Foreign Wives

[Scribe]

He qualifies his comment because it isn’t a command from God about an issue. He leaves it in the will of men to make the choice themselves. If a widow, for example, desires to marry again, she can. But she could equally choose to remain in celibacy. As I said, there can be wisdom found in what Paul is saying, but such wisdom is only applicable to the person who shares Paul’s evangelistic focus. But not everyone, hardly anyone, is called to celibacy as far as life reveals. I think Paul even describes it as “every man has his proper gift from God (for marriage or celibacy; 1 Corinthians 7:7).

I am not dismissing the authority of God’s word on matters, but when Paul clearly says he is sharing his opinion on something and not a command from the Lord, it can be received as godly advice or sound wisdom, depending upon the person and their aim in life and their desires. Obviously the message of celibacy wasn’t for the mother and father who birthed, let’s say, Billy Graham. Marriage is a part of God’s plan. Be fruitful and multiply. Paul’s desire for men to remain celibate was for them to be solely focused on pleasing God and focusing on His Kingdom, without any so called distractions (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). Again, this is an evangelistic mindset, but as I am sure he would agree, not practical with the desires of men and women. Hence, him saying it is better to marry than to burn with desire or passion. Paul wasn’t naive to think that God wanted all men to be celibate for efficacy in evangelism. He just simply expressed an observation or an argument for its case, whilst remaining realistic.

He makes it clear that his opinion is by the Holy Spirit. This makes it more than his own take it or leave it advice. It is what the Holy Spirit is saying to us. The Holy Spirit is saying what Paul said. That if you burn go ahead and marry, and if you have the gift stay single and stay focused on ministry. The Holy Spirit said that through Paul.

 

[presidente]

This is an interesting Verse here.
Saul was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin.
Members of the Sanhedrin were required to be married.
But your verse is Paul claiming not to be married.

Does this mean when Saul converted to Paul that his wife left him?
Historical records show a vast number of divorces between the Jews where 1 converted to Christ and the other remained under the Law in the first Century.
I wonder if Paul fits this category?

What is this based on, the idea that he would have been a member of the Sanhedrin? It seems likely to me that he converted as a young man before Gamaliel had laid hands on him to ordain him, before he 'graduated.' He also took a different stance from Gamaliel toward the church. Gamaliel's stance was to leave it alone and see what came of it. Saul's was to persecute. Even if he had been ordained, that would not make him a member of the Sanhedrin.

I am guessing that the idea that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin was based on this:

Acts 26:10
Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

Does 'gave my voice against them' mean that he was a voting member of the Sanhedrin? Maybe someone with some expertise in Greek could prove the point. He may have spoken against them as a witness to their teaching or preaching. There were also local elders who may have voted on a local level. I do not think there is enough evidence to prove that synagogues had no authority to execute for crimes they considered capital crimes, especially if there were authority from the priests in Jerusalem approving such actions, throughout the whole first century.

It could be that there was a restriction on it just around the time of Christ's death, which allowed for events to transpire as they did. Also, it could be like some Islamic communities today that will execute and carry out punishments based on religious law even if the national government does not have laws that specifically sanction it. There could have been the equivalent of 'lynch mobs' as far as the Romans were concerned, but operating within the bounds of accepted Jewish law. Romans might have turned a blind eye to it since those who would be offended by the execution of Jews would have been the Jewish community-- which was carrying out the execution in the first place. Paul could have spoken out for execution in communities outside of Israel outside of the Sanhedrin.

As far as I know, the idea that members of the Sanhedrin would have to be married would be based on the requirements for judges in Maimonides Tractate Sanhedrin which was written nearly 1000 years after the facts in question. Could some of the traditions have evolved in that time? Also, the Judaism of Maimonides was an extension of the house of Hillel. Modern Orthodox Judaism may present the Hillel stream as it evolved after the first century as __the__ Judaism of past ages on a lot of topics, when in reality, in the first century there were Jewish groups who were not Pharisees who had differing interpretations. The Sanhedrin had Shammai Pharisees also, and the Zadokite/Saducee group had a very different approach to Judaism. There were also Herodians mentioned in scripture. There were also revolutionaries like the Zealot and Scariot groups. There was a group not directly mentioned in scripture-- the Essenes which would have been outside mainstream society?

