Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: mixed marriages

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Frich107 AT aol.com
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: mixed marriages
  • Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:19:11 EDT



In a message dated 10/10/01 12:20:33 AM, dicksonj AT bigpond.net.au writes:


< 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?

This is certainly a very interesting question, which has also got me
thinking. However, as I look at the context (particularly verse 34) Paul
seems to suggest that it is better to remain single in order to serve God
better. He talks of married people being pulled in two directions, and so I
would tend to agree with the majority of commentators, modern and ancient,
who see the phrase MONON EN KURIW as referring to a Christian husband. This
would surely make serving the Lord easier. As you indicate, though, this is
certainly not an open and shut case. For example, the fact that verse 34
seems to talk about 'christian' couples may preclude that it is equally
difficult to serve God as a married person, regardless of whether the partner
is christian or not.


< 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?

This may well have been impractical, yet so is much of what Paul says. He
advises people to remain single, so it could be argued that he didn't really
have the interests of the majority of people at heart. His own singneless
maybe got in the way of him making a practical, balanced judgment.


< 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?

Although Paul indeed talks abot there being no Greek, nor Jew, male nor
female, slave nor free, is this not another example of an impractical ideal
that surely could have been nothing more than a lofty ideal to ease the
conscience of more influential early Christians?


Just some thoughts on these issues.

Regards,
Fred Rich.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page