• 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.

Exploring 1 Corinthians 7:2bc

DaPastor

Member
Real Person
For some, 1 Corinthians 7:2 is very confusing. I have written this summary in hopes that it helps everyone understand the concept better. I would appreciate any suggestions:

1 Corinthians 7:2bc: "Let every man have his own (Grk., "heautou") wife and let every woman have her own (Grk., "idios") husband."

Question: What possible reason would Paul use two separate words to describe a marital relationship? Is he trying to confuse people, or is he trying to be precise? Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was being precise! I would suggest that if Paul was promoting a "monogamy only position" he would have used " heautou " both times, but he didn't. He was setting up a contrast. You will see why in a moment.

You see, the word "heautou" (ἑαυτοῦ) is a reflexive pronoun of the third person. It refers back to himself, herself, itself". It signifies exclusive possession, like my "own" body, or my "own" soul, or my "own" mind. Paul uses this word the same way throughout 1 Corinthians. For example, in 1 Corinthians 3:18 Paul warns individuals to not deceive their "own" ("heautou") self. In 1 Corinthians 7:37 Paul is sharing that a father may keep his "own" ("heautou") virgin. This is in keeping with the Old Testament understanding of "ownership" of the daughter. It is carried over in a modern cultural sense when the parents are asked about the "giving" of the bride. Notice, that Paul did not use "idios". Why? Because the virgin daughter was the "exclusive possession" of the father. So, in 1 Corinthians 7:2b, translated with the full impact of this word, it can rightly be understood "Let every man have his wife as his own exclusive possession."

The word "idios" here, on the other hand, signifies actual or potential corporate possession, or "corporate ownership". Many times it is used as a corporate simple possessive, like in John 1:11 where John says "He came unto his "own" ("idios), and his "own" ("idios") received him not," or John 16:32, "Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his "own" ("idios"), and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me," or John 19:17, "Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his "own" ("idios") home". The idea is that there were others who were involved with the "ownership". They are "sharing" him! So, 1Corinthians 7:2c should be understood as "let every woman have her own shared husband."

Respectfully
 
DaPastor said:
So, 1Corinthians 7:2c should be understood as "let every woman have her own (possibly) shared husband."
Addition mine.


Wasn't really sure if you meant it the way it finalized or not. Good examination though.
 
Very good point. I considered something like that before, but felt like I was making it too long. However, after looking at where you placed it and how you placed it, I think that might work.
 
I love posts like the one you started with. Short, to the point, but in depth and easy to read/understand. Us country boys appreciate you breaking it down like that.
 
I am confused by almost the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 7. I do not understand if some of the verses are not to be required to be obeyed where as others are.

Example

6 I say this as a concession, not as a command.
1 Co 7:6

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
1 co 7:10

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
1 co 7:12

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
1 Corinthians 7:25 NIV 2010
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
I am confused by almost the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 7. I do not understand if some of the verses are not to be required to be obeyed where as others are.

Example

6 I say this as a concession, not as a command.
1 Co 7:6

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
1 co 7:10

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
1 co 7:12

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
1 Corinthians 7:25 NIV 2010

I understand what you are getting at...

From my perspective, Paul is referring to the act of giving time to prayer and fasting in verse 6 and remaining single in verses 7-9. These things are allowable, but not in any way mandated.

Verses 10-11, Paul is going back to Biblical principles as opposed to those things allowable.

Verse 25, Paul is making a practical suggestions again.

Paul, as one with a shepherds heart, is merely adding practical, pastoral advice interjected between and Scriptural mandate for the times they are in.
 
Excellent word study!

I have something similar in my dissertation, but yours is better. (Easier to understand than the more-techie language I used... :ugeek: )
 
PolyDoc said:
Excellent word study!

I have something similar in my dissertation, but yours is better. (Easier to understand than the more-techie language I used... :ugeek: )

I would like to claim that I came to this summary by solid thinking, but it was actually result of debating a few people at other websites. I needed to find a way to simplify the argument so that anyone could understand it.

To really do the argument justice, as you know, one would be required to do a complete word study using LXX Greek usage, Koine Greek usage as well as how the word was translated in all the ancient cognate languages of the day - especially Hebrew and Aramaic. Most word studies I have seen are just not as thorough as they should be.
 
concise, i love it that way.
i did not even begin to fall asleep :D
 
"Paul, as one with a shepherds heart, is merely adding practical, pastoral advice interjected between and Scriptural mandate for the times they are in."

