• 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 7:1-2 commands monogamy...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scarecrow

Scarecrow

Member
I came across two different situations where individuals were using 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 to say that it was proof that monogamy was commanded. To both of them I gave a short reply stating that Paul was telling people to get married rather than participate in fornication and that it had nothing whatsoever to do with polygyny. I also explained that if these verses indicated that polygyny was sexually immoral then we would also need to conclude that Abraham, David, Gideon, Joash, and others that had more than one wife simultaneously were actually sexually immoral and would not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) even though God called them righteous.

These encounters caused me to revisit and revise a document I put together last time I came across this and would like your critique of it. Any suggestions to improve or correct it will be appreciated...

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 NowG1161 concerningG4012 the things whereofG3739 ye wroteG1125 unto me:G3427 It is goodG2570 for a manG444 notG3361 to touchG680 a woman.G1135 Nevertheless,G1161 to avoid(G1223) fornication,G4202 let every manG1538 haveG2192 his ownG1438 wife,G1135 andG2532 let every womanG1538 haveG2192 her ownG2398 husband.G435

The Apostle Paul is teaching that in order to avoid fornication it is better for a man to take a wife or a woman to take a husband – that’s it – that is the entire message. The purpose of this verse is not to initiate a new law limiting a man to only one wife.

So the question is; does 1 Corinthians 7:2 prohibit a man from having more than one wife?

Let us look at the situation addressed by Paul. The beginning of the verse states:

“because of the temptation to sexual immorality”

Paul is addressing sexually immoral acts; in particular fornication (sex outside of marriage). If we wish to interpret this verse as implying that having more than one wife would be considered sexually immoral then we would also be forced to conclude that Abraham, David, Gideon, Joash, and many other men that God called righteous are in fact not righteous. Indeed, the Apostle Paul stated that the “sexually immoral” would not inherit the kingdom.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

According to the Jewish calendar it was approximately the year 3800 when the Apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (1st century) and approximately the year 4300 (6th century) when the Catholic Church instituted policy against the practice of polygyny; that in itself should point out the hypocrisy of any teaching against polygyny. Why would God, 3800 years after creation, suddenly institute a new law through an Apostle making it sinful to participate in something numerous patriarchs participated in with impunity? To make that assertion is saying God allows sin at one time and doesn’t allow it at other times; which leads to the conclusion that Jesus died for nothing because God can change His mind at any time about what is sinful and what is not. I am reminded of the verse:

Numbers 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

If God changes his mind at any time about what is sin and what is not he is no longer a just (fair) God. We will not stand before God in judgment and hear Him say “well that wasn’t sin when you were doing it, it became sinful later”. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds! Well that is what those who teach that polygyny is sin are saying, and it is ridiculous.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 are simply instruction…it is better to take a wife or a husband and fulfill your sexual desires with them then to participate in the sin of fornication. Marriage is God’s prescription to cure fornication. This is clearly the case because it follows the teaching by the Apostle Paul that it is better to remain single then to be married if one is gifted and able to do so; if one is able to avoid acting upon sexual temptation.

Sin is sin, and is clearly acknowledged throughout the Old and New Testaments. When Rahab lied about the whereabouts of the spies the scriptures do not state that it was ok for her to lie just that one time. The scriptures clearly spell out numerous times that lying is a sin. You will not find any scriptures stating that polygyny is a sin or any reference to a man participating in polygyny as being sinful because of it.

First point of study:

“man have his own (heautou) wife” his own simply means belonging to him in a possessive way and is not strictly singular or plural; it can be either. A man with more than one wife could point to any of his wives at any time and say “she is my own (heautou) wife”, meaning that she is not the wife of another man.

G1438 ἑαυτοῦ (heautou) heh-ow-too'
(Including all the other cases); from a reflexive pronoun otherwise obsolete and the genitive (dative or accusative) of

G846; him (her, it, them, also [in conjunction with the personal pronoun 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).