If one Hillel Jewish scholar 900+ years after the fact said that all judges had to be married, have children, be good-looking, etc. to be a judge and rise up through the ranks to the Sanhedrin, does that mean such was the universal practice in the first century? Was it even universal practice within the house of Hillel, of which Saul of Tarsus as a student of Hillel's grandson, would have been a part?

When he gave his reasons in his epistles that he might boast as a Jew, he did not include being a member of the Sanhedrin.

Is there any earlier source for the idea that members of the Sanhedrin had to be married?

 

[presidente]

We know for certain that he was a Pharisee. Not all Pharisees were married. Marriage was encouraged for Pharisees but not required to be a Pharisse. The 70 sanhedrin were required to be married. We know that Paul was trained by Gamelial who was a member of the Sanhedrin (extra biblical documentation also confirms that if I remember correctly)

I read (in an online post) that the only existing historical evidence for Paul being a student of Gamaliel was in the New Testament. If you know of another source, I would be interested in knowing about it.

 

[presidente]

I have often heard the conjecture that Paul was perhaps a widower - that his wife had died.
I would not expect that he would initiate a divorce himself, and do not know whether it was culturally allowed that a wife could initiate a divorce...? Particularly in the case of a highly regarded pharisee as Saul/Paul was. I would think that would be quite a stir, of course Paul's conversion itself must have been one!

Orthodox Judaism of the centuries that followed, when this stuff started to be written down, did not allow a wife to initiate a divorce. If a man did not provide for his wife as Torah required, the elders or judges might try to find some way to compell him to write the certificate.

But I am not sure if they had an exception for men they considered apostate and not a member of the community. It does not seem like the unbelieving Jews had quite gone that far with Christian Jews at that time, though they were persecuted.

I read that there was one exception to this, that the cheif priests had authorized Philip's wife divorcing him. After that, she married Herod. If I am not mistaken, that is recorded in Josephus' writings. That would have been a gross example of priestly corruption.

I know of no scripture that authorizes women to divorce men. And when Christ came, He restricted men divorcing women also.

 

[Scribe]

I read (in an online post) that the only existing historical evidence for Paul being a student of Gamaliel was in the New Testament. If you know of another source, I would be interested in knowing about it.

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

 

[bojack]

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
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: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

 

[Scribe]

In Ezra chapter 10 there is much to do about putting away their 'foreign wives' even their children.

Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have been unfaithful and have married foreign wives adding to the guilt of Israel. "Now therefore, make confession to the LORD God of your fathers and do His will; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives." Then all the assembly replied with a loud voice, "That's right! As you have said, so it is our duty to do.
(Ezr 10:10-12)



So how do we reconcile these passages...or should we, being under different Covenants?

What was he talking about? Who was he talking to? What are the cultural historical context? Ezra is talking to a people who were under the strict Law of Moses to not marry foreign wives. They were called to follow the Law of Moses and to adhere to a separation from the other nations to bring forth a promised messiah that would save the other nations if they put their faith in Him. They did not have to understand everything, just obey. I don't think we should use the word "unbelievers" here. He did not command them to put away "unbelieving wives" but foreign wives. It was strict adherence to the Law of Moses.
The principle of course would be that they would cause them to fall away and start worshiping other gods, which is what happened time and time again. Even the reference to the sons of God (those in Seths camp who begin to call themselves by the name of the Lord) going after the women in Cains camp and falling away to wickedness until only Noah was left of the sons of god is a FIRST reference to this constant theme in the bible.

Paul is talking to Christians, many of them Gentiles who know nothing of the Law of Moses. The context is different. We understand what Paul was talking about even in our own context as gentile Christians. The only way anyone could attempt to follow Ezras instructions would be to be a Jew and marry only a Jew. Paul is not talking to Jews in Corinth he is talking to all Christians Jew or Gentile. His instructions are not about whether the wife is Jewish or not therefore it cannot be compared, no reconciling is needed.

