Exploring 1 Corinthians 7:2bc

[Scarecrow]

But since Paul's "opinions" or "suggestions" are part of scripture, and ALL scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching... would they not also be inspired by the holy Spirit and therefore the Word of God?

 

[DaPastor]

But since Paul's "opinions" or "suggestions" are part of scripture, and ALL scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching... would they not also be inspired by the holy Spirit and therefore the Word of God?

His Words are certainly the Word of God, but that is not to say that what he is saying is the Prescriptive, if you will, Word of God when he tells us quite clearly it is not. The Word of God contains implied truths, inferred truths, descriptive truths, prescriptive truths, or plain informational truths. To suggest that every single thing that is mentioned in Scripture is automatically prescribed for all believers would create more problems than it would solve. This is why it is important to study hermeneutics.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

When Paul said "I, not the Lord" he was using the wisdom God had given him rather than stating a more-direct "yet not I but the Lord." It is still inspired as was pointed out by others.

And I believe that the actual words Paul used were inspired by the Holy Spirit, whether he said "i, not the Lord" or "the Lord." But there might be some room for argument on that specific point.

However, when speaking of Mosaic law, Jesus said,

Matthew 5:18 NKJV For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

That leaves no room for doubt at all. Even the punctuation marks were inspired by the Holy Spirit. I tend toward the belief that the same applies to all God-breathed writing, including Paul's "I, not the Lord."

If God can move the hearts of pagan kings to do His will, He can direct the wisdom of His apostles to write what He wants written.

In verse 6, when Paul said, "But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment," he was acknowledging the fact that not all are called to a life of celibacy as he apparently was.

It is obvious to me that Paul, by his choice of words in 7:2, also acknowledged the fact that some of us are called to a life of polygyny.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

But since Paul's "opinions" or "suggestions" are part of scripture, and ALL scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching... would they not also be inspired by the holy Spirit and therefore the Word of God?

If hypothetically God's word said that certain words a prophet wrote are a prophet's opinion then in order for God's word to be true those words would be the prophets opinion. I am not talking about all his words but only those words designated as his opinion.

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman.
Genesis 3:4

Some questions you should consider. Do not assume that my answer to these questions is such and such unless I state it to be such and such and even then it might be such and such in one case but not in another case.

Are the serpents words in scripture?

Are the serpents words God's words?

Is it God's word that the serpent said certain words?

Is it a historic document that happens to list God's words and actions but also other people's words and actions?

Is it historic that the serpent said, certain words?

Can anyone commit words and actions without God's permission?

Are there words and actions that God allows but dislikes?

Are a prophets words only prophetic when the prophet is speaking prophetically and not prophetic when he is not speaking prophetically or is every sentence the prophet speaks prophetic? For instance if a prophet simply said something and did not say that he got that specific message from God could that statement be a non-prophetic statement in some but not all cases?

Is everyone in scripture a prophet or only some people?

Scripture is historically accurate and contains the word of God but also contains either what God said other people said and or what people recorded other people as saying from historical means. Sometimes scripture is accurate that someone said a statement but the person who said the statement lied, this does not make scripture untrue because it is true that the person lied.

There is a difference a prophet saying it is my opinion it might rain tomorrow and God told me it will rain tomorrow. The first should be considered non-prophetic and the second prophetic, in my opinion. If the prophet simply said it will rain tomorrow and did not say if it is what God told him or it is his opinion then it is a more difficult situation to determine.

Did I explain this clearly. I might have made some mistakes, so point them out if I did.

Here is a good example to help you think of these things more

1 By the word of the LORD a man of God came from Judah to Bethel, as Jeroboam was standing by the altar to make an offering. 2 By the word of the LORD he cried out against the altar: “Altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: ‘A son named Josiah will be born to the house of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests of the high places who make offerings here, and human bones will be burned on you.’” 3 That same day the man of God gave a sign: “This is the sign the LORD has declared: The altar will be split apart and the ashes on it will be poured out.”