Second point of study:

“man have his own wife (gunē)“ gunē is used for the words wife, wives, woman, and women in the New Testament. Interestingly enough ('ishshâh and nâshı̂ym) are used in the Old Testament and are also translated as wife, wives, woman, and women. It is not singular or plural in nature, but is used both ways. Therefore it cannot be stated conclusively that it represents only one woman. It could just as easily be translated “man have his own wives (gunē)“ because there is no prohibition anywhere in the scriptures against a man having more than one wife.

G1135 γυνή (gunē) goo-nay' Probably from the base of G1096; a woman; specifically a wife: - wife, woman.

Matthew 9:20 And,G2532 behold,G2400 a woman,G1135 which was diseased with an issue of bloodG131 twelveG1427 years,G2094 cameG4334 behindG3693 him, and touchedG680 theG3588 hemG2899 of hisG846 garment:G2440

Matthew 14:21 AndG1161 they that had eatenG2068 wereG2258 aboutG5616 five thousandG4000 men,G435 besideG5565 womenG1135 andG2532 children.G3813

Matthew 19:8 He saithG3004 unto them,G846 MosesG3475 becauseG4314 of theG3588 hardness of your heartsG4641 G5216 sufferedG2010 youG5213 to put awayG630 yourG5216 wives:G1135 butG1161 fromG575 the beginningG746 it wasG1096 notG3756 so.G3779

Third point of study:

“let every woman have her own (idios) husband” similar (but opposite) to the way (heautou) is used, the word (idios) also denotes a plurality; however in this case as the definition below shows it can be more than one individual pointing to the same object…more than one woman referring to the same man.

”(her, our, thine, your) own (business), private (-ly), proper, severally, their (own).

Our own business…one of his wives could say “our own husband” – severally…this should be obvious – their own…as in the third person speaking about two or more women “he is their husband (they are his wives)”.

G2398 ἴδιος (idios) id'-ee-os Of uncertain affinity; pertaining to self, that is, one's own; by implication 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).

Fourth point of study:

“let every woman have her own husband (anēr)“ unlike all the other terms studied thus far (anēr) is only used in the singular. This agrees with many other scriptures indicating that a woman is bound to her husband alone, yet a man is not bound to only one woman.

G435 ἀνήρ (anēr) an'-ayr A primary word (compare G444); a man (properly as an individual male): - fellow, husband, man, sir.

It is interesting to note that gunē refers to “a wife”, yet anēr refers to “an individual male”. A man could refer to any of his wives as “a wife” of his; it would be grammatically impossible for a woman to refer to one of her husbands as her “individual husband”.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the apostle Paul was not attempting to contradict God:

1) Men with more than one wife are never addressed in the scriptures as being sexually immoral.

2) Paul was stating that one should be married rather than participating in sexually immoral acts and was not addressing polygyny whatsoever.

3) gunē, and 'ishshâh or nâshı̂ym) are used in the plural sense, yet anēr is used strictly in the singular. If anything 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 actually supports the argument for polygyny.

Not surprisingly these words and their meanings having either a singular or plural nature are consistent with other scriptures. Where upon it is a basic and simple conclusion that when related to the husband of a woman scripture is always found to be singular, and when referring to the wife of a man the singular and plural are both found.
 
Excellent Scarecrow!

You have covered the issue very well there.

As far as a critique I'll offer two brief points:
1. Before the 11th century there was no term known as "wife." So when we are translating the text of Scripture today and we examine history we discover that the term wife as created and defined by the Roman Catholic State system would not be the appropriate translation of the original Greek or Hebrew. The original languages indeed used the two word system (ἑαυτοῦ γυνή - his woman). That is a private style of relationship whereas the term wife was a legally created term that conveyed a person given to another by the legal entity. A literal translation of the text from the donor language into our recipient language cannot support the statized one term "wife" as it reflects a different system than the two word system (a. private cohabitation relationships versus b. legally created and publicly defined state defined relationships).

