LDS Necessity of Eternal Marriage: What About 1 Cor 7?

[pablope]

Pablope,

If you look at an online Greek English transliteration of verse 7, you will find that the transliteration should be “I say therefore to the unmarried even widows”–or a comma could be added for better English sense: “I say therefore to the unmarried, even widows,” or in other words, “to the widows who are unmarried”.

So Paul is not saying he was never married. He most likely seems to be saying that widows who haven’t remarried are doing a “good thing” if they abide “even as Paul” and not remarry as long as they remain chaste.

I think Paul’s wife had died by this point in time. The ECF wrote about Paul as having been a married man during his life.

Where did you get this idea that Paul was married. He states absolutely that he was celibate, and he finds glory in celibacy.

Could you cite the particular ecf and his statement that said Paul was a married man.

1 Corinthians 7:7-8 (The Message)
7Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me—a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.

8-9I do, though, tell the unmarried and widows that singleness might well be the best thing for them, as it has been for me. But if they can’t manage their desires and emotions, they should by all means go ahead and get married. The difficulties of marriage are preferable by far to a sexually tortured life as a single.

I do know why inserting “even” will do to the verse or meaning. It does not make sense. Will it change the meaning of the verse? I do not think it does.

 

[ParkerD]

No it doesn’t it makes sense that it saying what kind of unmarried, it makes sense if as an intensifier it stresses “all unmarried”
For example:

Forgiveness is available to all who repent, even murderers.

St Jude’s hospital treats all children, even those whose families can not pay.

Adults and children should exercise regularly, even those with a healthy body weight.

From the previous discussion:

Z,

Thanks for finding the prior discussion we had. I had forgotten about it. Once again, I certainly see your point and you have explained it well.

Here is a translation into Greek of the following phrase from English:

“my dear children even my little babies”

English to Greek translation:

αγαπητά παιδιά μου, ακόμη και μικρά μωρά μου

The Greek word that looks like “kai” is the word we are talking about that translates to “even”.

Here is a text in English and Greek that uses the word “kai” in a way that shows its use as clarifying or intensifying the specific meaning:

“***) Update, August 2007: As an experiment, I created an anthology of poems from the Art Review , which might be of interest to occur autonomously, however, the corresponding poems will enter and the alphabetical list of the individual authors.”

(***) Ενημέρωση, Αύγουστος 2007: Σαν πείραμα, έφτιαξα μια Ανθολογία ποιημάτων από την Επιθεώρηση Τέχνης, που ίσως έχει ενδιαφέρον να παρουσιαστεί και αυτόνομα –βέβαια, τα αντίστοιχα ποιήματα θα μπουν και στον αλφαβητικό κατάλογο των επιμέρους συγγραφέων.

Those sentences are from the following link:

sarantakos.com/keimena.html

My point here is that the word “kai” from Greek has a potentially different meaning than either “even” or “and” in translation, and that “even” can convey the sense of clarifying or intensifying the more general word such as “ttapouaiaoiei kai autovoua”.

I wish I could explain it better, and would love it if someone knew Greek literature enough to find examples of this different use of the Greek word “kai”.

 

[ParkerD]

Where did you get this idea that Paul was married. He states absolutely that he was celibate, and he finds glory in celibacy.

Could you cite the particular ecf and his statement that said Paul was a married man.

1 Corinthians 7:7-8 (The Message)
7Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me—a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.

8-9I do, though, tell the unmarried and widows that singleness might well be the best thing for them, as it has been for me. But if they can’t manage their desires and emotions, they should by all means go ahead and get married. The difficulties of marriage are preferable by far to a sexually tortured life as a single.

I do know why inserting “even” will do to the verse or meaning. It does not make sense. Will it change the meaning of the verse? I do not think it does.

Pablope,

If you use the translation you have cited, then you will be getting the version that is based on what that translator thought Paul would have said if he had been writing today and had the same beliefs as the translator, so it would seem not to be a good idea if one is trying to get back to the originally conveyed meaning.

Here is a quote from the article that was linked in the first response to the OP:

" Eusebius[4], the fourth-century Catholic Historian, states confidently that Paul’s yokefellow, whom he addresses in Philippians 4:3 with these words,
And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women who laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow-labourers. (Philippians 4:2–3)
is in fact his wife. The Greek syzyge, the word translated “yokefellow,” is often used to refer to a spouse. We also note that Eusebius’ conclusion is based on a statement from Clement of Alexandria,[5] who was writing sometime prior to 231 A.D. when the traditions about Paul were still very recent.