4 When King Jeroboam heard what the man of God cried out against the altar at Bethel, he stretched out his hand from the altar and said, “Seize him!” But the hand he stretched out toward the man shriveled up, so that he could not pull it back. 5 Also, the altar was split apart and its ashes poured out according to the sign given by the man of God by the word of the LORD.

6 Then the king said to the man of God, “Intercede with the LORD your God and pray for me that my hand may be restored.” So the man of God interceded with the LORD, and the king’s hand was restored and became as it was before.

7 The king said to the man of God, “Come home with me for a meal, and I will give you a gift.”

8 But the man of God answered the king, “Even if you were to give me half your possessions, I would not go with you, nor would I eat bread or drink water here. 9 For I was commanded by the word of the LORD: ‘You must not eat bread or drink water or return by the way you came.’” 10 So he took another road and did not return by the way he had come to Bethel.

11 Now there was a certain old prophet living in Bethel, whose sons came and told him all that the man of God had done there that day. They also told their father what he had said to the king. 12 Their father asked them, “Which way did he go?” And his sons showed him which road the man of God from Judah had taken. 13 So he said to his sons, “Saddle the donkey for me.” And when they had saddled the donkey for him, he mounted it 14 and rode after the man of God. He found him sitting under an oak tree and asked, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?”

“I am,” he replied.

15 So the prophet said to him, “Come home with me and eat.”

16 The man of God said, “I cannot turn back and go with you, nor can I eat bread or drink water with you in this place. 17 I have been told by the word of the LORD: ‘You must not eat bread or drink water there or return by the way you came.’”

18 The old prophet answered, “I too am a prophet, as you are. And an angel said to me by the word of the LORD: ‘Bring him back with you to your house so that he may eat bread and drink water.’” (But he was lying to him.) 19 So the man of God returned with him and ate and drank in his house.

20 While they were sitting at the table, the word of the LORD came to the old prophet who had brought him back. 21 He cried out to the man of God who had come from Judah, “This is what the LORD says: ‘You have defied the word of the LORD and have not kept the command the LORD your God gave you. 22 You came back and ate bread and drank water in the place where he told you not to eat or drink. Therefore your body will not be buried in the tomb of your ancestors.’”

23 When the man of God had finished eating and drinking, the prophet who had brought him back saddled his donkey for him. 24 As he went on his way, a lion met him on the road and killed him, and his body was left lying on the road, with both the donkey and the lion standing beside it. 25 Some people who passed by saw the body lying there, with the lion standing beside the body, and they went and reported it in the city where the old prophet lived.

26 When the prophet who had brought him back from his journey heard of it, he said, “It is the man of God who defied the word of the LORD. The LORD has given him over to the lion, which has mauled him and killed him, as the word of the LORD had warned him.”

27 The prophet said to his sons, “Saddle the donkey for me,” and they did so. 28 Then he went out and found the body lying on the road, with the donkey and the lion standing beside it. The lion had neither eaten the body nor mauled the donkey. 29 So the prophet picked up the body of the man of God, laid it on the donkey, and brought it back to his own city to mourn for him and bury him. 30 Then he laid the body in his own tomb, and they mourned over him and said, “Alas, my brother!”

31 After burying him, he said to his sons, “When I die, bury me in the grave where the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones. 32 For the message he declared by the word of the LORD against the altar in Bethel and against all the shrines on the high places in the towns of Samaria will certainly come true.”

33 Even after this, Jeroboam did not change his evil ways, but once more appointed priests for the high places from all sorts of people. Anyone who wanted to become a priest he consecrated for the high places. 34 This was the sin of the house of Jeroboam that led to its downfall and to its destruction from the face of the earth.

1 Kings 13 NIV 2011

10 He desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice their son or daughter in the fire to Molek. 11 He removed from the entrance to the temple of the LORD the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun. They were in the court[a] near the room of an official named Nathan-Melek. Josiah then burned the chariots dedicated to the sun.

12 He pulled down the altars the kings of Judah had erected on the roof near the upper room of Ahaz, and the altars Manasseh had built in the two courts of the temple of the LORD. He removed them from there, smashed them to pieces and threw the rubble into the Kidron Valley. 13 The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption—the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molek the detestable god of the people of Ammon. 14 Josiah smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles and covered the sites with human bones.