2. You noted that God would not change what he calls sin. Yet, I do know from your own confession that you believe some adjustments were made to the laws of God under what you and I would call progressive revelation. For example, it was sin not to offer animals as a sacrifice for sin under the OC administration. Today that is no longer the requirement as Christ has come as God in the flesh for the sacrificial lamb for sin once and for all. So there is indeed a change. I know you also affirm an adjustment in the food laws as well. So that point you were making would not coalesce with your own confession very well. I imagine you might qualify that with God does not change in his Moral Law. That is a common perspective among godly Evangelicals and particularly Covenant Calvinists (moral law, civil law, ceremonial law divisions). In that light there is indeed some hefty arguments made to validate that type of qualification. Yet even so in this situation we do not really have to worry with that finer point because both the OC and NC both provide teachings on this subject. In Acts 15 the apostles applied the sexual immorality laws over onto the the NC saints and throughout the NC writings the various types of immoral sexual sins were stated again that align with what was stated in Lev. 18. Furthermore since the OC relationship of a man and woman is now typologically presented by Christ to his people we can also see one head with multiple members under his headship, which is again a strong place to see continuity among the testaments.

Outside of those two points I think you have properly addressed the issue. The point of the text written to Corinth was indeed to press each man to have his own woman and each woman to have her man instead of people living in sexual disorder like in orgies and prostitution etc.
 
Excellent arguments, Scarecrow.

Strengthening your points about heautou vs idios, you could include other verses where each is used, such as Jesus returning to His own country (which was also the country of many thousands of other people), or a man eating his own food, which could obviously only go through one person. I think that doing so strengthens the case to the hearer.
 
I do not know if this is what they were referring to but someone told me whenever wife or woman is singular instead of plural it is further evidence that polygyny is forbidden. They would argue wife is singular in 1 Corinthians 7:2 and therefor it forbids polygyny of course a singular wife is more than zero wives so that would forbid being unmarried if they insisted...... (unless a singular word in Greek can mean 0 unlike English)

Is there any Greek ending that can mean singular inclusive or plural or are the Greek endings actually singular exclusive or plural? Many people say that because an ending is singular it prohibits plural marriage but a plural ending could not be singular so would a plural ending prohibit only marrying one wife instead of zero or two or more? Clearly unless it was a special exception to the rest of the new testament Greek language it had to be plural exclusive or singular. This creates great problems if someone uses the plural or singular endings that way in interpretations of other commands consistently.

a inclusive or b = a and or b
a exclusive or b = a or b but not a and b

Now if a married man needs a second wife in order to avoid fornication and or continual extra temptation, unless he did something his first wife did not want and or that could physically harm his first wife if for instance his first wife had poor health temporarily due to something or another. Wouldn't it suggest a married man should get a second wife to avoid fornication?
 
said:
Men with more than one wife are never addressed in the scriptures as being sexually immoral.
Click to expand...

Esau and David were sexually immoral but scripture did not say they were sexually immoral because of having more than one wife, translations I have read merely teach something like that they were sexually immoral and had more than one wife.

Esau sold his birthright

David and Uriah's wife
 
Good points...and thank you all for your input...iron sharpens iron...

editing...editing...editing...ok...done!
 
We've all come across scores of persons that hold to the notion that there is a command in this passage.
Some individuals, even when shown the flaw in their logic, continue to claim there is a command in these verses. Those that refuse to see the truth are bound to never grow up and may lose their souls for such. :oops:

God is no respector of persons. If He did not cut the Pharisees some slack then He will not the christians:
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Mark 7:9
 
Scarecrow said:

Paul is addressing sexually immoral acts; in particular fornication (sex outside of marriage). If we wish to interpret this verse as implying that having more than one wife would be considered sexually immoral then we would also be forced to conclude that Abraham, David, Gideon, Joash, and many other men that God called righteous are in fact not righteous. Indeed, the Apostle Paul stated that the “sexually immoral” would not inherit the kingdom.
Click to expand...
Very nice job Scarecrow, and thanks.

My only comment, or perhaps question if I am wrong, pertains to the idea that sex outside of marriage is actually a sin in the way I think you intended to express the concept. Particularly, many of the men we've discussed as blameless or righteous (i.e. Abraham, Jacob, David, etc.) kept concubines but there is no indication (as far as I am aware) that such a practice was considered sexual immorality. Indeed, after Absalom went into David's ten concubines (left to care for his house), and after David recovered his house, he chose to provide for these ten as though they were his but did not go into them anymore http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Samuel+20:3&version=ESV, preferring rather to care for them as widows.