Finally, we should note that Ignatius, writing in the latter half of first century, states
I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found … at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men.[6]"

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

If you use the translation you have cited, then you will be getting the version that is based on what that translator thought Paul would have said if he had been writing today and had the same beliefs as the translator, so it would seem not to be a good idea if one is trying to get back to the originally conveyed meaning.

Here is a quote from the article that was linked in the first response to the OP:

" Eusebius[4], the fourth-century Catholic Historian, states confidently that Paul’s yokefellow, whom he addresses in Philippians 4:3 with these words,
And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women who laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow-labourers. (Philippians 4:2–3)
is in fact his wife. The Greek syzyge, the word translated “yokefellow,” is often used to refer to a spouse. We also note that Eusebius’ conclusion is based on a statement from Clement of Alexandria,[5] who was writing sometime prior to 231 A.D. when the traditions about Paul were still very recent.

Finally, we should note that Ignatius, writing in the latter half of first century, states
I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found … at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men.[6]"

Parker, these does not prove Paul was married. Anyway, I will pose this question in either a thread or an apologist question to know definitely.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

If you use the translation you have cited, then you will be getting the version that is based on what that translator thought Paul would have said if he had been writing today and had the same beliefs as the translator, so it would seem not to be a good idea if one is trying to get back to the originally conveyed meaning.

Here is a quote from the article that was linked in the first response to the OP:

"

Eusebius[4], the fourth-century Catholic Historian, states confidently that Paul’s yokefellow, whom he addresses in Philippians 4:3 with these words,
And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women who laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow-labourers. (Philippians 4:2–3)
is in fact his wife. The Greek syzyge, the word translated “yokefellow,” is often used to refer to a spouse. We also note that Eusebius’ conclusion is based on a statement from Clement of Alexandria,[5] who was writing sometime prior to 231 A.D. when the traditions about Paul were still very recent.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

If you use the translation you have cited, then you will be getting the version that is based on what that translator thought Paul would have said if he had been writing today and had the same beliefs as the translator, so it would seem not to be a good idea if one is trying to get back to the originally conveyed meaning.

Here is a quote from the article that was linked in the first response to the OP:

Finally, we should note that Ignatius, writing in the latter half of first century, states
I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found … at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men.[6]"

Parker, after some research, you are taking Ignatius out of context, as usual. This passage does not prove paul was married, the last part refers to the other apostles as being married, but you are twisting it to refer to Paul.

St Paul was definitely celibate and remained so after his conversion. He was a rabbli who had dedicated his life to the study of the Torah, and after his conversion, he dedicated his life to the Living Word as a celibate. And in writing in 1Corinthians 7, he glorifies celibacy as even more glorious than being married, for being celibate, one is concerned wholeheartedly in the service of God.

And Christ also teaches celibacy:

Matthew 19:10-12 (New King James Version)
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
(Jesus Teaches on Celibacy)
11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD;7463514:

Pablope,

If you use the translation you have cited, then you will be getting the version that is based on what that translator thought Paul would have said if he had been writing today and had the same beliefs as the translator, so it would seem not to be a good idea if one is trying to get back to the originally conveyed meaning.

Here is a quote from the article that was linked in the first response to the OP:

"

Use of yokefellow in Philippians:

Yokefellow! The Greek word “suzugos” means to be co-yoked. The word implies one who is yoked in harness with another, the two working as a team. Then I recalled that Jesus mentioned that where two or more are gathered together in his name, that he would be in their midst, and also when sending forth the Disciples to witness, he sent them in groups of two. Jesus established the spirit of yoke-fellows.

context of Epistle to Philippians…

About ten years after helping to start the church at Philippi, Paul found himself imprisoned by Rome, for the crime of preaching the Gospel. The fellow servants at Philippi, hearing of their beloved friends plight and persecution in a Roman prison began a vigil of prayer for Paul, and sent a fellow-servant named Epaphroditus to visit Paul in prison and to give him some money to help sustain and encourage him…Upon receiving his friend from Philippi, Paul was deeply moved and touched by their kindness and remembrance, and sent Epaphroditus back to Philippi with a letter. That letter is the Biblical book of Philippians.

So Paul’s use of yokefellow is as a coworker for Christ, not wife. Come on, Parker, it looks like you are twisting verses again to justify LDS belief which is contrary to the Bible.

Pablope,

We disagree always, and you disagree with Eusebius also in this case, so you may take it up with him when you have the chance, and as for me, I tire when the conversation becomes pointless. Bye.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Z,

Thanks for finding the prior discussion we had. I had forgotten about it. Once again, I certainly see your point and you have explained it well.

