I edited all the Paul posts since chapter 1 is now over. I inserted a sentence earlier I had planned to put later. It's important enough that I thought I would post the sentence:
"Then when I believed, my wife departed and went back to her family. She was still living with them during the famine, when she became ill and died."
Paul is not married when we get to 1 Corinthians 7:8: "Now I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they remain as also I do." Some commentators think that the conjunction of "unmarried" with widows implies that Paul was a widower. It could of course in theory mean that Paul is divorced. But I assume Paul wouldn't have divorced his wife, and I'm not sure that a woman had the legal power to divorce her husband in Palestine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"and I'm not sure that a woman had the legal power to divorce her husband in Palestine."
Hi Ken. Have you heard of David Instone-Brewer? (You can google him.) Someone just gave me a book by him and I'm curious to know if you have heard of him and what you think of his work. Thanks.
Paul (a former student of yours at Asbury)
That wouldn't be Paul Daniels, would it?
I skimmed some of his stuff, particularly
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Brewer/MarriagePapyri/1Cor_7a.htm
looks very interesting. If I get his gist, he's suggesting that to "let them depart" might mean to sign a release for her to remarry. Very interesting... I want to read it more carefully but very interesting!
Thanks!
No... I'm sure you wouldn't remember me (it's Paul Risler). I was one of those students who, academically, blended into the background, but blossomed after seminary. :O)
I ran across David's stuff a while back. I just recently got another book by him.
He writes that the common understanding of the OT/NT would be that divorce was permissible under Deut 24:1 (the certificate passage) and Ex. 21:10. So marriage is a vow to be faithful, to provide and to love. And when that vow is broken, the weaker party is allowed a divorce (the certificate of divorce would, of course, allow remarriage.)
He argues (and I have read this other places as well) that when Jesus was teaching on divorce, he was not talking about the overall Jewish framework of divorce, but a debate between Hillel and Shammai. So "pornia" is not the only grounds for divorce, only the one Jesus happened to be talking about at the time.
I know you have a lot to read, but if you do ever wade through it, I would be interested to hear your thoughts. I have been "blog stalking" here since late summer and really value your opinions.
I'm guessing you started here...
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Brewer/Index.htm
Post a Comment