Though my opinion on this is speculative, I believe he did this to avoid fornication in the sense that God considers it sin. Fornication comes from the Latin fornicare (woman of the arch); which refers to a prostitute who trades sex for some tangible benefit for herself. In essence, the prostitute is her own (i.e. belongs to no man, or belongs to one of the enemie's men or women) and uses various men as she sees fit for her provision. In the Greek, the word used is porneo. In either case though, the word refers to a prostitute. Most English translations render this word as 'sexually immoral' or something similar; which is a much broader term in consideration of modern usage and cultural bias toward the 'monogamy only' worldview.

Thus, I do not believe that a sexual relationship between a man and a woman outside of marriage is necessarily fornication. I believe that fornication obtains whenever a man has a sexual relationship with a woman who also has sexual relationships with other men. In other words, the sexual relationship between the woman and the man is not exclusive on the part of the woman.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the difference between a wife and a concubine is the Ketuba or marriage contract. The concubine has the same status in the household as any other wife.
 
Scarecrow said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the difference between a wife and a concubine is the Ketuba or marriage contract. The concubine has the same status in the household as any other wife.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have this same understanding, with the exception that she may not have the same 'rights' compelled by the Ketuba; which suggests there might be a hierarchy of wives in such a house. Thus, they would have the same 'status' depending upon how one defines status.
 
So, you are saying a woman is not the mistress of her own sexual destiny, B
 
It must be one particular man, else it is fornication. Of course a woman can choose to belong sexually to no one just as well. If a married woman gives herself sexually to a man that is not her husband, they are committing adultery. If an unmarried woman gives herself sexually to multiple men, they are committing fornication.

Of course, I am speaking of only the sexual aspect of a relationship between a man and a woman. In addition (in case it wasn't obvious), my assumptions are that the Word of God is true (no doubt whatsoever), that I've understood what I've read within its pages (some doubt, but very little). Consideration of the evidence presented therein (posted above) and these assumptions leads me to the conclusion I've stated.
 
Ah ok, so a woman's choices are to be either chaste or married to one man and virtuous or a fornicator and sinful?
Whereas men are sexually free as long as they do not sleep with a married woman
B
 
Isabella said:
Ah ok, so a woman's choices are to be either chaste or married to one man and virtuous or a fornicator and sinful?
Whereas men are sexually free as long as they do not sleep with a married woman?

B
Click to expand...
Almost. Women can be concubines as well and still be virtuous, and men are not sexually free, but rather are restricted.
 
Oreslag said:
Almost. Women can be concubines as well and still be virtuous, and men are not sexually free, but rather are restricted
Click to expand...

So do you feel to prevent sin, it is the sexuality of a woman that needs controlling moreso than a man?

B
 
Isabella said:
Oreslag said:
Almost. Women can be concubines as well and still be virtuous, and men are not sexually free, but rather are restricted to women that belong to them.
Click to expand...

Or don't belong to anyone at all...if I understand your previous post?

So do you feel to prevent sin, it is the sexuality of a woman that needs controlling moreso than a man?

B
Click to expand...
Huh? Didn't I just point out that both need controlling? In any case, yes, not belonging to a man would be the end of belonging to a particular man to whom the woman did not previously belong. In other words, my assumption is that each woman begins by belonging to her father (no sexual relationship implied), and then being betrothed to a particular man or coming to belong to (under the authority of) a particular man through some other means (many possibilities). In modern times, this is not typical. Thus, the woman becomes independent of her father, yet chooses to remain chaste until choosing to belong to a particular man in one capacity or another (i.e. wife or concubine).

Perhaps I'm missing your point?
 
Just trying to clarify that you see women as sexual property. I don't really have any point in my mind, I just like to understand whether or not this is a widespread notion amongst Christian men.

B
 
Isabella,

I really don't think that the view is women as sexual property, and I don't think that Oreslag was saying that.