15 Even the altar at Bethel, the high place made by Jeroboam son of Nebat, who had caused Israel to sin—even that altar and high place he demolished. He burned the high place and ground it to powder, and burned the Asherah pole also. 16 Then Josiah looked around, and when he saw the tombs that were there on the hillside, he had the bones removed from them and burned on the altar to defile it, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by the man of God who foretold these things.

17 The king asked, “What is that tombstone I see?”

The people of the city said, “It marks the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and pronounced against the altar of Bethel the very things you have done to it.”

18 “Leave it alone,” he said. “Don’t let anyone disturb his bones.” So they spared his bones and those of the prophet who had come from Samaria.
2 King 23 NIV 2011

 

[Mark C]

"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.

[and]

...But since Paul's "opinions" or "suggestions" are part of scripture...[isn't it thus] the Word [as well?]

Pretty good, but the more complete answer is in fact quite simple, and consistent. If something seems to be "new" - and is in CONTRADICTION to the FOUNDATION established so clearly "in the Beginning" - then it is an interpretation of His "teaching and instruction", and not a commandment. In point of fact (see Peter's warning in II Peter 3:15-16) it may well be MIS-interpretation, or just plain bad translation, in the 'common English understanding'. (And Randy is right about Job's friends, and the fact that the Adversary has ALWAYS known how to deceive by mixing the Truth with a Little Bit o' Lie.)

After all, the "Word Made Flesh" said explicitly that even He did not come to change the smallest part of what He had Written to Moses and the prophets so long as "heaven and earth" still exist. Paul/Shaul certainly knew better than to overrule his Master.

Scripture is careful to provide (as He also says) two or more witnesses. Study what is Written in Torah, as Paul obviously did, and you will observe that not a word of what he wrote about marriage, in I Corinthians or anywhere else, contradicts that instruction.

A "former Baptist preacher" friend of mine puts it succinctly this way:

'If you plan to preach it in the "New", you had better first find it in the "Old".'

 

[CecilW]

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."

I, too, very much appreciated this short version of the argument.

However, may I add a suggestion as to "idios"? I believe that there are a couple of passages that make the corporate ownership issue clearer. It is almost as though the best translation would be "the one that owns me" or "the one to which I belong".

One passage (Matt 9:1) in the Gospels said that Jesus departed and returned to his own country. I think it was after healing the nekkid hill-billy and setting a whole herd of pigs' feet to pickling in the lake. Obviously, it was also their "own" country to everyone else who lived there.

Luke 2:1-3 has every man going to be registered in his "idios" city, which was also the "idios" city of a whole buncha other folks, 'cause there wasn't room at the in for one very preggers mamma!

Then, I think that there's another, perhaps in Timothy or James, telling servants to be obedient to their own masters, who could obviously be the master of other servants as well. Don't have the reference handy.

There are a bunch more in Romans, Jude, and the gospels. All have that same "corporate ownership" flavor, "the one where we belong."

*shrug* Dunno if those help or not. Anyways, I'm heading off thataway for some of Cindy's lasagne.

 

[DaPastor]

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."

I, too, very much appreciated this short version of the argument.

However, may I add a suggestion as to "idios"? I believe that there are a couple of passages that make the corporate ownership issue clearer. It is almost as though the best translation would be "the one that owns me" or "the one to which I belong".

I'm sorry, I don't have exact references handy, they're buried in backups of computers past, but ...

One passage in the Gospels said that Jesus departed and returned to his own country. I think it was after healing the nekkid hill-billy and setting a whole herd of pigs' feet to pickling in the lake. Obviously, it was also their "own" country to everyone else who lived there.

Then, I think that there's another, perhaps in Timothy or James, telling servants to be obedient to their own masters, who could obviously be the master of other servants as well.

*shrug* Dunno if those help or not. Anyways, I'm heading off thataway for some of Cindy's lasagne.

I would agree that the Mary thing is probably not the best example. I plan to do a detailed Word study comparison someday...lol, but just havent been able to find the time. As far as "the one that owns me" idea, I will need to see if that would fit consistently with other passages.

 

[CecilW]

Perhaps "One to which I belong".

