• 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.

Heis and Mia

NetWatchR

NetWatchR

Member
Real Person
Male
You know that feeling you get when you think you know or understand something and then it changes to something deeper? it's different for each person and one's epiphany is another's been-there-done-that. Regardless, it is amazing when it happens to you.

I thought i understood the difference between heis and mia. It was a technical understanding: mia is first in a series, can be used as an indefinite article (a banana) and heis was more solo. Blah blah blah.

But while i was prepping this powerpoint and listing all these verses that use mia, i really began to get a feel for it. It was always used in a group setting.

Mia cannot exist by itself. it just can't. in every single usage i have found so far, mia is part of a group.
"Could not thou watch one hour?"
"there cometh one of the maids."
"the one shall be taken and the other left"
"not one jot or one tittle...."

But wait. that last one was a little funny. i was searching just for mia and saw that mia only appeared next to the second one (one tittle). Why? Expanded it and saw that heis used on the first. "Not heis jot or mia tittle."

I needed to figure this out. Long story, short: I get it! A jot is a whole letter, it's solo, by itself there are no parts to it. it is impossible for mia to be used with iota because it is only one stroke. a tittle is only part of a whole letter, part of a group. it could never be used by itself. I finally get it!

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.

Back to my powerpoint.

Laters,

-Mike
 
Thanks for sharing this - I had never picked up on the use of heis and mia in that verse, but it sure does a good job illustrating the difference.

I have to ask, what is this presentation you are working on? :)
 
Hey Mike,

Are you looking into the one wife thingy?

Blessings,

Justin
 
Aineo
It's just a little thing I'm putting together in case I needed to do one for my home church. Realistically, it'll probably never happen, but figured why not.

Justin
Only as a secondary issue. I'm more focusing on teaching what the bible says and not what we've been taught. Pretty much like "Why do you believe that", but expanded to include other topics.
 
NetWatchR said:
Pretty much like "Why do you believe that", but expanded to include other topics.
Click to expand...

I am very intrigued to read this - The Lord is working on me on this too. Polygyny is just the tip of the iceberg. We, as believers, need to be reading and understanding what the Bible says rather than just accepting something we are told.
 
Aye, that's true. There is so much division in the church over things that may or may not really be salvation-oriented.

For example, some believe that baptism is required to be saved. I personally don't believe that because then Christ would have been a liar to the thief that hung next to him. He told him, this day you will be with Me in paradise. It doesn't mention anyone being around to splash him with a bucket of water to seal the deal. it was that simple. He believed that Jesus is the Son of God.

Others believe that, when baptized, it makes a difference whether it's water over the head or full submersion. One group believes that the pastor has to say "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" while another group believes it doesn't count unless the pastor says "in Jesus name". Stuff like that...

And that's not even getting close to mentioning all the physical/intimacy aspects of the Bible that centuries of Gnostic and Roman Catholic intrusion have made taboo. I think I read somewhere that there were even attempts by the early church to have the Songs of Solomon removed from the Bible because it was too explicit. What?!?

Even in the US, there is this misconception that marriage licences always existed. Hardly anyone knows that marriage licenses weren't actually done until the early part of the 20th century. I didn't know that either. Before then, it was the sole purview of the church. That's why you always had to go to different churches when doing old genealogies to find marriage records.

How about the marriage ceremony itself? you want to know the shortest marriage "ceremony" I've been able to find in the Bible? Look at Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24:67. His servant had just delivered her to him, neither having ever seen each other before, he took her to his tent and made him his wife. Boom. Done. No Church, no minister, no licence, no ceremony, no pomp, no circumstance, no dress, no mess, no fuss, no feast, no drunk brother in law going through a glass window, no second mortgage on the house to pay for some super extravagant facade of a "perfect day" that's never perfect.

The whole thing with having a church, a minister, etc. was all a requirement later added by the roman catholic church. I am admittedly over simplifying things, but that's just to illustrate just how simple God made it to begin with. God made so much of this so very simple. humans are dumb ignorant barbarians who just like to muck things up. Aarrrrgghhhh! Breathe, Michael, breathe.

You know, the more i think about it, it would be too expansive. Hardly powerpoint material. It's better to pick a single topic or theme and run with that.

Thanks for helping me work through that. LOL
 
OK. So an update on Heis.

I started to get a little worried when i noticed that Heis was also being used in a group setting. Remember my original post mentioned that mia was attached to something plural, whereas heis was used with something that stood alone. Now that wasn't true. So, I dug some more in the Lexicon and found some additional meaning. Not only is Heis used as simply the numeral one (1) to represent a number solely by itself, but when used in a group setting, it denotes that this one is set apart from the rest.

For example - Mark 12:28 "And one (heis) of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?"

Now, in my original statement, this "one" should have been mia because he is one of the scribes. One of a group. So why heis? i think because of one or both of two reason: 1) Because he was set apart from the rest. The other scribes didn't ask a question. This one was of particular mention and will engage with the object. 2) he may have been "one of the scribes" but he was by himself at the time. Simply "1" scribe. Like as if we were to say "There was this one guy from SoCal..." Are there other guys from Southern California? sure, but they weren't there at the time. Only this one (1) guy.

Well, that's all i got for now. Thank you. You may now return to your regular internet perusal.
 
Thanks for posting this, I find it fascinating.
 
Greek has three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. Heis is masculine; mia is feminine.

English once also had gender but dropped it in the course of time.
 
I would love to see the finished product when you complete it. Also, I know of a few Greek scholars who may be able to offer insight if you want some help. Keep up the good work. A definitive, easy to understand piece on this subject would benefit us all, I'm sure.
 
JayJ said:
Greek has three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. Heis is masculine; mia is feminine.

