View source for Own

[http://righteouswarriors.com/controversial/article7.html righteouswarriors.com] explains it this way:

{{quote|Another common objection to polygyny in the New Covenant is found in 1 Corinthians 7:2.

:''But because of whoring, let each one have his own [1438] wife, and let each woman have her own [2398] husband. (1 Corinthians 7:2, The Scriptures)'' 

:''and because of the whoredom let each man have his own [1438] wife, and let each woman have her proper [2398] husband (1 Corinthians 7:2, YLT)''
     
Some critics of polygyny believe that the wording "his own" and "her own" in this verse suggests monogamy over polygyny. It is sometimes argued that the phrase "let each woman have her own husband" implies that she must have ownership of her husband. Therefore, they reason, the husband couldn't be "owned" by another wife at the same time, since he would then be shared property. 

However, as we can see above, there are actually two different Greek words being translated as "own" in this verse. In fact, in the Young's Literal Translation, the original Greek word idios is more accurately translated as "proper", rather than "own" as in most English translations, signifying the different meaning. Again for clarity, let's refer to the Strong's Concordance for the definitions of these Greek words:
*1438. 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). 
*2398. 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).

There is a distinction between these two Greek words, signifying two types of ownership. Heautou implies sole "exclusive" ownership, that is, one entity solely owning a particular thing without sharing that ownership with another. Idios, by contrast, implies shared joint ownership, that is, ownership of a particular thing by more than one person. There is no word in the English language for exclusive ownership (heautou) versus non-exclusive ownership (idios), which is why they are both usually translated into English as "own". 

We have previously seen in Scripture that a wife is "owned" (heautou) exclusively by her husband and is not shared with other men, whereas a husband is "owned" (idios) jointly by his wives and is shared by each of them. To gain a clearer understanding of how this applies here, consider the same verse in context:

:''But because of whoring, let each one have his own [1438] EXCLUSIVE wife, and let each woman have her own [2398] NOT NECESSARILY EXCLUSIVE husband. (1 Corinthians 7:2, The Scriptures)''

Another way to look at this is that Heautou stresses the exclusivity of the possession (the "owning"), whereas idios stresses the exclusivity of the relationship (the "being owned" or the "belonging to", as it were). In other words, a man might say, "That is MY wife, she belongs to me and me ALONE". A woman, on the other hand, might say, "That is MY husband; I belong to him and him ALONE". 

For a clearer understanding of the usages and meanings of these terms, we'll need to see how these words are actually used elsewhere in Scripture. First, let's look at some examples of heautou:

:''"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and his own [heautou] life too, he is unable to be My taught one." (Luke 14:26, The Scriptures)'' 

:''And not having grown weak in belief, he did not consider his own [heautou] body, already dead, being about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb (Romans 4:19, The Scriptures)'' 

:''Love is patient, is kind, love does not envy, love does not boast, is not puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not seek its own [heautou], is not provoked, reckons not the evil (1 Corinthians 13:4-5, The Scriptures)'' 

:''For each one shall bear his own [heautou] burden. (Galatians 6:4, The Scriptures)''
     
"His own life", "his own body", "seek its own", "his own burden" - all implying exclusive ownership of the object in question. Now let's look at some examples of idios:
     
:''And entering into a boat, He passed over, and came to His own [idios] city. (Matthew 9:1, The Scriptures)'' 

:''For Yahushua Himself witnessed that a prophet is without appreciation in his own [idios] country. (John 4:44, The Scriptures)'' 

:''And when this sound came to be, the crowd came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own [idios] language. (Acts 2:6, The Scriptures)'' 

:''Who are you that judges another's servant? To his own [idios] master he stands or falls. But he shall be made to stand, for Elohim is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4, The Scriptures)'' 

:''And the messengers who did not keep their own principality, but left their own [idios] dwelling, He has kept in everlasting shackles under darkness for the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6, The Scriptures)''
     
In each case of idios, the concept of a shared, common or joint ownership is understood. When Yahushua went to his own city, he jointly "owned" it with the other inhabitants of that city. Other residents also termed that city their own (idios). The same is true in each of the examples, whether country, language, master or dwelling. Each of these was jointly "owned" by others, which they shared. It is clear from the context of the verses that these people didn't exclusively "own" the country, or the languages, or the master, or the dwelling. These things were obviously shared with others. 

Therefore, the clear implication of 1 Corinthians 7:2, as determined from the usage of the Greek words heautou and idios 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 allowed to be owned by more than one wife. If a husband were owned by more than one wife, the ownership of him by those wives would be shared, common or joint ownership, as demonstrated by the term idios in 1 Corinthians 7:2. 

We understand that a master can have more than one servant, but a servant can only have one master. We also understand that the husband is called to be the leader of his family. But just as "no man can serve two masters", no wife can serve two husbands. A woman cannot have two husbands because she cannot follow two leaders. But a man can have two wives because it is perfectly possible to lead more than one person. This principle can be easily understood using the imagery, "A head can have more than one member, but a member cannot have more than one head". 

We've already established that the Greek word 'gune' (Strong's #1135) can be properly translated into English as either "woman", "women", "wife" or "wives", depending on the context. This is relevent because 1 Corinthians 7:2 could just as correctly be translated as:
     
:''But because of whoring, let each one have his own wives, and let each woman have her own husband. (1 Corinthians 7:2, The Scriptures)''
    
In light of the correct understanding of this passage, the original Greek word gune could legitimately be translated into English as either "wife" or "wives", given the established context of ownership.}}