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

[ParkerD]

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?

Campeador,

Just because they have followed the sheep principle, doesn’t mean I have to follow them. It’s called thinking outside of the box, and looking at the context of all of Paul’s writings, none of which directly supports celibacy as an encouraged practice for one’s entire life.

I think the context suggests that Paul was a widower. The context suggests he was writing to widowers and widows as to whether they should seek to re-marry, in the particular circumstances of Corinth at that time.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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,

We can only hope he doesn’t take the same approach to say the brakes on his car

 

[Javl]

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”.

It must be kept in mind that the Greek used is Koine Greek and not Classical Greek. In Koine Greek, “kai” almost always means “and” or “also”, rarely anything else. In the Koine Greek scriptures, as written, St. Thomas said when he saw the risen Lord " O Kyrios mou kai Theos mou."

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Stephen168]

" 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…

Not true.

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]"

larger quote:

May I have pleasure in your purity, as that of Elijah, or as of Joshua the son of Nun, as of Melchizedek, or as of Elisha, as of Jeremiah, or as of John the Baptist, as of the beloved disciple, as of Timothy, as of Titus, as of Evodius, as of Clement, who departed this life in [perfect] chastity, Not, however, that I blame the other blessed [saints] because they entered into the married state, of which I have just spoken. For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as 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.

 

[ParkerD]

Not true.

larger quote:

May I have pleasure in your purity, as that of Elijah, or as of Joshua the son of Nun, as of Melchizedek, or as of Elisha, as of Jeremiah, or as of John the Baptist, as of the beloved disciple, as of Timothy, as of Titus, as of Evodius, as of Clement, who departed this life in [perfect] chastity, Not, however, that I blame the other blessed [saints] because they entered into the married state, of which I have just spoken. For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as 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.

Stephen168,

I suppose that I might as well point out that I wasn’t agreeing with Eusebius when I posted the quote from his writings–it was in response to a question about the ECF, so I posted that quote.

But I tend to disagree with Eusebius on that particular point that he made, so, “not true” about that particular point is fine with me.

As far as Paul having been married, I suppose that you are aware than many “Biblical scholars” have asserted that Paul would indeed have been a married man during his life, since he was a devout, respected Jew and so stated. The statement that you have amplified seems to confirm this also, that Paul was among those who"were married men" (apostles) whom that writer was writing about.

 

[pablope]

pablope;7463556:

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.

Sorry parker, I do not know what you are talking about disagreeing with Eusebius. I posted the context of the Philippian espistle, that it was written as a response to Paul’s gratitude to the Philippians for sending help to him while in prison.

In addition (this info is not intended for you but for others), yokefellow has different meanings too.
From the Bible Encylopedia:

yok’-fel-o (sunzugos, “yoked together”):

The word is used by Greek writers of those united by any bond, such as marriage, relationship, office, labor, study or business; hence, a yoke-fellow, consort, comrade, colleague or partner

The LDS (at least Parker) seems to be only wanting to stick to yokefellow as meaning wife, but it can also mean other kinds of relationship-partnership, comrade…so taking the context of the statement and the epistle author’s purpose into account, the reader could find out the context of what was meant when the author used the word.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168,

I suppose that I might as well point out that I wasn’t agreeing with Eusebius when I posted the quote from his writings–it was in response to a question about the ECF, so I posted that quote.

But I tend to disagree with Eusebius on that particular point that he made, so, “not true” about that particular point is fine with me.

As far as Paul having been married, I suppose that you are aware than many “Biblical scholars” have asserted that Paul would indeed have been a married man during his life, since he was a devout, respected Jew and so stated. The statement that you have amplified seems to confirm this also, that Paul was among those who"were married men" (apostles) whom that writer was writing about.

It was the author of the link’s point that Paul was currently married, not Eusebius’. It is clear from 1 Cor 7 and Ignatius that the preferred state for a Christian was celibacy. Eusebius was pointing out that Peter and Philip had been married before they were called by Christ and Paul had a yokefellow; which means ten of The Twelve had never been married. Whether Paul had been married before being called or had never been married doesn’t really change the OP’s question.

