Foreign Wives

I concur with your estimation on the opinions of Paul in that it is not necessarily a command from God.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, (He is saying Jesus himself is on record having spoken about this very thing) Let not the wife depart from her husband: (Jesus is on record speaking about this subject) see below Matt 5:32

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: (Jesus did not speak about this that we know of) If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

This does not mean that a christian has the right to put away a wife that believeth not if she is pleased to dwell with him, using the excuse that Paul said that it was optional to follow that advice. That would be a bad interpretation of "speak I, not the Lord" He simply means he did not have a command from the Lord Jesus Christ to refer to as he did with verse 10 When Jesus specifically said But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, savingfor the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: andwhosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matt 5:32)

We are almost in agreement, the fine line is that when Paul said "6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. " having already referred to the commandment of the Lord concerning Divorce he is saying that Jesus specifically talked about Divorce and therefore he could appeal to THAT commandment of the Lord (the Lord Jesus Christ) of which Jesus specifically was on record having talked about. The other things Paul addresses when he says he is speaking "by permission and not of commandment" means that he Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was giving Holy Spirit inspired advice but Jesus not on record of having spoken about that particular subject therefore there was no (commandment by the Lord about this.) This finer level of interpretation would eliminate the suggestion that if one did not like the advice they did not need to follow it. Examine the following:

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, (He is saying Jesus himself is on record having spoken about this very thing) Let not the wife depart from her husband: (Jesus is on record speaking about this subject)

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: (Jesus did not speak about this that we know of) If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

This does not mean that a christian has the right to put away a wife that believeth not if she is pleased to dwell with him, using the excuse that Paul said that it was optional to follow that advice. That would be a bad interpretation of "speak I, not the Lord" He is not saying that the Lord is not telling him to say this by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he is saying Jesus did not speak about this subject particularly, that is the only reason he does not have a commandment to point back to that Jesus mentioned.

We are almost in agreement, the fine line is that when Paul said "6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. " having already referred to the commandment of the Lord concerning Divorce he is saying that Jesus specifically talked about Divorce and therefore he could appeal to THAT commandment of the Lord (the Lord Jesus Christ) of which Jesus specifically was on record having talked about. The other things Paul addresses when he says he is speaking "by permission and not of commandment" means that he Paul by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was giving Holy Spirit inspired advice but Jesus not on record of having spoken about that particular subject therefore there was no (commandment by the Lord about this.) This finer level of interpretation would eliminate the suggestion that if one did not like the advice they did not need to follow it. Examine the following:

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, (He is saying Jesus himself is on record having spoken about this very thing) Let not the wife depart from her husband: (Jesus is on record speaking about this subject)

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: (Jesus did not speak about this that we know of) If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

This does not mean that a christian has the right to put away a wife that believeth not if she is pleased to dwell with him, using the excuse that Paul said that it was optional to follow that advice. That would be a bad interpretation of "speak I, not the Lord" He is not saying that the Lord is not telling him to say this by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he is saying Jesus did not speak about this subject particularly, that is the only reason he does not have a commandment to point back to that Jesus mentioned.

Completely agree.

Not sure about other countries, but even here in the US, again, not sure about other areas, but in northern New England up until and even including the huge influx of immigrants to work in the textile mills around the turn of the last century (well into the 1930's, and some would say even later), it was generally "frowned upon" to marry outside of your ethnic background. If you were, say Irish, you didn't marry a Pole, or a German or a French Canadian; you married Irish. And marriage outside of your own religion was almost unthinkable, although marriage between RC and Eastern Orthodox was sort of 'allowed'.

Within the older generation, it's not uncommon to hear people say, "Oh, you remember Joe; he married that Greek girl so-and-so." But it's said more in hushed tones; it's almost funny to hear it.

I suspect in ancient times it was likely more stringent and more "enforced".

Also you’re bringing other verses into the discussion, verses that are a commandment from God and not an expression of Paul’s desires (respectfully) shared by permission of the Lord.

Paul didn’t leave room for a rejection of righteous principles, as he only offered two options. Get married or don’t. But he did leave room for a rejection of his advice, to remain celibate. Your fear that someone would dismiss Paul’s opinion and do something unrighteous isn’t found in the context of the discussion. His opinion is optional.

