A response to the singular "wife" objection to polygamy

[PolyPride]

I'm sure most already know but here's some of the passages that ooponents of polygamy use:

Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

1 Corinthians 7: 2
But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

Opponents of polygamy who use these verses are quick to mention that word "wife" is singular, and therefore, polygamy is excluded or banned in the Bible. Therefore, only monogamous marriages are biblical. Although, some here have offered some very good rebuttals to these objections based on linguistics or referring back to the original languages (Greek/Hebrew), I came up with another good and simple response. I posted it on another website that was a debate forum.



Here's some of my response:

The word "wife" being singular in that passage doesn't necessarily mean that polygamy is banned. What the author of that passage didn't do was mention the exception or alternative, that is, a man should cleave unto his wife [or wives].

 

[Doc]

Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

You are on the right track. Each relationship is unique (husband+wife). There can be multiple relationships (husband+wife1,husband+wife2,etc). This does not violate the Genesis verse. Those that use this verse in defense of monogamy are faced with two glaring problems

1) If this verse was a command for monogamy, then why did God not condemn plural marriage in subsequent ages? He had plenty of opportunity. Rather, God not only allowed for plural marriage, but gave laws concerning it, commands to participate in it, and God actually BLESSING individuals with plural families.

2) This verse was written by Moses, who had at least two, and possibly three wives.

************************************************************

1 Corinthians 7: 2
But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

This one is used a lot. I would encourage you to review our Resources page at this link, which speaks directly to this verse, and which i also reprint here: http://biblicalfamilies.org/commonmisc#ref3

"The Bible says that every woman should have her OWN husband and every husband his OWN wife!"
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own (Greek 'heautou') wife (Greek 'gune'), and let every woman have her own (Greek 'idios') husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." 1 Corinthians 7:1-9

1438 heautou {heh-ow-too'} (including all other cases) from a reflexive pronoun otherwise obsolete and the genitive case (dative case or accusative case) of 846;; pron. AV - himself 110, themselves 57, yourselves 36, ourselves 20, his 19, their 15, itself 9, misc. 73; 339 1) himself, herself, itself, themselves 2398 idios {id'-ee-os} of uncertain affinity;; adj AV - his own 48, their own 13, privately 8, apart 7, your own 6, his 5, own 5, not tr 1, misc. 20; 113 1) pertaining to one's self, one's own, belonging to one's self

"Heautou - can be used in the place of the possessive pronoun autou in order to make the expression of possession more forceful.

Idios - In the New Testament the adjective (i.e. Idios - jl) - used as a possessive pronoun - has a more or less emphatic stress: (cf.) Matt. 9:1. In Matt. 22:5 the adjective is [used as a] possessive pronoun as it is in Matt. 25:14; the synoptic parallels to Matt. 25:14 (Mark 13:34 and Luke 19:13) have respectively autou and heautou instead.

In Paul's letters the often special stress of the adjective (as opposed to allotrios) sometimes has theological weight: (Here Rom. 8:32, 10:3 and 14:4 are listed as examples.) Through conjunction with hekastos (and that is the case in I Cor. 7:2 - jl) the individual relationship is underlined. (Here I Cor. 3:8 is given as an example.) For the relationship of the wife to her husband or, as the case may be, of the husband to his wife Idios is used in: Acts 24:24, I Cor. 7:2 & 4, 14:35, Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, Tit. 2:5 and I Pet. 3:1 & 5."

What does it mean to 'own' something?
What is the difference, if any, between the Greek words 'heautou' and 'idios'?
In Matthew 19:8, the Greek 'gune' is translated as wives and in 1 Corinthians 7:2 it is translated as wife, does that mean gune can mean either wife or wives?
What is the meaning of this passage? Is polygamy the topic?
A man and a woman own a house. They have, or possess, a home. Two people can own the same thing. Two wives can own the same husband. In a polygamous marriage each person has there own spouse. For example:

Matthew, Laura, and Betty are in a polygamous marriage. Each person has their own spouse(s). Matthew has Laura. Matthew has Betty. Laura has Matthew. Betty has Matthew.

There could very well be a reason why Paul used two separate words for "own". Heautou stresses the exclusivity of the possession, and idios the exclusivity of the relationship. In other words, the husband may say, "That is my wife, she belongs to me and me alone." The wife would say, "That is my husband, and I belong to him and him alone." The word structure, then, would very well leave extra room for polygamy. The passage is not about the number of wives a man can have, but about having of a spouse in the first place. Paul is showing us that we can avoid fornication by marrying, "for it is better to marry than to burn" with marital desires.