Here is a translation into Greek of the following phrase from English:

“my dear children even my little babies”

English to Greek translation:

αγαπητά παιδιά μου, ακόμη και μικρά μωρά μου

The Greek word that looks like “kai” is the word we are talking about that translates to “even”.

Here is a text in English and Greek that uses the word “kai” in a way that shows its use as clarifying or intensifying the specific meaning:

“***) Update, August 2007: As an experiment, I created an anthology of poems from the Art Review , which might be of interest to occur autonomously, however, the corresponding poems will enter and the alphabetical list of the individual authors.”

(***) Ενημέρωση, Αύγουστος 2007: Σαν πείραμα, έφτιαξα μια Ανθολογία ποιημάτων από την Επιθεώρηση Τέχνης, που ίσως έχει ενδιαφέρον να παρουσιαστεί και αυτόνομα –βέβαια, τα αντίστοιχα ποιήματα θα μπουν και στον αλφαβητικό κατάλογο των επιμέρους συγγραφέων.

Those sentences are from the following link:

sarantakos.com/keimena.html

My point here is that the word “kai” from Greek has a potentially different meaning than either “even” or “and” in translation, and that “even” can convey the sense of clarifying or intensifying the more general word such as “ttapouaiaoiei kai autovoua”.

I wish I could explain it better, and would love it if someone knew Greek literature enough to find examples of this different use of the Greek word “kai”.

Just curious, the King James version uses “and” not “even” what version are you looking at that uses “even”?

 

[ParkerD]

Just curious, the King James version uses “and” not “even” what version are you looking at that uses “even”?

Zaffiroborant,

I was aware about the KJV. Here is the source for the word “even” in the transliteration from Greek to English of the Greek word “kai”:

interlinearbible.org/1_corinthians/7.htm

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

I was aware about the KJV. Here is the source for the word “even” in the transliteration from Greek to English of the Greek word “kai”:

interlinearbible.org/1_corinthians/7.htm

1 Corinthians 7 Interlinear Bible uses “kai” 40 times translated thus:
also 1
and 25
both 12
even 2
So from this interlinear bible we can’t definitively say that “The Greek word that looks like “kai” is the word we are talking about that translates to “even”.” We can say that “kai” is a word occasionally translated as “even”.

 

[campeador]

Zaffiroborant,

I was aware about the KJV. Here is the source for the word “even” in the transliteration from Greek to English of the Greek word “kai”:

interlinearbible.org/1_corinthians/7.htm

Parker, I couldn’t find a single English translation version of the Bible with the word ‘even’. Check for yourself here.

The KJV: “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.”
NIV: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.”
AB: “But to the unmarried people and to the widows, I declare that it is well (good, advantageous, expedient, and wholesome) for them to remain [single] even as I do.”
NLT: “So I say to those who aren’t married and to widows—it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am.”
ESV: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.”
CEV: “Here is my advice for people who have never been married and for widows. You should stay single, just as I am.”
NKJV: “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am;”
NCV: “Now for those who are not married and for the widows I say this: It is good for them to stay unmarried as I am.”
GMT: “I say to those who are not married, especially to widows: It is good for you to stay single like me.”
ASV: “But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.”
NIRV: “I speak to those who are not married. I also speak to widows. It is good for you to stay single like me.”
WNT: “But I say to them, that be not wedded, and to widows [and widows], it is good to them, if they dwell so as I.”
NIV-UK: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.”

This might help. I found this using the link you provided:

Strong’s number 2532, kaí :

2532 kaí (the most common NT conjunction, used over 9,000 times) – and (also), very often, moreover, even, indeed (the context determines the exact sense).

 

[zaffiroborant]

This might help. I found this using the link you provided:

Strong’s number 2532, kaí :

2532 kaí (the most common NT conjunction, used over 9,000 times) – and (also), very often, moreover, even, indeed (the context determines the exact sense).

Why didn’t I think of that? It would have been so much faster than finding the instances of “kai” in Parker’s linked interlinear bible and counting up how each usage was translated. I do find it interesting that Strong’s doesn’t list “both” as a usage but Parker’s interlinear uses it 12 times?

 

[campeador]

Why didn’t I think of that? It would have been so much faster than finding the instances of “kai” in Parker’s linked interlinear bible and counting up how each usage was translated. I do find it interesting that Strong’s doesn’t list “both” as a usage but Parker’s interlinear uses it 12 times?

