Does 1 Corinthians 7: 2 Exclude Polygamy?
By Isaac Aluochier
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 insurbodinate 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.