Now he does say that if they are single and decide to marry they should ONLY marry someone who is in the Lord (believers) but that is not the same situation of someone who got saved after they were married and their wife has not yet decided to follow Jesus. They should not put her away. That does not give a christian single man the excuse to missionary date or marry an unbeliever hoping she will come around, and Paul makes it clear the single man is free to marry, ONLY IN THE LORD.

 

[bojack]

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
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: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

This scripture is so wise and reaching, Paul shows his wisdom here and with common sense .. I'd say Paul had a wife at one time but I don't know .. He certainly was able to cover all the bases . I also think he was deep into it with concern for all situations for what is a right way of thinking .. Yet today we can still be forgiven if marriage is ruined by one or the other and with a way to move on .. God hates divorce and many are hurt by it but it is not the unpardonable sin .. It's why I tell all to always put Jesus first , not your wife or husband and there will be room for all .. I've seen some folks who went bonkers and even blame themselves for divorce that was not their fault .. Keep Jesus first ..

 

[crossnote]

Paul is talking to Christians, many of them Gentiles who know nothing of the Law of Moses. The context is different. We understand what Paul was talking about even in our own context as gentile Christians. The only way anyone could attempt to follow Ezras instructions would be to be a Jew and marry only a Jew. Paul is not talking to Jews in Corinth he is talking to all Christians Jew or Gentile. His instructions are not about whether the wife is Jewish or not therefore it cannot be compared, no reconciling is needed.

I realize the context is different, even a different dispensation (IMHO). But some others would argue, "But God does not change". True, but I believe this shows His dealings with man on a cultural/societal/national level sometimes does change.

 

[posthuman]

I realize the context is different, even a different dispensation (IMHO). But some others would argue, "But God does not change". True, but I believe this shows His dealings with man on a cultural/societal/national level sometimes does change.

After all He now takes for Himself a Bride called out of many foreign nations..

 

[biker]

I have often heard the conjecture that Paul was perhaps a widower - that his wife had died.
I would not expect that he would initiate a divorce himself, and do not know whether it was culturally allowed that a wife could initiate a divorce...? Particularly in the case of a highly regarded pharisee as Saul/Paul was. I would think that would be quite a stir, of course Paul's conversion itself must have been one!

I definitely agree. but most people never have connected to be a Member of the Sanhedrin you must be married. And then Paul states he was not. So that definitely alerts us to something happened there we won't know till we meet Paul in person.

 

[biker]

We know for certain that he was a Pharisee. Not all Pharisees were married. Marriage was encouraged for Pharisees but not required to be a Pharisse. The 70 sanhedrin were required to be married. We know that Paul was trained by Gamelial who was a member of the Sanhedrin (extra biblical documentation also confirms that if I remember correctly) Most likely Paul was being groomed to be a member of the Sanhedrin but there is not a shred of evidence that he was a member of the 70. I am of the opinion that he was very close to be elected and was being sent with thier authority in matters like arresting christians and giving assent for their death but I think he was saved before he was actually made a member. Now I know that I cannot prove that, but I believe that this is as close as anyone else can conjecture either. There is no proof that he was a member of the sanhedrin and all the evidence presented is what I have just mentioned, such as giving assent to their deaths (casting vote one shade of meaning of the greek is not conclusive of being a member of the Sanhedrin if he has been given letters from them to act in their authority as he says we was when he arrested christians that in itself suggest his vote or assent was in their name not that he was one of them yet) If he was a Pharisee but not yet a member of the Sanhedrin 70 then it is not true to say HE HAD to have been married. I don't really care if he had been married in the past or not. If she died, or left him because he was saved does not really matter to me but I do not agree that anyone can say they know he was for sure and preach and teach it as undisputable fact based on thier theory that he was one of the 12 even though history is silent on that. He was a Pharisee of the Pharisees and that can mean he was on the cusp of getting that brass ring of the pinnacle of success to become one of the 70 having been groomed by Gamelial and if that is true and he walked away from it all for the sake of knowing Jesus Christ we can appreciate the following statements:

If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 15Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. 16Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

Even by him training for the Sanhedrin would make one think he was married. One would assume that once his training was over, he surely planned on joining. He did say, he was a Pharisee above Pharisees. So it's probably a safe bet he was married and was going to be a member of the Sanhedrin.