How does the LDS Church harmonize the statements of Paul in 1 Cor 7, with the LDS doctrine that marriage is essential to realizing the fullness of God’s plan of eternal progression? It would seem to be bad teaching on Paul’s part if he were condoning a practice that would prevent one from progressing in the afterlife as mormons understand.

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

Stephen168,

I suppose that I might as well point out that I wasn’t agreeing with Eusebius when I posted the quote from his writings–it was in response to a question about the ECF, so I posted that quote.

But I tend to disagree with Eusebius on that particular point that he made, so, “not true” about that particular point is fine with me.

As far as Paul having been married, I suppose that you are aware than many “Biblical scholars” have asserted that Paul would indeed have been a married man during his life, since he was a devout, respected Jew and so stated. The statement that you have amplified seems to confirm this also, that Paul was among those who"were married men" (apostles) whom that writer was writing about.

Have any proof that there were ZERO respected unmarried jews?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Paul is clearly addressing a question or a topic that was put to him:
In response, he replies:

So you can see that Paul is not the one that made that statement.
More detail can be found here: en.fairmormon.org/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation/Paul_said_it_is_good_not_to_marry#ref_fn2

I disagree. I think the langauge of the text is quite clear that Paul is giving advicce regarding marriage, and recommends celibacy (although he’s not enforcing it on anyone). My thought is that IF the LDS teaching is correct, and marriage is eternal and a necessary part of exaltation, then Paul was giving a contrary recommendation to his fellow Christians. Since the letter to the Corinthians is accepted as scripture by the LDS - how do you reconcile this? Your response is - well - not very responsive at all. Please address the actual text that I have linked to and tell me what you think, or link me to an LDS discussion that attempts to harmonize this text with the essential LDS teaching on the eternal and necessary step of marriage.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

You’re missing the point of my question. Whether Paul was married previously or not is not the point. It is clear from the passage that he is encouraging celibacy for all followers of Christ who can tolerate it - whether they were previously married or had never been married:

[8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
[9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 1 Cor 7:8-9

And he goes on to say…

[32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
[34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
[36] If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry – it is no sin.
[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
[39] 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.
[40] But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God. 1 Cor 7:32-40

So, it seems that Paul is giving “bad” advice if he is suggesting that the unmarried should remain unmarried. Would this not prevent one from progressing to an exalted state, if one enters the afterlife without an eternal marriage?

Peace,
Robert

 

[zaffiroborant]

[32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
[34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
[36] If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry – it is no sin.
[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
[39] 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

Seems he is also saying marriage ends with death.

 

[flyonthewall]

I disagree. I think the langauge of the text is quite clear that Paul is giving advicce regarding marriage, and recommends celibacy (although he’s not enforcing it on anyone). My thought is that IF the LDS teaching is correct, and marriage is eternal and a necessary part of exaltation, then Paul was giving a contrary recommendation to his fellow Christians. Since the letter to the Corinthians is accepted as scripture by the LDS - how do you reconcile this? Your response is - well - not very responsive at all. Please address the actual text that I have linked to and tell me what you think, or link me to an LDS discussion that attempts to harmonize this text with the essential LDS teaching on the eternal and necessary step of marriage.

Peace,
Robert

To summarize the whole chapter, Paul was written to by the Corinthians about a particular problem that was going on at the time, Paul states this at the begining of the chapter, then in verse 26 he states that he has responded to the current situation:

26I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

And then in verse 29 he states that the “time is short”:

29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

Well, time is short for what? Time is short for those that have been sent forth in the ministry.

Paul is simply reminding those who have been called to God’s work to put that calling first, even before earthly matters.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Seems he is also saying marriage ends with death.

Yes. That too.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

To summarize the whole chapter, Paul was written to by the Corinthians about a particular problem that was going on at the time, Paul states this at the begining of the chapter, then in verse 26 he states that he has responded to the current situation:

And then in verse 29 he states that the “time is short”:
Well, time is short for what? Time is short for those that have been sent forth in the ministry.

