Male
Hey all!

A particular couple from our fellowship is REALLY struggling with letting go of the notion that polygyny is sinful for a believer in the NT. There is really only one passage they are clinging to and building this doctrine off of, and that is 1 Corinthians 7:2.

Now I understand fully that to interpret it in the way that they are would necessitate that God's timeless moral law has changed, and all the other problems with doing so. But admittedly, it is a tough verse to wrestle with on its own, as it reads so clearly in the singular in the english.

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.

If i could explain this verse confidently they really.have no other objection. This is the only verse they are clinging to. And while i understand we ought not build a doctrine off of one passage it would be nice to put their minds at ease about this one, and I cant seem to be able to do so rstionally
 
I have exactly the same issue; same passage, same argument. To a certain extent, it's like any other idea/doctrine someone wants to hold to that contradicts the plain teaching of the rest of scripture. No matter what you show them, if they don't want to accept it, they'll hold to their one and only proof text. The passage, 1 Cor. 7:1-9, is a response to a question Paul received about celibacy. It's nothing to do with setting a new law in place that says a man can only have one wife. It's a pertinent reminder that a man is to find his sexual satisfaction in his woman and a woman is to find her sexual satisfaction in her man. This is the God-given way to avoid sexual immorality. I've somewhat abandoned trying to argue from the technicalities but instead stick with the big picture and keep the passage in its context.
 
If they admit that poly was acceptable previously, then you could ask if it seems reasonable to think that Paul is going to reverse that much history of divine revelation and acceptance with the drop of one single word, and can we trust an English translation enough to make such a pronouncement? How long did he speak about circumcision? He didn't give the topic a one word treatment.... supposing he even reversed that!

We know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, and that this includes such fellows as drunkards (1Co 6:9-10). I don't see polygynous men listed, and we know that Abraham, and Jacob, and David, do inherit the kingdom of God (Luk 13:28, David was a prophet (Act 2:29-30)).

You could point out as an example that it is not good to delve too deeply into such things such as where it says "wife" in the singular, where it then produces a conflict with previous and more overt revelation. Each of a man's wives is properly called his wife, just like all of his sons, his son, friends, friend, and so on.

Another example of this one word bible analysis; if someone were to cling to the singular of wife as proof against poly, then consider where Yeshua said "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Mar 12-31). He apparently said neighbor (singular). Are we to presume then that a man fulfills this obligation by loving *one* of his neighbors, or is it showing a pattern that a man should have no more than one neighbor? Regarding that one-neighbor-pattern question, I'm not sure how ἀγάπη it is compare their argument to such an absurd thing, so please consider that one with prayer.
 
eye4them said:
Another example of this one word bible analysis; if someone were to cling to the singular of wife as proof against poly, then consider where Yeshua said "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Mar 12-31). He apparently said neighbor (singular). Are we to presume then that a man fulfills this obligation by loving *one* of his neighbors, or is it showing a pattern that a man should have no more than one neighbor? Regarding that one-neighbor-pattern question, I'm not sure how ἀγάπη it is compare their argument to such an absurd thing, so please consider that one with prayer.
Click to expand...

That is my pastor’s last remaining argument against polygyny, well, that and “I just don’t think that is right”. Sooo i might have to use that one ;)
 
It is a heart issue.
You can corner them all day long with proof, and they will still deny that it is acceptable.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
That is my pastor’s last remaining argument against polygyny, well, that and “I just don’t think that is right”. Sooo i might have to use that one ;)
Click to expand...
I suppose I should mention that this wasn't given me straight into my head, but rather via Page 9 of this https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53190.0001.001/1:5?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Touching on your pastor's last argument and Steve's comment, I think that a little shame (in some sense of the word) might shake him enough to achieve some progress, so consider saying...
We see how that poly was common among great men of God who are held up in Heb 11 as examples to be emulated, and we find nothing from God speaking against poly; so if not using God's standard, then by what standard does a man conclude that poly is wrong?
 
PassionatePatriarch said:
(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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I just had the idea to check out the Powerhouse chapter of Faith, Hebrews 11. This is often referred to as the Biblical Hall of Fame. Of the 15 men listed, 5 are untouched by poly, 4 are born into a poly family, 5 are considered to be righteous polygamist and 1 considered to be an unrighteous polygamist (not unrighteous because of poly, just unrighteous, Esau)

This is obviously a clear pattern that if you want to be in the next Biblical Hall of Fame, you stand a much better chance if you’re a polygamist.:p:p:p:p
 
Of those "untouched" is it written of any — explicitly — that he had no other wife?

Implication is as close as we get in Noah's case — God says take all your family into the ark, Noah obeys, and his one wife comes — but we've already discussed how much room that leaves for before the flood, after the flood, and left-unmentioned during the flood.

I continue to hold that the Bible has no stories of monogamism, no matter how few wives are mentioned. It's simply not that kind of book.

Others will see differently because they want to. I'd advise to respect their choice and let it go.
 
mystic said:
Implication is as close as we get in Noah's case — God says take all your family into the ark, Noah obeys, and his one wife comes — but we've already discussed how much room that leaves for before the flood, after the flood, and left-unmentioned during the flood.
Click to expand...

I see your point @mystic, however, I’d be extremely skeptical if Noah had any other wives. The other accounts that I’ve read indicated that he married very late (for us in life) and his wife was even older when he married her.

Also, of the 5 non poly guys, all but one were before the flood and 3 of them had no other wives available to marry
 
Just from memory, I believe it was Adam, Abel, Cain and Enoch. The fifth was Barak and I didnt have a lot of time to investigate him.

EDIT

My bad. The men were Abel, Enoch and Noah before the flood. Barak and Samson after the Flood.

Additional EDIT

Sorry, only two of them had no other available women to marry, Abel and Cain
 
I wonder if it could be presented that of 15 men listed in Heb.11

5 were righteous poly men
1 unrighteous poly man
4 were born into a poly family
5 men monogamous but of the five, 2 married all the available women.

So in reality, only 20 percent of those listed in the Hall of Fame were directly unassociated with Poly.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Just from memory, I believe it was Adam, Abel, Cain and Enoch. The fifth was Barak and I didnt have a lot of time to investigate him.

EDIT

My bad. The men were Abel, Enoch and Noah before the flood. Barak and Samson after the Flood.

Additional EDIT

Sorry, only two of them had no other available women to marry, Abel and Cain
Click to expand...
Why do you assume Abel, Enoch and Barak were monogamous? We aren't told enough about them to know anything much about their marriages at all. Also, we know about a marriage of Samson but don't know whether or not there were others, we also know about his use of prostitutes, and he seemed to be sleeping with Delilah while "unmarried" by my reading - he's hardly a model monogamist. He seems to have been impulsive and just done whatever he felt like doing (or whoever he felt like doing...). Samson is an "it's complicated" case.

I generally summarise it into polygamists, monogamists, and unknown (being the bulk of those you class as monogamous).
 
I’m really not certain if its an assumption or not. If you only factor in the Cannonized Scripture, you must assume that Cain and Abel were married at all because their wives arent mentioned there, only their children. In other texts and documents that I’ve read, each of these men only have one wife listed. If they are listed as polygamous anywhere that anyone knows of it would probably be great to have that info and source docs listed in this thread
 
There is an argument to be made from church history as well, depending on your church tradition. Several early church fathers thought Paul in 1 Cor 7 was allowing polygamy. As Tertulian argued, it was a post apostolic charismatic change to bring monogamy to the church.

Even if your church tradition is solo scriptura, it speaks to how the native speakers of the time interpreted the passage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top