Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: mixed marriages

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jill and Dale Walker <jilldale AT rcnchicago.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: mixed marriages
  • Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 21:17:14 -0500

John,

Earlier in 1 Cor Paul wants Christians to handle their own disputes
and not air their dirty laundry before non-Christian judges. This
advice is commonplace wisdom among ethnic groups. We'll handle
things on our  own in our own way. This does set up a boundary.
So, I think point three below in not persuasive in the way you have
presently phrased it. But this does not address your larger question
or points 1, 2 and 4.

Thanks for raising an interesting question.

Dale Walker
Chicago


At 09:19 AM 10/10/01 +1000, you wrote:
Dear all,
Rodney Stark (The Rise of Christianity) makes the claim, on social scientific grounds, that marriages between believers and non-beleivers in early Christianity were not uncommon. The point got me thinking again about Paul's brief qualification in 1 Cor 7:39 that the widowed Christian is free to marry MONON EN KURIW. It is traditional - with some notable exceptions - to interpret this as meaning the woman may marry only a Christian man. Can we be confident of this?  I have several questions to which I invite others to respond:
1) Given that there were much easier ways for Paul to have indicated that the woman must marry only a Christian may not Paul have meant "with the Lord's blessing" or "in a way that honours the Lord" or some such thing?
2) The phrase has the ring of a 'ruling' in the church, i.e., one he would have repeated in other churches. Given the probable small size of congregations, would not such a ruling (understood in the 'traditional' sense) be impractical?
3) How likely is it that Paul would have transferred Torah or Pharisaic rulings against mixed-marriages into the context of his new Christian communities, especially in light of his tendency to dismantle boundary markers?
4) Do not the arguments of 1 Cor 7:14-16 provide implicit theological justification for mixed-marriages, since a) the unbelieving partner is hGIASTAI (whatever that means) by the believing one, and b) such a marriage contains mission possibilities?
Looking forward to your comments.
Regards,
John Dickson
Department of Ancient History
Macquarie University
Sydney, Australia
---
You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: jilldale AT rcnchicago.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page