Is not ALL scripture inspired by the holy Spirit? I cannot agree with your statement because it makes it sound like Paul simply makes random statements and incorporates them into the scriptures at his whim.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
 
steve said:
concise, i love it that way.
i did not even begin to fall asleep :D


I just hope you're not driving behind me if you do! :D
 
PolyDoc said:
Easier to understand than the more-techie language I used...


Uh, oh, you used the word "techie". Now you've got my interest up. I would love to read it if you have it handy to post.
 
Scarecrow said:
"Paul, as one with a shepherds heart, is merely adding practical, pastoral advice interjected between and Scriptural mandate for the times they are in."

Is not ALL scripture inspired by the holy Spirit? I cannot agree with your statement because it makes it sound like Paul simply makes random statements and incorporates them into the scriptures at his whim.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Scarecrow,

Yes, all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but that does not equal that all Scripture is to be equally applied.

Most conservative believers teach that what Scripture means by inspired is that the Spirit of God supernaturally directed the human writers of Scripture to write down, "without waiving their intelligence, their individuality, their personal feelings, their literary style, or any other human factor of expression, His Complete and Coherent Message to mankind" with perfect accuracy in the original languages of Scripture."

There are many statements in Scripture that are not expressions of God's will. They are His Words written down, but that is not the same.
 
Job's friends made a number of statements that at first glance seem to be theologically correct but upon further examination they are not. So are we to take these statements and Paul's with a "grain of salt" and dismiss them?
 
We are to take them as options, not requirements.
 
DaPastor said:
We are to take them as options, not requirements.

But here's the thing: Are all options?, are all requirements?, which are and which aren't?
 
"We are to take them as options, not requirements."

Maybe as in Job's friends it is shown to us for the purpose of helping us recognize false theology, and in the case of Paul they might be better described as Apostolic suggestions.
 
With reference to the following Scriptures, I believe the Word that declares these passages are inspired by God as Scripture, just like Exodus or Deuteronomy. Peter, by the Spirit, declares that Paul's writings are inspired Scripture. Those who are spiritual in the Lord recognizes that what Paul wrote by the Spirit are the Lord's commands.
***2 Peter 3: 15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.
***1 Cor 14: 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, he should recognize that what I write to you is the Lord's command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, he will be ignored.
:
1 Co 7:6and this I say by way of concurrence, concession or permission {4774} [as something "granted", a "preferential allowance, " a "right . . . granted"] -- not of or as a command, 7for I wish all men to be even as I myself [am]; but each his own gift hath of God, one indeed thus, and one thus. [YLT; Strongs; NASB, HCSB]

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
1 co 7:10

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
1 co 7:12

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
1 Corinthians 7:25 NIV 2010
 
Scarecrow said:
"We are to take them as options, not requirements."

Maybe as in Job's friends it is shown to us for the purpose of helping us recognize false theology, and in the case of Paul they might be better described as Apostolic suggestions.

Well, not everything Job's friends said was false theology. However, most theological error mixes truth with error. IMHO, this would be equivalent in many ways to integrationism, where Psychology and Theology are intermingled to some hybrid form of "Christian Counseling." At least Paul was not violating any clear Scriptural principles with his suggestions. Paul's counsel was Godly, Pastoral and Wise.

Clarke's Commentary shares a historical understanding of Paul's references:

I speak this by permission, etc. - It was a constant custom of the more conscientious rabbins, to make a difference between the things which they enjoined on their own judgment, and those which they built on the authority of the law. Thus Rabbi Tancum: “The washing of hands before meat is in our own power; washing after meat is commanded.” In relation to this point Dr. Lightfoot produces some examples from the Jewish writers: “The man is commanded concerning begetting and multiplying, but not the woman. And when does the man come under this command? From the age of sixteen or seventeen years; but, if he exceeds twenty years without marrying, behold he violates and renders an affirmative precept vain. The Gemara says: It is forbidden a man to be without a wife; because it is written, It is not good for man to be alone. And whosoever gives not himself to generation and multiplying is all one with a murderer: he is as though he diminished from the image of God, etc.” We may understand the apostle here as saying that the directions already given were from his own judgment, and not from any Divine inspiration; and we may take it for granted that where he does not make this observation he is writing under the immediate afflatus of the Holy Spirit.
 
The Duke Of Marshall said:
DaPastor said:
We are to take them as options, not requirements.

But here's the thing: Are all options?, are all requirements?, which are and which aren't?

IMO, Paul tells us quite clearly. Although, I suppose there may some disagreements over which is which.
 
Back
Top