Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: paul's wife

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter W. Dunn" <pwdunn AT ilap.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: paul's wife
  • Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:25:51 -0400



Jim Hester wrote:
>Graydon, good to her from you! Of course I went too far! I was in a
>whimsical mood, but I still want to warn against over reading! I have no
>quarrel with the basic definition of agamos as referring to widows, etc.,
>but I can't follow your conclusion that the phrase "as I am" (7:8b) then
>must refer to Paul's state of being widowed. I think I could just a
readily
>argue that the context provided by 7:1b-7, implies that Paul was, at least
>metaphorically, a eunuch on account of the kingdom, his "special gift from
>God," and that it is this spiritual state or condition that he desires for
>widows and widowers. In other words, it is only those who have been or are
>unmarried who avoid the issues of lack of self-control and the concomitant
>temptations of Satan! Finally, if Paul had been married, I don't know how
he
>could say that it is good "for a man not to touch a woman." (7:1b) He
would
>have left himself open to charges of hypocrisy.

The practice of self-control (enkrateia), i.e., sexual continence, in early
Christianity and in 1 Corinthians, also affected the marriage relationship.
Some (women probably) in Corinth appear to be practising it and leaving
their husbands in the cold (7.3). Now perhaps the very dilema that
confronted Paul may have been telling these enkratites that they should not
practise enkrateia in their marriages because of it led to immorality (1 Cor
7.3) while he had a wife and lived as though he had none (7.29). When Paul
says that he wishes that all were as he is (7.7), why couldn't he mean that
he wishes simply that they could all be enkratites like him, whether in
marriage or out? But alas, their behavior in too many cases proved them
incapable of it.


Jim Hester continues
>My larger point is that we just don't have enough unambiguous data from the
>pauline corpus to say that Paul had been married and that it is a waste of
>time to fuss with the question!

There were considerable disputes in the early church regarding encratism and
spiritual marriage (i.e., marriage without sexual relations). Much of the
debate concerned 1 Cor 7. Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen thought
that Phil 4.3 referred to Paul's spouse. Since these two native Greek
speakers thought that a natural interpretation, it would seem to me far from
a waste of time to consider the possibility, especially as it affects the
exegesis of 1 Cor 7. Besides, how often is there unambiguous data for
anything discussed on this forum? (Why would we discuss something
unambiguous?) I would be interested in knowing what prompted Jim West to
bring up the subject--perhaps therein lies the ultimate justification for
the discussion.

Peter W. Dunn
Professeur Visiteur
Faculté de Théologie Evangélique de Bangui






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page