Not so fast, my friend. Scroll down a little farther and you find this:

NAS Exhaustive Concordance:

Word Origin
a prim. conjunction
Definition
and, even, also
NASB Word Usage
accompanied (1), actually (2), after (2), again (1), again* (1), along (4), also (535), although (1), although* (1), besides* (1), both (37), both* (1), certainly (1), continue (1), either (2), else (1), even (132), forty-six* (1), if (1), including (1), indeed (20), indeed* (2), just (3), likewise (1), more* (2), moving about freely* (1), nor (4), now (2), only (2), only* (1), or (11), same (1), so (30), than (2), than* (4), then (105), though (1), though* (6), together (1), too (34), until (1), very (3), well (13), when (7), whether (1), while (1), whose* (1), without* (4), yet (9).

(note: NAS = New American Standard)

I wonder how many times the Greek *kaí *means ‘even’ or ‘both’ in the KJV? I’d assume even less than the NAS.

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

Well, that speculation can be given a burial.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Not so fast, my friend. Scroll down a little farther and you find this:

NAS Exhaustive Concordance:

Word Origin
a prim. conjunction
Definition
and, even, also
NASB Word Usage
accompanied (1), actually (2), after (2), again (1), again* (1), along (4), also (535), although (1), although* (1), besides* (1), both (37), both* (1), certainly (1), continue (1), either (2), else (1), even (132), forty-six* (1), if (1), including (1), indeed (20), indeed* (2), just (3), likewise (1), more* (2), moving about freely* (1), nor (4), now (2), only (2), only* (1), or (11), same (1), so (30), than (2), than* (4), then (105), though (1), though* (6), together (1), too (34), until (1), very (3), well (13), when (7), whether (1), while (1), whose* (1), without* (4), yet (9).

(note: NAS = New American Standard)

I wonder how many times the Greek *kaí *means ‘even’ or ‘both’ in the KJV? I’d assume even less than the NAS.

Well it looks like I must thank you again. Oh crud I forgot it the first time. Thanks twice

 

[ParkerD]

Campeador,

This is from the link you noted to me:

Original Word: καί
Short Definition: and, even, also, namely
Definition: and, even, also, namely.

Somehow, the “definition” that becomes “namely” was overlooked by you folks.

That is exactly the definition that I have been talking about.

 

[campeador]

Campeador,

This is from the link you noted to me:

Original Word: καί
Short Definition: and, even, also, namely
Definition: and, even, also, namely.

Somehow, the “definition” that becomes “namely” was overlooked by you folks.

That is exactly the definition that I have been talking about.

My friend in Christ, you missed the meat of my post (post #32). My first point was that no English translation of 1 Corinthians 7:8 used the Greek καί to mean anything other than “and” except the The God’s Word Bible. They used the word “especially” which clearly does not mean ‘even’, or ‘also’. And although ‘namely’ could be considered a synonym of ‘especially’ neither word would lead anyone fair-minded to conclude that, as you claim, Paul is saying “to the widows who are unmarried” as opposed to The King James Version (as an example): “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows”.

My second point was to show that with all languages, the context (among other things) determines how certain words should be translated. Please re-read post #32 and see what I have highlighted.

I think it’s important to note that the transliteration that you linked to make your point is not a translation and that Strong’s Concordance was never intended to be used as a translation tool: “The use of Strong’s numbers is not a substitute for professional translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English by those with formal training in ancient languages and the literature of the cultures in which the Bible was written. Since Strong’s Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong’s numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context.” wiki link

Peace to You.

 

[ParkerD]

My friend in Christ, you missed the meat of my post (post #32). My first point was that no English translation of 1 Corinthians 7:8 used the Greek καί to mean anything other than “and” except the The God’s Word Bible. They used the word “especially” which clearly does not mean ‘even’, or ‘also’. And although ‘namely’ could be considered a synonym of ‘especially’ neither word would lead anyone fair-minded to conclude that, as you claim, Paul is saying “to the widows who are unmarried” as opposed to The King James Version (as an example): “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows”.

My second point was to show that with all languages, the context (among other things) determines how certain words should be translated. Please re-read post #32 and see what I have highlighted.

I think it’s important to note that the transliteration that you linked to make your point is not a translation and that Strong’s Concordance was never intended to be used as a translation tool: “The use of Strong’s numbers is not a substitute for professional translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English by those with formal training in ancient languages and the literature of the cultures in which the Bible was written. Since Strong’s Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong’s numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context.” wiki link

Peace to You.

