|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 6, 2007 16:24:51 GMT -8
10/05:
I'm a little confused by verse 29, "From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none." What does Paul mean by that? And in verses 32-34, why are unmarried men referred to only as "unmarried men" but women are referred to as "unmarried woman or virgin"?
This chapter pushed my feminist buttons a lot. Verses 36-38 really bug me. I know that in cultural context they make sense, but I can't help but feel defensive about the fact that the men made all the decisions. I hate that it sounds like women are talked about like they are just to be sitting around waiting for a man to decide what he wants to do with her. Thank you, Lord for letting me live in this time because I don't think I could have handled those days!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Feb 7, 2007 17:10:23 GMT -8
10/05:
I find it helpful to keep in mind that there was persecution going on at the time Paul writes this, and that they were all expecting the return of Christ at any minute. In that context it made more sense not to marry so that you would be more focused on serving Christ and not on pleasing your spouse.
I know what you mean though about the women. It is certainly a different voice then Paul might have used today. I find it helpful to look at where Paul is distinguishing between his opinion and revelation from God. I also find the mention of married virgins interesting....
I also like how it mentions in each chapter 6 and 7 that we were bought with a price. I have scratched somewhere in my bible "something's value is determined by what someone is willing to pay for it" It levels me to think that Christ was eager to pay that sort of price to purchase me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 7, 2007 17:11:35 GMT -8
10/05:
I think the difference is that virgins have never been married and that unmarried women are probably widows. I can't find mention of married virgins, as Sarah states. What verse/ translation is that?
Yeah, I see how verses 36-38 might bug. The notion of a father being in control of whether his daughter gets married is troublesome, at least to us.
But Sarah's observation about Paul's use of Not the Lord, but I OR Not I, but the Lord may help us distinguish between what was meant as an opinion for then or as a universal truth. I say 'help' because it's notoriously difficult to figure out.
Such occurances (along with other observations) cause me to wonder about the current popular view of Biblical Inspiration (especially the concept of Inerrency and Infallibility). But that's another huge discussion.
Sarah does well to remind us that this advice was written to a particular people undergoing persecution (v.26). In fact, such persecution would continue to be a hallmark of the church, off and on, for the next 300 years. One thinks of St. Cecilia (2nd century), whose husband was murdered just after their marriage vows because he had become a Christian. She devoted the rest of her life to celibate devotion to the Church, and eventually was martyred (having her head cut off). I think she would have related to these verses much more than we.
Also, the idea that the disciples felt the coming of Christ might be near is important to note, although that claim might also cause one to question some formulations of the doctrine of Inspiration. As a side note, it does fit with the partial preterist understanding of eschatology, in which all the signs (or nearly all the signs) necessary before the return of Christ had to happen within the lifetime of the disciples. Paul did have every reason before the writing of Revelation to expect the imminent return of Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 7, 2007 17:12:17 GMT -8
10/05:
Re-reading the chapter a few times, I am struck by the feeling that not only is his advice about marriage vs. non marriage primarily suited for that particular situation (ie, under persecution and uncertainty), I think also his statements about 'remaining in the situation you're in' are to be seen from that light. He says this is his policy in 'all the churches' but I don't think even this means it's necessarily the policy for us. I think that basically each church he started was immediately in a precarious situation. Forces without and forces within threatened to topple them before they could even get going, so for people in those Churches to be concerned about how the Gospel impacted or allowed for change within their marital or social status would have been quite a distraction, when all their effort would have been needed to get this Church thing of the ground.
That's not to say I don't think there are some 'universals' here. I do, such as Christ's injunctions against divorce in cases not involving some kind of unfaithfulness, or in his exhortation to marry someone in the Lord, etc.. , but I think we have to sift a bit, perhaps. It's important to note how Paul's advice differs slightly from Church to Church, that should give us a clue that some of his advice is for particular situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 7, 2007 17:13:07 GMT -8
10/05:
Just out of curiousity, what is "some kind of unfaithfulness"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 7, 2007 17:14:02 GMT -8
10/05:
Well, that's a tricky one. I know it's a touchy subject, but nevertheless, the Bible speaks a fair amount about it. Jesus says no divorce except in case of 'marital unfaithfulness'. Some people want to interpret that as only an extramarital, sexual affair. But others, and I'm in this camp, see that a little broader. What about a wife who murders their children? Or a husband who has in effect committed some other form of more subtle 'adultery' and is unrepentant? What about a husband who beats his wife?
Christian leaders throughout the centuries have wrestled with where to draw the line, but have all agreed that Jesus stands against frivolous divorce, and only supports it in serious situations (i.e., not just lack of feeling 'in love' or 'lives leading in different directions')
|
|