 

[PolyPride]

.

 

[CecilW]

Gen 2:24 "cleve" or "be united with" or "stick to" ... The key to this verse isn't the number of wives mentioned. If it were, and it said "wives" then PM would be mandated, and the union of one man and one woman would be incomplete -- which is not the case.

Rather the key to the verse is the VERB. "Stick to". I've heard the argument that both Jesus and Paul quoted this passage, and therefore it's all about monogamy. But when you read what they wrote for yourself, you quickly see that in ALL cases, they were discussing the durability, adhesiveness, bonding of the marriage not the exclusivity thereof.

Stick to each other. Let no-one pull you apart, or even find a gap into which to drive a wedge.

1 Cor 7:2 own and own ... Usage in other references makes it plain. The word translated as "her own" is also used where it says Jesus returned to "His own country", which was presumably also their own country to many, many other folk. It also is used in talking about how servants should obey their own masters -- who presumably may well have more than one servant.

Au contraire, the word translated as "his own" is highly exclusive. Usage is something like, Let each man eat his own bread... Now, I don't know about the monogamists, but the idea of eating the same piece of bread that someone else has just eaten, no matter from which end it re-enters circulation ... Nope, that's pretty singular alright!

 

[Mark C]

You're seeing some well-summarized and Biblically-consistent responses here already, Angel3. While this other one, too, has been addressed elsewhere at length, a brief comment is also merited:

Notice that the only time when Paul speaks about how many wives a man can have, he mentions or stresses on a specific number and specifically who that instruction applies to as was done in 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12, and Titus 1:6.

I frequently enjoy quoting II Peter 3:15-16, about how Paul can be "difficult to understand", and as a result is often "twisted". And that from a guy who even spoke the same language! So two things must be noted up front.

Paul was a consummate Torah scholar, who knew that his Master never so much as changed the smallest part, not "one yod or tiddle", of what was Written. And he knew WHY that HAD* to be the case, and would never have taken it upon himself to make a change in violation of His Word either!

So the Timothy/Titus "exception" should rank as one of the foremost examples of a "cultural bias" translation error in all of the New Testament!

Simply put, the Greek word "mia" used in each of those virtually-identical phrases is an article adjective, which can mean any of several things -- like a, an, first, or one. There simply is NO basis, from the context of the text, to conclude that "ONE" is the correct translation. In fact, both Paul's knowledge of, and respect for, Scripture would argue strongly that "a", or "first" are BOTH far better renderings, since they are consistent with obvious principles of marital permanence and fidelity, as well as experience and the evidence of "good fruit". Even the widespread Hebrew tradition that a teacher should be married supports this reading.

What I always find ironic, and arguably even humorous, is the logical blindness that those who base "anti-polygyny" arguments on such flimsy items as this essentially single witness is: If Paul was REALLY writing a new commandment in this repeated admonition for "elders" (or "overseers", or "deacons", or whatever... ) then it begs the obvious question:

Why them ONLY?

While those who have gotten into the habit of "wresting" Paul proceed right to the logical train-wreck of claiming that "EVERY good man" should thus want to be an elder, and thus ignore any other issues in Scripture, they have to turn a blind eye to the fact that Paul himself NEVER made such an argument. In fact, if he HAD wanted to outlaw something God allows (and thus make a liar of himself), he could just as easily have said so. He needn't have QUALIFIED his error so specifically! Yet he did not - in spite of using the same wording in more than one place already!

Once we begin to read the Word in context, and as a coherent WHOLE, it becomes increasingly obvious that things which appear to be "contradictions" or inconsistencies are OUR problem, and not His.


-------------------
* Deut. 4:2, 12:32, and the whole of chapter 13.

 

[dreamer]

Thanks for all the comments regarding 1 Timothy 3:2. I've been wondering about this statement of "husband of one wife" as regards deacons/elders. Mark's explanation agrees with what I found here:
http://www.christianpoly.org/p1.php

From what I understand now, the verse is not talking about "only" one wife, but rather "at least" one wife, to use plain language. This is good to know for those who wish to serve God in a leadership position in the church. This then gets me to thinking about the other side of the coin. If a pastor/deacon must be the husband of a wife, then it seems that this would prohibit certain people from holding these offices. Specifically, I am thinking that this would prohibit a single (unmarried) man from holding these offices (although I have known single pastors, and the Catholic Church demands an unmarried priesthood) and also prohibit a woman from holding these offices since a woman cannot be a husband. Am I correct in this thinking?