Paul is simply reminding those who have been called to God’s work to put that calling first, even before earthly matters.

I don’t see how you can dismiss what is very explicit advice regarding marriage and/or celibacy. And whether it was “for that particular group” or a particular problem (as opposed to an inspired teaching that we should continue to follow) was it not bad advice to any single individual person who was seeking the truth, from an LDS perspective? What if some of these unmarried Corinthians followed Paul’s advice and remained unmarried, later to die in that state… and be deprived of the ability to eternally progress because of this lacking? How do you harmonize that?

It seems to me, and please correct me if I’m not seeing it, that no one has really attempted to address the point of my OP.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Paul is simply reminding those who have been called to God’s work to put that calling first, even before earthly matters.

Thanks fly. I appreciate the general point you are drawing here. But would you not agree that from an LDS perspective eternal marriage is *not *a merely earthly matter? Paul, to the contrary, seems to be implying with his advice that marriage (eternal or otherwise) is not an essential step to receiving the fullness of God’s plan of exaltation. His advice is seemingly at odds with the LDS position even if, as you assert, his message is only intended for the Corinthians of his time.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Javl]

Fly:

You should take some time to read a few Blblical Commentaries, ( Catholic and Protestant ) and Concordances to find out and understand what and to whom Paul was talking about, and then make your comments and present your ( LDS ) version. It would save a lot of time and misunderstanding.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ParkerD]

You’re missing the point of my question. Whether Paul was married previously or not is not the point. It is clear from the passage that he is encouraging celibacy for all followers of Christ who can tolerate it - whether they were previously married or had never been married: And he goes on to say…

[32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
[34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
[36] If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry – it is no sin.
[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
[39] 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.
[40] But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God. 1 Cor 7:32-40

Hi, Robert,

I think it would make a substantial difference in understanding that chapter to know whether Paul had been previously married, or not, because it would change the frame of reference about his advice. We note that his advice about “virgins” is “no commandment of the Lord” (v. 25)–but is his own advice, and is given “for the present distress” (v. 26) and is given with the assumption that “the time is short” wherein “they that have wives be as though they had none…” (v. 29)

The context about “the present distress” is given in the early part of the epistle–in that the members of the church in Corinth were breaking up into different factions and having contention (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), and thus no longer had the “unity of the faith”.

Verse 29 uses the term “the time is short”. So the situation Paul is describing was considered a “short time” by him, and should not be assumed to be an entire lifetime.

We note that he writes about “betrothed” in the sense that a couple is promised to each other in marriage, so it is not a question of whether they are eventually going to marry–it is a question of when the right time to do that will be. (v. 36-38)

So I disagree that the chapter is teaching that celibacy for one’s entire life would be a good thing or a “better” thing. Verse 38 is talking about that particular time of “present distress”.

The inspiration Joseph Smith received about this chapter, as has already been discussed on this thread, was that verse 29 was alluding to the call “to the ministry” of certain brethren who would thus be focusing on the work of the ministry (preaching the gospel) in their calling for that particular period of time.

Peace to you also, and have a wonderful day.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi, Robert,

I think it would make a substantial difference in understanding that chapter to know whether Paul had been previously married, or not, because it would change the frame of reference about his advice. We note that his advice about “virgins” is “no commandment of the Lord” (v. 25)–but is his own advice, and is given “for the present distress” (v. 26) and is given with the assumption that “the time is short” wherein “they that have wives be as though they had none…” (v. 29)

The context about “the present distress” is given in the early part of the epistle–in that the members of the church in Corinth were breaking up into different factions and having contention (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), and thus no longer had the “unity of the faith”.

Verse 29 uses the term “the time is short”. So the situation Paul is describing was considered a “short time” by him, and should not be assumed to be an entire lifetime.