Found some references and edited my post. Also sending you the article I had. Might oughta post it here.

 

[CecilW]

Does 1 Corinthians 7: 2 Exclude Polygamy?

By Isaac Aluochier, circa 1998

It is said by some that 1 Corinthians 7: 2 excludes or prohibits polygamy, in that the Greek word translated "own", in the phrase "let each woman have her own husband", excludes joint ownership, that is ownership of a particular thing by more than one person. Does the Greek word translated "own" in the above mentioned phrase mean that a woman is not to own her husband jointly with another woman or other women, thereby making her ownership of her husband exclusive to her? And if so, would not this verse exclude the validity of polygamy, that is one man having more than one wife?

1 Corinthians 7: 2 reads, in the New King James Version (NKJV), (used throughout unless otherwise specified), "Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own [Strong's No. 1438] wife, and let each woman have her own [Strong's No. 2398] husband."

Strong's No. 1438 reads: heautou, heh-ow-too (incl. all the other cases); from a reflex. pron. otherwise obsol. and the gen. (dat. or acc.) of 846; him- (her-, it-, them-, also [in conjunction with the pers. pron. of the other persons] my-, thy-, our-, your-) self (selves), etc.: - alone, her (own, -self), (he) himself, his (own), itself, one (to) another, our (thine) own (-selves), + that she had, their (own, own selves), (of) them (-selves), they, thyself, you, your (own, own conceits, own selves, -selves).

Strong's No. 2398 reads: idios, id-ee-os; of uncert. affin.; pertaining to self, i.e. one's own; by impl. private or separate:- x his acquaintance, when they were alone, apart, aside, due, his (own, proper, several), home, (her, our, thine, your) own (business), private (-ly), proper, severally, their (own).

Does idios exclude joint ownership in its meaning and usage? In other words, does the meaning and usage of idios imply sole ownership, that is one entity solely owning a particular thing without sharing that ownership with another? Scriptural usage of the word idios ought to shed some light on this matter.

SCRIPTURAL USAGE OF THE GREEK WORD IDIOS

Mattityahu 9: 1 states that Yah'shuah "got into a boat, crossed over, and came to his own [idios] city." Mattityahu 8: 28-34 shows that Yah'shuah had just been in the region of the Gergesenes (Gadarenes), whereby he cast out some demons from some demon-possessed men, and permitted the demons to enter into a herd of swine, whereupon the whole herd ran violently down some steep place into the sea and perished therein. The inhabitants of the city of that region then went out to Yah'shuah and begged him to depart from their region. It was then that "he got into a boat, crossed over, and came to his own [idios] city."

Now, did Yah'shuah exclusively own this city termed "his own city", or did he own it jointly with other inhabitants of that city? Is it not the case that Yah'shuah, by virtue of being a resident of that city, termed that city his own [idios], just as other residents of that city also termed that city their own [idios]? Does not this show that idios does not exclude joint ownership, but can include it, as clearly shown in Mattityahu 9: 1?

Luke 2: 3 states that "all went to be registered, every one to his own [idios] city." Verse 1 of Luke 2 shows that Caesar Augustus issued a decree that all the world should be registered, the census first taking place while Quirinius was governing Syria, as verse 2 states. The implication derived from verse 3 is that all had to travel to their cities or regions of origin to be registered therein. So Joseph, as verse 4 states, went up from the city he was residing in, Galilee, in the region of Nazareth, into the region of Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, for he was of the house and lineage of David.

Now, was Joseph the only one who was of the house and lineage of David, and therefore the only one with the right to term Bethlehem as his own [idios] city, excluding all others from so terming Bethlehem, or were there others who were also of the house and lineage of David, and who could also rightly term Bethlehem as their own [idios] city? Does not the record show that there were others who were also of the house and lineage of David, and who also considered Bethlehem their own [idios] city? In fact, does not verse 7 show that so many were these people who considered Bethlehem their own [idios] city that by the time both Joseph and Mary arrived at Bethlehem for the census, so crowded was Bethlehem with others who so termed Bethlehem as their own [idios] city that Joseph and Mary could not find accommodation at some inn, thereby leading to Yah'shuah, after his birth, being wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger? Does not this show that idios does not exclude joint ownership, but that its usage does in fact include joint ownership?