English once also had gender but dropped it in the course of time.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the input, but if that was the extent of it, it would be very simple. It's like "la" and "el" both mean "the" for fem and masc words, but they mean the same thing, "the". The difference between Heis and Mia is so much more than that. There is a definite plurality associated with the use of Mia, notwithstanding the simple usage of it as an indefinite article. Heis, on the other hand, is much more defined even to the point of being used in a plural setting to denote one specific entity to the exclusion of the rest.

If asked, "do you have a car?"
I can answer, "I have a car."
or i can answer, "I have one car."

One answers the question specifically enough to remove any doubt as to how many I have. The other answers the question but the quantity is ambiguous; perhaps, because it is irrelevant. If i'm applying for a job to deliver pizzas, does it matter if i have 1 car or 10? Only that I have a car, at least one, to qualify for the job.
 
Here are some of the examples of Mia or Heis being used:

Mia
  • Matthew 5:19 "...break one of these commandments..."
  • Mark 10:8 "...twain shall be one flesh..."
  • Luke 9:33 "...one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias..."
  • John 20:1 "The first day of the week..."

Heis
  • Mathew 6:27 "...can add one cubit..."
  • Mark 11:29 "...ask of you one question..."
  • Luke 12:52 "five in one house divided..."
  • John 6:71 "He spake of Judas...being one of the twelve."

And here are some examples of Mia and Heis together in the same verse:

Notice the differentiation between one by itself and one of a set.
  • Matthew 5:18 "...one jot or one tittle..."
  • Luke 17:34 "...two men in one bed; the one shall be taken..." (*) This one is fun; see below
  • John 10:16 "...and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."
  • Ephesians 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism,..."
  • Philemon 1:27 "...stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together..."
  • 2nd Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
  • Revelations 6:1 "And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see."

Luke 17:34-37 is rather interesting, especially from a KJV perspective. Even the NASB and NIV make (logical) assumptions in verses 35 and 36. The KJV makes a very illogical leap in v34.

In all three verses, the Greek does not specify if there is a woman or man. Now, it can be logically assumed that the two in a field were men and the two grinding were women. But how did the KJV come to the conclusion that two men were in one bed?!? They weren't. The Greek simply says the same as the other two verses (i.e. there were two in the same place). My interpretation is that this was a married couple. it makes sense considering how the other two references were (logically) same-sex environments. I think this is a remnant of some earlier Gnostic influences in the Church. Now, how two men in one bed could be seen as better than a man and woman in bed is beyond me, but, like I freely admitted, this is my interpretation and is ultimately insignificant to the purpose of the scripture anyway.

BTW, the one bed here, is likely an example of mia being used as an indefinite article "two in a bed".
 
Entirely different topic. Grammatical gender is about declension patterns of words, and not whether a language recognizes differences between men and women. It was dropped in the transition from Old English to Middle English, around the 12th century. Other grammatic categories include agency, case, tense, modality, voice, etc.
 
I hear you! Oh, man, and I appreciate your study on this!

I assume that although this has application in more scripture than this; that we are all keenly interested about what it means for elders and deacons? As in, if mia can be correctly pushed into the 'one, but not exclusively one' camp, that it would bring without controversy the Church officials into acceptable polygyny?

I offer up the following: That for the purposes of calculation, Scripture seems to rely on a fixed numerical value for heis and mia.

Matt 5:18 mia = heis (Not altogether necessary, but that's the way I read it mathematically)
Matt 17:4 mia + mia +mia = 3 (also in Mark 9 and Luke 8)
Matt 24:40 2 – heis = mia
Matt 24:41 2 – mia = mia
2 COR 11:24 40 – mia = 39 (at least according to tradition)
Gal 4:24-25 mia covenant + Jerusalem’s covenant = 2 covenants
Rev 9:12 mia woes + 2 woes = 3 woes

Algebraically, I am not sophisticated enough to know how to make either heis or mia =/= 1.

Also, I am a man with children. If I say "You may have one cookie" and I find my son with two cookies, he is in great error. He may say that "Having one does not preclude having another", and I would certainly find his lawyering amusing, but the boy will be beaten nonetheless.

NetWatchR, I greatly desire your input. Show me no mercy!
 
Slumberfreeze, thanks for the challenge!

First, algebraically, heis & mia = 1. The question is whether it means "one, and only one, period."

Every passage you cite backs up NetWatchR's point - mia is always one of a set. One of three tents, one of forty lashes, one of two covenants...

In all of these examples you can substitute "a" and the passage makes sense. A tent for Jesus, a tent for Elijah, a tent for Moses. A woe, then another two woes. And so forth.

Mia can mean either "A" or "First" and still allow a church leader to have more than one wife. Both "a" and "first" = 1. But they are not exclusive.

"A" = 1. If you have three bananas, and I give you a banana, you have four bananas.

But "A" does not prevent additional ones. For instance, a job advertisement for a delivery driver says: "Must have a car". A = 1. He only needs one car for the job. But does this mean the prospective driver must have ONLY one car? Of course not. It means he must have at least one. Additional cars are irrelevant.

If you say a deacon must be a "husband of a wife", although it's weird English grammar, it makes sense. He must have a wife. A = 1. He only needs one wife for the job. But this phrase does not mean he must have ONLY one wife, rather it means he must have at least one.

The alternative rendering is "husband of first wife" - in other words, he must still have his first wife and have shown faithfulness by not divorcing her (I find this most consistent with the remainder of scripture). Again, first = 1. He only needs one wife for the job. But once again this does not preclude him from having a second or third wife also.

So algebraically mia = 1 as you have stated - yet it still allows for polygyny for elders and deacons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top