Submission is a hard concept to understand, especially for people who do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Submission is a very important issue in relation to marriage. Even before sin entered the world, there was still the principle of headship (1 Timothy 2:13). Adam was created first, and Eve was created to be a "helper" for Adam (Genesis 2:18-20). At the same time, since there was no sin, there was no authority for man to obey except God’s authority. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, sin entered the world, and then authority was needed. Therefore, God established the authority needed to enforce the laws of the land and also to provide us with the protection we need. First, we need to submit to God, which is the only way we can truly obey Him (James 1:21; 4:7). In 1 Corinthians 11:2-3, we find that the husband is to submit to Christ as Christ did to God. Then the verse says that the wife should follow his example and submit to her husband.

Submission is a natural response to loving leadership. When a husband loves his wife as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25-33), then submission is a natural response from a wife to her husband. The Greek word translated “submit,” hupotasso, is the continuing form of the verb. This means that submitting to God, the government, or a husband is not a one-time act. It is a continual attitude, which becomes a pattern of behavior. The submission talked about in Ephesians 5 is not a one-sided subjection of a believer to a selfish, domineering person. Biblical submission is designed to be between two Spirit-filled believers who are mutually yielded to each other and to God. Submission is a two-way street. Submission is a position of honor and completeness. When a wife is loved as the church is loved by Christ, submission is not difficult. Ephesians 5:24 says, “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” This verse is saying that the wife is to submit to her husband in everything that is right and lawful. Therefore, the wife is under no obligation to disobey the law or God in the name of submission.

Matthew Henry wrote: “The woman was made out of Adam’s side. She was not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be loved.” Believers are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21). In context, everything in Ephesians 5:19-33 is a result of being filled with the Spirit. Spirit-filled believers are to be worshipful (5:19), thankful (5:20), and submissive (5:21). Paul then follows his line of thought on Spirit-filled living and applies it to husbands and wives in verses 22-33. A wife should submit to her husband, not because women are inferior, but because that is how God designed the marital relationship to function. Submission is not a wife’s being a “doormat” for her husband. Rather, with the help of the Holy Spirit, a wife submits to her husband, and a husband sacrificially loves his wife.

In order to truly understand the concept of 'submission', at least from a Biblical perspective, is to have a personal, saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of your life.

Isabella, my prayer is that you can know my Jesus as well.

Blessings, my dear,

Doc
 
Doc, there is a difference between a personal religious relationship and extending that to a persons role in relation to others, to the extent that a value judgement is place on others who do not accept those restrictions for their lives.

I respect submission but I accept that as a personal decision a person makes to another person or being, not a rule.
But it is an aspect of dogma I find especially troubling and thoroughly self destructive to your religious movement, the other thread you closed proved this to be a contentious issue even amongst yourselves, but I am quite sure that you all find it all very comforting. I wish you all the best with your beliefs.

B
 
Isabella said:
I respect submission but I accept that as a personal decision a person makes to another person or being, not a rule.
But it is an aspect of dogma I find especially troubling and thoroughly self destructive to your religious movement, the other thread you closed proved this to be a contentious issue even amongst yourselves, but I am quite sure that you all find it all very comforting. I wish you all the best with your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Actually, I suspect that many of us find it very troubling, Bels. I know I do.

I would guess that the other thread got locked down because Doc felt that nothing new was being added, just getting to the point of personalities. And BF doesn't want to be a "debate club". There's a bit of a difference between sharing viewpoints, and going on a strong debate sort of attack. I'm guessing at what he was thinking, but it could well be that. Also, we have a whole separate debate forum for those who want to pursue it further in that manner.

The tension is between "that government governs best which governs least" and the anarchy of no rule along with the reality that in any social association, one person will emerge as the leader. Where is the balance point? The Bible, which is this forum's standard, mandates that the male take that leadership role. So how do we males execute the responsibility wisely? And in the face of differing female attitudes? And relational damage done by other males in a woman's life through abuse of their "power"?

Worse, what if the man isn't by nature an authoritative strong leader? More laid back, but married to a woman who is?

It is a puzzle. One which EVERY BF man I've spent time talking with personally has struggled with. EVERY one!

Please don't write us off as self-satisfied Bible-thumpers, Bels. While we acknowledge the principles of The Book, and do our best to base our thinking thereon, we struggle with the application as much as anyone else. Perhaps more, since we DO take it so seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top