Yahchanan (John) 4: 44 states that Yah'shuah "himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own [idios] country." This testimony is recorded in Mattityahu 13: 57 where Yah'shuah is noted to have said to those Galileans who were offended at him, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house."

It should be clear that prophets do not exclusively own their countries in the sense of residence or genealogical origin. This ownership they have of their countries is shared ownership with others who also reside in or also genealogically hail from those countries. It is therefore seen that idios does not exclude shared ownership, for the usage in the above-mentioned scriptures clearly shows its meaning including shared or joint ownership.

Acts 2 verse 5 states that devout Jews from every nation under heaven were dwelling in Jerusalem. Verse 6 states that when the sound mentioned in verse 2 occurred, "the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own [idios] language." They were all amazed and said to one another in verses 7 to 11 "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own [idios] language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs - we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of" the Almighty.

Is it not clear that the various members of the multitude in Jerusalem were not the only individuals who respectively spoke or had ownership of the languages in which they were born? There were several others who respectively spoke those languages of their birth, the languages they called their own [idios]. It should therefore be clear that idios does not exclude shared ownership, for one's own [idios] language is not owned exclusively by one, but is shared in ownership by all those born in that language and therefore speak it. If one could exclusively own a language in the sense of being born in it and speaking it, then that one would be the only one who would be speaking that language, thereby not being able to communicate with others when speaking that language. The word idios does not exclude shared or joint ownership, but includes it in its usage.

Acts 4: 23 shows that after the apostles Kefa (Peter) and Yahchanan had been let go by the chief priests and elders of Israel "they went to their own [idios] companions and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them." This verse clearly shows that the companions were not Kefa's to the exclusion of Yahchanan, or vice versa, but were common to both of them. The usage of idios in this verse clearly shows joint or common ownership usage. The word idios does not therefore exclude shared or common ownership, but includes it in its usage.

Acts 13: 36 shows Shaul (Paul) stating that "David, after he had served his own [idios] generation" by the will of the Almighty, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption. David's generation was not exclusive to himself, but he was one amongst many who were also of the same generation, and therefore these others who were also of the same generation rightly called that generation their own [idios] generation. The usage of idios does not exclude common or shared ownership, but includes it.

Acts 25: 18-19 shows Festus stating that, as part of his laying of Shaul's case before King Agrippa, "When the accusers stood up, they brought no accusation against him of such things as I supposed, but had some questions against him about their own [idios] religion" and about a certain Yah'shuah, who had died, whom Shaul affirmed to be alive. In its usage in this verse idios shows common ownership of religion, rather than singular exclusive ownership. For the religion referred to here is that of the Jews, which belonged to or was owned by the Jews as a group of people, rather than by a single Jew to the exclusion of all others. The usage of idios does not therefore exclude common or shared ownership, but includes it.

Romans 10: 3 shows Shaul stating, in speaking of the Israelites, that they were ignorant of Yahweh's righteousness, "seeking to establish their own [idios] righteousness," and had not submitted to the righteousness of Yahweh. Two distinct righteousnesses are spoken about over here, one belonging to Yahweh, and the other belonging to the Israelites. Of this latter righteousness belonging to the Israelites the usage of the word idios shows that the Israelites collectively had a claim over it. In other words, one Israelite to the exclusion of all the other Israelites did not claim the righteousness the Israelites collectively had a claim over. Rather it was jointly claimed by all the Israelites. The usage of idios does not therefore exclude common or joint ownership, but includes it, as in its usage in the above-mentioned verse.

Romans 11: 24 shows Shaul, speaking to the Gentiles, stating that "if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these," speaking of the Israelites, "who are natural branches, be grafted into their own [idios] olive tree?" Shaul's usage of idios clearly showed joint ownership by the Israelites of the cultivated olive tree. His usage of idios did not exclude common or joint ownership, but included it.