 

[biker]

What is this based on, the idea that he would have been a member of the Sanhedrin? It seems likely to me that he converted as a young man before Gamaliel had laid hands on him to ordain him, before he 'graduated.' He also took a different stance from Gamaliel toward the church. Gamaliel's stance was to leave it alone and see what came of it. Saul's was to persecute. Even if he had been ordained, that would not make him a member of the Sanhedrin.

I am guessing that the idea that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin was based on this:

Acts 26:10
Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

Does 'gave my voice against them' mean that he was a voting member of the Sanhedrin? Maybe someone with some expertise in Greek could prove the point. He may have spoken against them as a witness to their teaching or preaching. There were also local elders who may have voted on a local level. I do not think there is enough evidence to prove that synagogues had no authority to execute for crimes they considered capital crimes, especially if there were authority from the priests in Jerusalem approving such actions, throughout the whole first century.

It could be that there was a restriction on it just around the time of Christ's death, which allowed for events to transpire as they did. Also, it could be like some Islamic communities today that will execute and carry out punishments based on religious law even if the national government does not have laws that specifically sanction it. There could have been the equivalent of 'lynch mobs' as far as the Romans were concerned, but operating within the bounds of accepted Jewish law. Romans might have turned a blind eye to it since those who would be offended by the execution of Jews would have been the Jewish community-- which was carrying out the execution in the first place. Paul could have spoken out for execution in communities outside of Israel outside of the Sanhedrin.

As far as I know, the idea that members of the Sanhedrin would have to be married would be based on the requirements for judges in Maimonides Tractate Sanhedrin which was written nearly 1000 years after the facts in question. Could some of the traditions have evolved in that time? Also, the Judaism of Maimonides was an extension of the house of Hillel. Modern Orthodox Judaism may present the Hillel stream as it evolved after the first century as __the__ Judaism of past ages on a lot of topics, when in reality, in the first century there were Jewish groups who were not Pharisees who had differing interpretations. The Sanhedrin had Shammai Pharisees also, and the Zadokite/Saducee group had a very different approach to Judaism. There were also Herodians mentioned in scripture. There were also revolutionaries like the Zealot and Scariot groups. There was a group not directly mentioned in scripture-- the Essenes which would have been outside mainstream society?

If one Hillel Jewish scholar 900+ years after the fact said that all judges had to be married, have children, be good-looking, etc. to be a judge and rise up through the ranks to the Sanhedrin, does that mean such was the universal practice in the first century? Was it even universal practice within the house of Hillel, of which Saul of Tarsus as a student of Hillel's grandson, would have been a part?

When he gave his reasons in his epistles that he might boast as a Jew, he did not include being a member of the Sanhedrin.

Is there any earlier source for the idea that members of the Sanhedrin had to be married?

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.

 

[biker]

• It is quite likely that Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrin. Acts 26:10 said that he cast his vote (usually a colored stone) to condemn Xian Jews to death by stoning. This formal vote by Paul in Jerusalem where Paul was living, would have been reserved to the Sanhedrin that met regularly in that city.

What evidence is there that the Apostle Paul had been a ...
christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11453/what-evidence-is-there-that-the-apostle-paul-had-been-a-member-of-the-sanhedrin

 

[BenFTW]

He makes it clear that his opinion is by the Holy Spirit. This makes it more than his own take it or leave it advice. It is what the Holy Spirit is saying to us. The Holy Spirit is saying what Paul said. That if you burn go ahead and marry, and if you have the gift stay single and stay focused on ministry. The Holy Spirit said that through Paul.

I can grant you this, his opinion is permissible by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 7:6). I don’t believe, neither do you (from what you’ve written), that it is a command from God (as Paul states) . They are options for the unmarried and widower, but I would say this.

His encouragement to be celibate was his desire (as he says, 1 Corinthians 7:7) and not necessarily the expressed desire of God or the Holy Spirit. He was permitted to express it because some people may have the gift for celibacy (again 1 Corinthians 7:7). The Holy Spirit didn’t find fault in what Paul was expressing, as it would be applicable to widows and the unmarried. A decision left to them (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

 

[Kavik]

Israelites were forbidden to marry certain ethnic groups. Priests could only marry Israelite virgins or other priest's widows.

