Epistles · Pastoral counsel
Text 07 / 08 · Jesus and Paul
Paul answers Corinth’s marriage questions
Tyndale NT1526First printed English
Illustrative artifact · does not contain this passage
“Let each man have his own wife” sounds like a numerical rule when it stands alone. In the conversation Paul is answering, some married believers appear to be asking whether they should stop sleeping together.
διὰ δὲ τὰς πορνείας ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω, καὶ ἑκάστη τὸν ἴδιον ἄνδρα ἐχέτω.
transliteration
dia de tas porneias hekastos tēn heautou gynaika echetō, kai hekastē ton idion andra echetō.
But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:2, a close literal rendering.
Many interpreters read verse 1, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman,” as a Corinthian position Paul is quoting. The Greek has no quotation marks, so that remains an inference from the answer that follows. Either way, Paul immediately tells husbands and wives not to deprive one another. The direct issue in these verses is marital intimacy and mutual obligation. A numerical conclusion, if Paul intends one, has to be drawn from the wording rather than from the question being asked.
A closer look at the important words
Open any term to see its range and where else Scripture uses it.
- let him have · Present imperative of “have.” Paul directs each husband and each wife to continue the marital relationship he is discussing. The tense contributes to that sense, but the verb alone does not tell us how many wives a man may have.
What is happening in the rest of the letter?
In chapter 5, Paul confronts a man sleeping with his father’s wife. In chapter 6, he confronts men going to prostitutes. When sexual conduct is the problem, he names it directly. Chapter 7 addresses singles, widows, married couples, and mixed-faith marriages without mentioning polygyny. In a Roman colony where citizens could not legally contract plural marriages, that silence is understandable, though not everyone in the congregation held the same civic status. The silence cannot prove either permission or prohibition.1
Why you may reach a different conclusion
The strongest point in the traditional reading is the symmetry:
Verses 3 and 4 give wife and husband mutual authority over one another’s bodies, and the symmetry is striking. Doesn’t mutual exclusive authority entail exclusive pairing?
Why I reach a different conclusion
That is a serious point. I read the symmetry as full mutual obligation within the marriage Paul is addressing, much like the undiminished duties in Exodus 21. I do not think that mutual authority necessarily establishes exclusivity, but the traditional inference is natural and cannot be dismissed by grammar alone. It has to be tested beside the passages that address plural households directly.
What I think this passage establishes
Paul tells married believers not to withdraw from one another and gives husband and wife matching obligations. I do not think the paragraph establishes a numerical rule. That does not prove polygyny is permitted. It means the traditional conclusion must come from the wider canonical case rather than from the word “own” alone.
1note
Corinth was a Roman colony, but the church included people with different civic and social standing. Roman citizen marriage law is part of the setting; it cannot be assumed to describe every person in the congregation.
Open the sources
- Bible Hub interlinear · 1 Corinthians 7 ↗ · The Greek, parsed word by word. archived copy
An archived copy is included when available, so you can still follow the citation if the original link changes.
The printable packets are temporarily unavailable while their sources and layout are reviewed. When they return, each packet will match the current page. Any material error reported after launch will also be recorded on the corrections page.
The next passage is 1 Timothy 3:2 · Titus 1:6 · 1 Timothy 5:9. The King James and RSV say “the husband of one wife.” The NIV says “faithful to his wife.” The NRSV says “married only once.” That difference matters, so we will start by asking why careful translators reach three different conclusions.