Titus 1: 12 shows Shaul stating, in reference to many insurbodinate idle talkers and deceivers, especially of the circumcision party, that "one of them, a prophet of their own [idios], said 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.'" Shaul's usage of idios in this verse shows that this individual prophet belonged to, or was of, this group of many insubodinate idle talkers and deceivers. Usage of idios can therefore show a single individual being owned or claimed by a group of people, as Shaul's usage of it in this verse shows.

Yahudah (Jude) 6 states: "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own [idios] abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day". Yahudah's usage of idios in this verse shows a plural group of persons - angels - having a singular abode, which they shared. Usage of idios does not therefore exclude common or shared ownership by plural persons of a singular thing or entity.

All the above-mentioned scriptures show that usage of idios does not exclude common, joint or shared ownership. It is therefore not correct for one to assert that idios excludes common, joint or shared ownership, allowing only sole ownership.

In the context of 1 Corinthians 7: 2 and its alleged prohibition of polygamy, that is wives being prohibited from common, joint or shared ownership of their husband, it is seen that this allegation does not hold any water on the strength of the usage of the word idios, for idios does not exclude shared, common or joint ownership, but in fact includes it. 1 Corinthians 7: 2 does not therefore appear to prohibit polygamy.

DOES 1 CORINTHIANS 7: 2 ALLOW WOMEN TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE HUSBAND?

Now someone may ask whether the word heautou allows shared, common or joint ownership, just as the word idios allows. And if so, whether women also are not prohibited by 1 Corinthians 7: 2 from having more than one husband?

Examination of the various scriptures in which the word heautou is used does not show an allowance for shared, common or joint ownership. These scriptures are: Luke 14: 26, Luke 22: 71, Yahchanan 20: 10, Acts 7: 21, Romans 4: 19, Romans 8: 3, Romans 11: 25, Romans 12: 16, Romans 16: 4, 18, 1 Corinthians 6: 19, 1 Corinthians 7: 2, 1 Corinthians 10: 24, 29, 1 Corinthians 13: 5, Galatians 6: 4, Ephesians 5: 28, 29, Philippians 2: 4, 12, 1 Thessalonians 2: 8, 2 Thessalonians 3: 12, Yahudah 6: 13, 18.

It therefore appears that 1 Corinthians 7: 2 does not give room to women to have more than one husband, for the word heautou does not appear to allow shared, common or joint ownership.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the clear implication of 1 Corinthians 7: 2, from the meanings of the words heautou and idios, as determined from their usage in various scriptures, is that while a wife is not allowed to be owned by more than one husband, a husband, on the other hand, is not prohibited from being owned by more than one wife. If a husband is so owned by more than one wife, then the ownership of those wives of him would be shared, common or joint. 1 Corinthians 7: 2 does not therefore prohibit polygamy, that is one man having more than one wife.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1998, All rights reserved. Servants of Yahweh, P O BOX 942, HARROW, Middlesex, HA3 9XY, UNITED KINGDOM, servantsofyahweh@serveyahweh.org. Permission is hereby GRANTED to reproduce, in entirety, this and other documents in the Servants of Yahweh web site, unless otherwise stated.

 

[PolyPride]

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

I agree with your point. I think looking at the context of 1 Corinthians 7 can also show that Paul was not mandating monogamy. First off, Paul is giving 'suggestions' in that part of the passage and not commandments from God. He's offering 'suggestions' of how to avoid sexual immorality. Paul never got married himself since he boasts about being single in the same chapter, 1 Corinthians 7, so if these were commands, why didn't Paul get married, esp. to avoid sexual immorality? Not the first time Paul has done this, also refer to 1 Corinthians 7:6. And Paul's suggestions did not have to be a comprehensive list of how to avoid sexual immorality since that's already laid out in the OT law. He simply 'suggested' one way to avoid sexual immorality and besides that his suggestion doesn't even reasonably guarantee or restrict someone from committing adultery, so I don't completely agree with Paul there. My conclusion, Paul is at best is giving 'suggestions' on how to avoid sexual immorality and he used monogamous marriage as ONE example not the ONLY example or way to do such.

