Quahom1 said:
Good Evening Wolfgang.
Marsh has a valid point...one can't pick and choose verses, without taking the whole story into context. It doesn't work very well in conveying a message.
v/r
Q
Good evening Quahom1 and Marsha,
I agree that context is very important, so please allow me to discuss this issue in greater context by quoting from CHAPTER FIVE of 'the pauline conspiracy', written by Victor and available through this very website by clicking on
http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy/pauline_conspiracy5.php
I have chosen to emphasize some of his text.
Paul not only comments about marriage, but makes it a living rule within the church, and the life he imposes upon women is monstrous. This is a matter which we must take one step at a time. We are dealing with a person who has no first hand knowledge of women, let alone marriage. We are dealing with a person who looks upon the female of the species as sub-standard, some sort of bond slave, even by Jewish standards.
Gen. 2:18,
"It is not good that the man should be alone." Paul believed the opposite, thereby setting himself at variance with the usual Jewish point of view." (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 76)
Celibacy was not a Jewish practice. Paul was unmarried and may have decided that being single was best in view of his Messianic expectations. (Peake's Commentary on the Bible; Page 957: 834b)
For the most part, it would appear that Paul approved of marriage for one purpose only, so that believers would not fall into the trap of sexual immorality. This we will look at in detail since it discloses, even more deeply, Paul's increasingly irrational thought patterns.
"It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." (I Corinthians 7:1-2; RSV)
Paul states it plainly. In order to avoid sexual misconduct, marriage is allowed as a concession, a concession of Paul's. He reiterates the same purpose for marriage involving the unmarried and widows.
"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (I Corinthians 7:8-9; RSV)
Are we speaking of a narrow-minded bigot? The only reason that Paul sees for marriage is, sex. To his mind there was no other reason for marriage.
Paul also insists that the husband, and wife, should give each other their conjugal rights. (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: Conjugal rights; the sexual rights or privileges implied by and involved in the marriage relationship; the right of sexual intercourse between husband and wife. (See I Corinthians 7:3; RSV)
He admonishes man and woman not to refuse each other except by agreement in order to devote themselves to prayer, "...lest Satan temp you through lack of self-control." (I Corinthians 7:5; RSV)
It is obvious that Paul's singular view of marriage concerned itself with sex.
Paul speaks of divorce in the sense that it is best not to divorce, but if it becomes the case, the individual should remain single. The Interpreter's Bible, makes a grievous error here in an inexcusable attempt to parallel Paul's treatment of this subject with Jesus. (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 79)
Mark 10:12 is explicit in a wife's right to divorce her husband. Her right to divorce is not rejected here or in the Law. But if she uses that right, then she must remain single, or it bears the penalty of sin.
"...and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
On the contrary, this statement of the Law by Jesus affirms the woman's right to divorce. The difference here is that Paul does not give any reason for the wife to remain single. He absolutely defies Jesus' teaching on the subject.
From that precipice, Paul leaps into believers and unbelievers being married. Jesus never even contemplated this event, but Paul considers that the believer consecrates the unbeliever. (I Corinthians 7:12-16; RSV)
In Judaism, in a Jewish state, the question would never be broached.
They married within their own society and faith, even going so far as to command an absolute prohibition on marriage to Samaritan Jews.
Once again, we must contend with Paul's generalization of religious terminology. God's calling to individuals is a very specific, personal experience which involves a 'real' communion with the Lord God. Paul uses it as an everyday, common occurrence.
"Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him." (I Corinthians 7:17; RSV)
Apparently, in Paul's view, a calling was based on the individuals' decision rather than an actual 'calling' by the Lord God. This gives away the reality of Paul's 'conversion' vision. And how can we take this position? Because after all is said and done, Paul gives himself away.
"This is my rule in all the churches."
"And so ordain I in all churches." (I Corinthians 7:17; KJV)
Paul rules, Paul commands, Paul orders. At the least, he compromises, gives permission by concession, but he is the standard by which all things are set. And
if any one dare to think that we have escaped these dictatorial circumstances after two thousand years, they are sadly mistaken, for Paul rules the church to this very day.
In his 'advice' concerning the state of marriage, Paul shows us that he was ill informed on the basis for marriage and its irreconcilable consequences in being devoted to God.
The Interpreter's Bible, possibly tired of attempting to defend an indefensible position, finally makes a valid statement that this student can agree with. And in the end, declare what should be obvious to everyone. "Paul is here rationalizing his prejudices." (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 86)
The theologian is being kind, for there is another good reason that Paul did not simply come out and demand abstinence. Injecting himself into every facet of the congregation's private lives, he is obviously attempting to strengthen his rule over the community. But he does not yet have sufficient control to demand an end to marriage and sexual intercourse among the believers. As previously noted, the further we go into the organization that this man devised, the more it rings familiar as a sect under rigorous scrutiny and strict regulation.
As though to accentuate this very premise, Paul himself makes the point.
"A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God." (I Corinthians 7:39-40; RSV)
In his egotism, Paul reduces a woman beyond subservient level. By 'bound', does Paul see women as 'bond servants'? Possibly, for his opinion of women is also about to be espoused, and it is prominent in certain Baptist churches today, with all its conditions of servitude.
But the final straw is his blatant, swollen opinion of himself. "
And I think that I have the Spirit of God." In other words, 'I am speaking as the Almighty, and my word is law.' (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 89)
One might believe that he was totally unqualified to make suggestions on the subject, but that, of course, did not stop Paul.
From there he goes on to instruct the church on food offered to idols. This is interesting because it involves Moses Law, and in denouncing the Law of God, Paul is forced to do some serious double-talking.
Paul has already stated that, "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything." (I Corinthians 6:12; RSV)
------------------------------------
Concluding note from Wolfgang - Whether or not the foregoing represents Paul's personal opinions or are allegedl to be the inspired Word of Yahweh, this doctrine has been passed down the centuries and has adversely affected millions of people.
I must agree with Victor that Paul was a false apostle, and it is revealing that neither his name nor the name of his disciple Luke are mentioned even once in the gospels of the true apostles of the Lamb, known always AS THE TWELVE.
Hallelu YAH !!
Wolfgang