Regarding woman in positions of authority in church, Paul said that he does not permit it but that is not the same as if God does not permit it.

It is not just another verse it is THE command paul was talking about.

If a christian has an unbelieving wife that wants to stay with him he does not have a right to put her away because Paul said "to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. "

Problem is, Paul does not appeal to his opinion in that case but the historical account in Scripture, thus God does not permit it...

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
(1Ti 2:11-14)

I am sorry, I didn’t realize that when Paul was expressing his opinion/desire on celibacy, he also expressed his view on divorce and not by way of command of the Lord. So we DO have two verses where he is expressing something not necessarily mandated by the Lord.

The word of God gives the grounds for divorce as we know for unfaithfulness. As for being unequally yoked, there has been arguments made that this would merit divorce but Paul here urges people to consider that just maybe their bond will allow the unbeliever to become a believer so stick around.

Hm... I thought this was a part of the verse that says “I command but not I, the Lord” but in fact in this instance he says “to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” We should also notice there is not a forbidding of divorce here, even in the command of God. Only that the woman is to remain unmarried or return to her husband if she decides to divorce on grounds not deemed admissible.

Interesting... 🧐

Yes. I think that as one reads the chapter a few times in the light of this idea that he is referring to something Jesus spoke about (everything Jesus taught them to observe was considered a commandment of Jesus) when he mentions commandment versus something that Paul is addressing using the Holy Spirit to speak through him because Jesus did not give a commandment about it that we know of, then we realize that he never meant to say that his advice is optional. His advice that marriage was optional does not change if he spoke by his own opinion as some think or if he said the Holy Ghost is saying marriage is optional. You see that there is no difference. However when he says I speak (but I do not know if the Lord Jesus spoke about this, yet I have the Holy Spirit so it is still the Word of the Lord to you) then we see it differently than this idea that we can take it or leave it.

I agree that it is not an optional opinion of Paul in the verse but I also believe he is talking about the relationship of husband and wife as Peter also used strikingly similar words in 1 Pet 3 as this passage and yet Peter was more verbose giving us a better understanding of what Paul must have been talking about when he said Teach or Usurp authority over a man. The application has nothing to do with women preachers. That is not in the text.

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
(1Ti 2:11-14)
Perhaps it is more of a direct reference to the home, but I would believe by extension, Paul's case can be applied to women exercising authority over a man in the Church setting as well.

His own father was a Pharisee and in those days the son followed the Father's path. Nothing to assume when you read the history of the Sanhedrin and Pharisee Members.

There were supposedly 7000 Pharisees and only 70 members of the national Sanhedrin.

I was speaking of Gameliel being a member of the Sanhedrin being documented.

I am sorry, I didn’t realize that when Paul was expressing his opinion/desire on celibacy, he also expressed his view on divorce and not by way of command of the Lord. So we DO have two verses where he is expressing something not necessarily mandated by the Lord.

Hm... I thought this was a part of the verse that says “I command but not I, the Lord” but in fact in this instance he says “to the rest speak I, not the Lord.” We should also notice there is not a forbidding of divorce here, even in the command of God. Only that the woman is to remain unmarried or return to her husband if she decides to divorce on grounds not deemed admissible.

Completely agree.

Not sure about other countries, but even here in the US, again, not sure about other areas, but in northern New England up until and even including the huge influx of immigrants to work in the textile mills around the turn of the last century (well into the 1930's, and some would say even later), it was generally "frowned upon" to marry outside of your ethnic background. If you were, say Irish, you didn't marry a Pole, or a German or a French Canadian; you married Irish. And marriage outside of your own religion was almost unthinkable, although marriage between RC and Eastern Orthodox was sort of 'allowed'.

Within the older generation, it's not uncommon to hear people say, "Oh, you remember Joe; he married that Greek girl so-and-so." But it's said more in hushed tones; it's almost funny to hear it.

I suspect in ancient times it was likely more stringent and more "enforced".

The big issue for the older folks would be intermarriage with blacks. There were two groups, black and white. Whites were English or Scotch-Irish.

Parts of the Northeast got imigrants from a wider variety of ethnic groups. I think whites in parts of the south had more homogeneous ethnic background.