 

[Tlaloc]

Corinth had one of the temples of Aphrodite, it also had a culture influenced by one of the very ancient (before the early 'Athenian Gardens' philosophers even) lawmaker Lycourgus (Spelling my be off, I've given away my reference books again in the name of polygamy). His idea of marriage could be summarized as such: 'the possessiveness men have for their wives is an abominable, if a strong young man should come to a city the weak and old should give their wives to him that they may bear strong citizens in his name so our people may become stronger' and so, at the time of the epistle the term 'to Corinithsize' meant something similar to what 'to swing' or 'to wife swap' meant to us.

1 Corinthians 7:2bc: "Let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband." this is as opposed to them having someone else's husband or wife. The "heautou" and "idios" distinction is of course very valuable to our cause, but the meat of the passage is that we are not to fornicate by trading or sharing spouses.

I did a writeup on the verse as a whole some time back that might be interesting, but it may not be pertinent to the current flow of conversation, so I'll put it in quotes so you can skip it if you like.

St. Paul has been railed against on many sides in the past and recently even by those who believe in Jesus. The forefront of the assault against him, so far as I’ve seen, deals with the perception that Paul was some way anti-marriage. This comes from various groups of Old Testiment thumpers who correctly see marriage and family as being crucially important to God’s plan, thus if Paul is against it, he is against God.

There are many points of Paul’s writings to consider, but for now I want to address 1 Corinthians 7. First I’d like to remind people that chapter and verse breaks (while ancient) are not original and thus for all intents and purposes arbitrary. They break mid topic or thought on a regular basis and are ultimately distracting. Anyway, Paul started talking about Fornication in 6:13 and finishes talking about it in 7:2 or 7:6 depending on how you look at it, and either way the chapter break tends to mess up both interpretation and translation.

Lets have a look at it, Verse 7:1 finishes “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” where the italics, like in a Bible, are words inserted for English readability with no original language parallels in original manuscripts. Those readability words are nice, in in the overwhelming majority of scripture they don’t change the meaning of the verse one bit. As they shouldn’t since they are not actually in the verse. By itself it really doesn’t look good when compared Gods own statement “It is not good that Man should be alone.” and his solution to that problem, creating women. Add Gods general command that mankind should leave their father and mother and cleave to their wife, and that one of the most basic marital duties (on both sides, as Paul himself elaborates on imminently after this subject) requires a great deal of touching.

Now, 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Why let everyone have their own spouse? To avoid. The reason here is in italics, the very focus of this verse is added by the translators. Now, I’m not saying they did a bad job, translation is very difficult and has to be done bit by bit then contextualized. 7:2 appears to be a rough translation done by verse rather than by subject and never properly reconciled (for it was properly reconciled to the context, the translator would not have had to create its focus from scratch). Normally you can cut out the italics and make good sense of the verse, “good for a man not to touch a woman” may not be exactly coherent, but anyone who reads on the internet regularly can see what the intent was. “Nevertheless fornication” makes it sound like fornication is a positive here. Now, I think we all know Paul is anti-fornication and the rest of the verse only makes sense in an anti-fornication light, so inserting to avoid is fair game if you only have the words in verse 2 to create a sentence.

Now, lets try ignoring the verse division, and cutting things off in our own way, lets start with “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication” Next, lets cut out the non-original stuff, the italics and punctuation. “good for a man not to touch a woman nevertheless fornication” and the astute will already see what I’m getting at. Now, we have another oddity in this verse, an unexpressed Greek word. If you use something like Strongs you can see that there is a number in parentheses over it, meaning there is a word there but it doesn’t mean what they said. I can scarcely express the word better than Strong did, it is “A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act”*. Remember I said fornication looks like a positive here? Well that’s because Paul is talking about a case where someone commits fornication, not avoiding it. So, now if we re add the appropriate italics we have

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman and** cause fornications***”

Now that is a passage that harmonized perfectly with reason and scripture. It doesn’t cause a problem with what come before it, and it harmonizes with what comes after, we now have.

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman and cause fornications. Let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband.” Beautiful. Harmonious.

*He does include to avoid on the list of things this has been translated to for his own reasons.