Some of the ethnicities listed in Ezra were not from forbidden people-groups for Israelites. One way I thought to reconcile it with the Torah is that maybe the wives from non-forbidden people-groups that were expelled were married to priests.

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".

 

[posthuman]

I definitely agree. but most people never have connected to be a Member of the Sanhedrin you must be married. And then Paul states he was not. So that definitely alerts us to something happened there we won't know till we meet Paul in person.

personally my guess would be that he was favored to become one of the sanedrin - on his way towards it but the right time for him to be appointed had not yet come, and that his wife had died.

there's an argument that, what was he doing giving such advice about marriage, seemingly knowing what he was talking about, if he hadn't been? it's not a great argument - obviously he could receive knowledge from God without a need to have been personally involved in what he speaks about. but there's no hint he's unfamiliar, and in 1 Cor. 7:7-8 when he says he wishes we were all as he is, and to the unmarried 'and the widows' that it's better to remain 'as he is' -- it reminds me of Romans 7, where he says we have died with Christ in order to be espoused to a new Husband -- and it 'fits' in a way if he had been released from earthly marriage through earthly death.

some of the arguments about him not actually being one of the sanhedrin have already; that he didn't mention it ((tho 'pharisee of the pharisees' *could* be loosely interpreted that way)), that he had letters from the chief priests to persecute Christians, and even the fact that he was out doing it rather than sitting in a council somewhere having someone else do it.

of course i would only be guessing, and it would only be a speculative opinion. as was also already mentioned, Paul will let us know one day

 

[Scribe]

I can grant you this, his opinion is permissible by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 7:6). I don’t believe, neither do you (from what you’ve written), that it is a command from God (as Paul states) . They are options for the unmarried and widower, but I would say this.

His encouragement to be celibate was his desire (as he says, 1 Corinthians 7:7) and not necessarily the expressed desire of God or the Holy Spirit. He was permitted to express it because some people may have the gift for celibacy (again 1 Corinthians 7:7). The Holy Spirit didn’t find fault in what Paul was expressing, as it would be applicable to widows and the unmarried. A decision left to them (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

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.

 

[tourist]

These words of Paul's are often misunderstood to mean something completely different than what Paul intended.
When Paul says this command we have from the Lord and that the Lord said this not him he is referring to what Jesus said about divorce which you can read about in the Gospels. Jesus specifically taught about this.
However Jesus did not speak about the other things Paul mentions when he say I say not the Lord. He does not mean that the Lord is not in agreement with him. He does not mean that if you don't like what Paul says you don't have to follow it, LOL He says he is confident that he has the Spirit of the Lord and therefore he is saying that we do not have a commandment by Jesus on this but Paul is telling you this and Paul has the Holy Spirit inspiring him and so you can take it as a thing that would please the Lord even though we have no example in the Gospels of Jesus talking about this particular issue. Now do you get it? I know. Once you see it you wonder how you ever missed it.

The way I look at Paul's writing is this - if it is an opinion, then the counsel should be considered but it doesn't seem binding.

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.

As I have mentioned, when it comes to the opinion of Paul, I do believe that under the right circumstances you don't necessarily have to follow it. It was written that way for a reason otherwise it would just simply say, "thus says the Lord".

Of course the Holy Spirit was inspiring Paul to write what he did, the same for all of the other writers as well. In some instances the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to state his opinion, in other instances Paul is speaking directly for the Lord.

Yes, fortunately I do get it.

 

[tourist]

I can grant you this, his opinion is permissible by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 7:6). I don’t believe, neither do you (from what you’ve written), that it is a command from God (as Paul states) . They are options for the unmarried and widower, but I would say this.

His encouragement to be celibate was his desire (as he says, 1 Corinthians 7:7) and not necessarily the expressed desire of God or the Holy Spirit. He was permitted to express it because some people may have the gift for celibacy (again 1 Corinthians 7:7). The Holy Spirit didn’t find fault in what Paul was expressing, as it would be applicable to widows and the unmarried. A decision left to them (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

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