Campeador,

I have re-read your post #32, which I had read before. I totally agree that the “cultural context” is absolutely vital to the translating process; so a translator would need to be very sure they were understanding the cultural context before they ventured to produce a translation of a word such as “kai” since it has very distinct meanings leading in totally different directions in this case.

I think this is one they all missed. I don’t think they explored the cultural context very well at all in this case, and thus they came up with the wrong English equivalent, however well intended their effort was to get the right word. I think they should have considered all of Paul’s other teachings about marriage to be able to make sense of that particular verse within the cultural context of his life, times, and the people he was writing to who had a particular question and a particular circumstance that he was addressing.

 

[flyonthewall]

Use of yokefellow in Philippians:

Yokefellow! The Greek word “suzugos” means to be co-yoked. The word implies one who is yoked in harness with another, the two working as a team. Then I recalled that Jesus mentioned that where two or more are gathered together in his name, that he would be in their midst, and also when sending forth the Disciples to witness, he sent them in groups of two. Jesus established the spirit of yoke-fellows.

context of Epistle to Philippians…

About ten years after helping to start the church at Philippi, Paul found himself imprisoned by Rome, for the crime of preaching the Gospel. The fellow servants at Philippi, hearing of their beloved friends plight and persecution in a Roman prison began a vigil of prayer for Paul, and sent a fellow-servant named Epaphroditus to visit Paul in prison and to give him some money to help sustain and encourage him…Upon receiving his friend from Philippi, Paul was deeply moved and touched by their kindness and remembrance, and sent Epaphroditus back to Philippi with a letter. That letter is the Biblical book of Philippians.

So Paul’s use of yokefellow is as a coworker for Christ, not wife. Come on, Parker, it looks like you are twisting verses again to justify LDS belief which is contrary to the Bible.

Also from the link posted this just prior to the yokefellow dialogue:

Was Paul Married?
Paul may have been widowed or divorced at the time of his writing to the Corinthians, but we can be sure that he was married at one time. Paul’s Judaic background would have required it. In his defense before the Jewish crowd outside the Roman barracks of the Antonian tower, Paul states that he was taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers and was zealous in living that law (Acts 22:3). Again, in his defense before the Pharisees and Sadducees, Paul claims that he is a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). To the Galatians, Paul wrote that he was more zealous in fulfilling the requirements of his religion than others of his time (Gal 1:14). The emphasis that the Jews put on marriage as part of their law and tradition would certainly have been used against Paul in view of such statements if he had not been married, [1] especially if, as many scholars have suggested[2], Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, one of the qualifications for which was that a man must be married and the father of children.[3]

But was Paul still married at the time of his writing to the Corinthians? The only evidence against it occurs in this same chapter of 1 Corinthinans, where Paul says

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 1 Corinthians 7:8
Since Paul is advising the unmarried to continue in this state, even as he, it certainly seems to imply that he was unmarried at the time of his writing. On the other hand, Paul says later in this same letter

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5.
How would he have the power to lead about a wife on his travels, like the other apostles did, if he was not married or if his wife had died? So this seems to indicate that Paul was married, but that he simply did not take his wife with him in his ministry. If this is the case, then this might be the sense in which he is advising the Corinthian saints to “abide even as” he. Indeed, this is exactly the counsel he gives the married saints in 1 Corinthians 7:29.

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none
So, based on Corinthians alone, it is hard to say whether Paul was widowed or was still married at the time he wrote his epistle. Fortunately, we have other, non-biblical, writers who had access to knowledge that has now clearly been lost about Paul’s marital state during the time of his ministry. Eusebius[4], the fourth-century Catholic Historian, states confidently that Paul’s yokefellow, whom he addresses in Philippians 4:3 with these words,

 

[campeador]

Campeador,

I have re-read your post #32, which I had read before. I totally agree that the “cultural context” is absolutely vital to the translating process; so a translator would need to be very sure they were understanding the cultural context before they ventured to produce a translation of a word such as “kai” since it has very distinct meanings leading in totally different directions in this case.

I think this is one they all missed. I don’t think they explored the cultural context very well at all in this case, and thus they came up with the wrong English equivalent, however well intended their effort was to get the right word. I think they should have considered all of Paul’s other teachings about marriage to be able to make sense of that particular verse within the cultural context of his life, times, and the people he was writing to who had a particular question and a particular circumstance that he was addressing.

I’m sorry. I really don’t know what to say to someone who rejects the voices of literally thousands of Biblical scholars throughout the centuries, let alone the interpretation of the early Church (and the Protestant Churches as well), and the context of Paul’s teachings on celebrity presented by Pablope in post # 6.

You would think Paul would follow his own advice and find a wife?