** Nevertheless can be more accuratly translated ‘but’ here, though rendering it ‘and’ lets me explain the passage much faster in English. ‘and’ is a valid rendering anyway

***This is plural in the Greek. I believe the reason is can be deduced from Matt 5:32 where both the divorced wife and whoever marries her are caused to commit adultery. Fornication is like adultery in that it takes at least two, causing one act of fornication invariable causes at least one other. The ramifications of that may cause others as well.

So, the section as a whole is a not this but that logic. Don't cause fornications by touching someone elses spouse but let everyone have their own. Very pertinent to the Corinthians considering where they lived and what they came out of becoming Christians, and pertinent today too.

 

[Isabella]

Corinth had one of the temples of Aphrodite, it also had a culture influenced by one of the very ancient (before the early 'Athenian Gardens' philosophers even) lawmaker Lycourgus (Spelling my be off, I've given away my reference books again in the name of polygamy). His idea of marriage could be summarized as such: 'the possessiveness men have for their wives is an abominable, if a strong young man should come to a city the weak and old should give their wives to him that they may bear strong citizens in his name so our people may become stronger' .

I will notpretend to know anything about Biblical verses but I do know my biology and there IS actually a biological basis for this idea. I know some people assume that because men do not go through a menopause like women do that 'It's all right Jack' until the day he drops! Actually, it isn't. The genetic health of sperm degrades year on year, the older you get, the worse your sperm get. It is very different from ovum, which we women have a birth, although we risk Chromosomal abnormalities with age, for the most part the genetic code is already formed from when we are young. Men constantly replenish their sperm cells, as the men age, the copies of DNA in their sperm ages. Hence a less genetically healthy baby being born. This habit of having children late is even more bad in terms of Paternal age than Maternal as the genetic health of the baby will be quite obvious (as in the case of Downs and Turner Syndromes) most children with chromosomal conditions can't or don't pass those on to future generations.
DNA mutations are more easily hidden, often present later in life and often when the defect has already been passed on. Late Paternal age can sometimes have a devastating effect on the health of populations if a widespread practice.


B

 

[steve]

well shucks then,
i guess that there is a good biological reason for treating your wife like a cow and having her bred to a younger bull

not a good moral one though

 

[steve]

excellent post, tlalac
knowing about the culture brings so much more depth to our understanding of what was written.

and the explanation of "not touch a woman" makes so much sense

 

[Isabella]

well shucks then,
i guess that there is a good biological reason for treating your wife like a cow and having her bred to a younger bull

not a good moral one though

No, I think the point is, men shouldn't feel they are doing any good by marrying women half their age (or younger) to keep producing children well after their spermatozoa 'use by' date!

B

 

[steve]

just out of curiosity, what would the "cut-off age" be?

 

[Isabella]

just out of curiosity, what would the "cut-off age" be?

Surely you know Steve that all men think they are strong and virile till their dying day? It isn't for me to tell a man he is too old, but I should think that a community that regularly has 60+ year old men producing children over many generations, is just inserting a genetic time bomb into that community. It is the one respect where lifelong monogamy has its advantages, a man who is of a like age to his wife will only produce children as long as she can. Hence genetically healthier children.
However, this is off topic so I am sorry for intruding into this subject so much.

regards,
B

 

[Tlaloc]

Isabella,

I know, you would probably be interested to know that the early Greeks where not the only ones to put genetics in practice, the most notable group are a barbaric race from western Europe around 400 B.C. who the Greeks called the Troglodytes. They had widespread something that seems to be what we would now call dwarfism including the heart and health problems associated with it. Whenever someone from another group or tribe would visit they would give their wives to them so they could have strong and healthy children by the outsiders and reduce the effects of genetic decay on their race. They where also cave-dwelling, and the root of our modern idea of the horrible looking cave dwelling troglodyte monster.

The research I've seen says the same as you that 60+ is a very dangerous age to become a father, and I've seen the risk of genetic disease begins to increase around a 40 year old father and gradually gets worse until you get to that very bad 60+ point. I've actually kind of decided that 40-50 is when I'll stop having kids or accept any new wives of childbearing age.

The fathers age research is relatively new isn't it? I'd never heard of anything about it until around 2005. Did you know of some study before then? Just curious.

Steve,

Glad to help if I helped.