We note that he writes about “betrothed” in the sense that a couple is promised to each other in marriage, so it is not a question of whether they are eventually going to marry–it is a question of when the right time to do that will be. (v. 36-38)

So I disagree that the chapter is teaching that celibacy for one’s entire life would be a good thing or a “better” thing. Verse 38 is talking about that particular time of “present distress”.

The inspiration Joseph Smith received about this chapter, as has already been discussed on this thread, was that verse 29 was alluding to the call “to the ministry” of certain brethren who would thus be focusing on the work of the ministry (preaching the gospel) in their calling for that particular period of time.

Peace to you also, and have a wonderful day.

Thanks Parker. Yours is an interesting take. I’ll read up on it and get back with my thoughts.

You have a wonderful day too.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi, Robert,

I think it would make a substantial difference in understanding that chapter to know whether Paul had been previously married, or not, because it would change the frame of reference about his advice. We note that his advice about “virgins” is “no commandment of the Lord” (v. 25)–but is his own advice, and is given “for the present distress” (v. 26) and is given with the assumption that “the time is short” wherein “they that have wives be as though they had none…” (v. 29)

These verses simply do not restrict the meaning of the teaching of Paul six chapters later. Paul is clearly offering his advice, but that does not mean it is uninspired. Indeed, this epistle is acknowledged by both LDS and Catholics alike as scripture, so I don’t think it holds up when one uses this argument to reduce the clear statements in Chapter 7 to something restricted to the immediate church in Corinth. Also, you say here that it would make a difference to know whether Paul had been previously married or not, but you don’t explain how this makes a difference in the analysis of what he is saying vis a vis the necessity of marriage in God’s plan.
Parker:

The context about “the present distress” is given in the early part of the epistle–in that the members of the church in Corinth were breaking up into different factions and having contention (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), and thus no longer had the “unity of the faith”.

And it seems, in Chapter 7 that one of the dividing issues was the status of marriage; and Paul’s response is decidedly Catholic rather than LDS here. He says nothing of the concept of eternal marriage, and makes no comment supporting the idea of its necessity for completing God’s plan for humanity i.e. exaltation. Again, the chapter seems entirely contrary to Mormonism’s teaching.
Parker:

Verse 29 uses the term “the time is short”. So the situation Paul is describing was considered a “short time” by him, and should not be assumed to be an entire lifetime.

No. It seems that Paul’s reference is to the coming of the Lord, not to the “short time” of celibacy. He is speaking in Chapter 7 without restriction as to time in which one should remain celibate. Rather, he is saying that those who can take on celibacy to the end should take it on, but better to marry than be tempted to sin by one’s own passions. Nothing in the discussion in Chapter 7 suggests that celibacy is limited to a short time period.
Parker:

We note that he writes about “betrothed” in the sense that a couple is promised to each other in marriage, so it is not a question of whether they are eventually going to marry–it is a question of when the right time to do that will be. (v. 36-38)

I’m sorry, but I see no such qualification in the writing:

[32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
[34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
[36] If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry – it is no sin.
[37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well.
[38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
[39] 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.
[40] But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.

Parker:

So I disagree that the chapter is teaching that celibacy for one’s entire life would be a good thing or a “better” thing. Verse 38 is talking about that particular time of “present distress”.

You’re free to disagree. But there’s nothing in the text of the chapter, or the epistle, that limits Paul’s recommendation in this way. Moreover, even if his teaching is limited to two people, that they remain unmarried, his advice is contrary to the LDS position on the necessity of eternal marriage.
Parker:

The inspiration Joseph Smith received about this chapter, as has already been discussed on this thread, was that verse 29 was alluding to the call “to the ministry” of certain brethren who would thus be focusing on the work of the ministry (preaching the gospel) in their calling for that particular period of time.

I’m sure that was what he was required to find, to support his teaching on marriage. To follow the Catholic reading, which seems to harmonize Scripture and Tradition in a very seamless way, would be to suggest that the LDS teaching was a novel doctrine. I’m sorry, but I see nothing here that supports your conclusion, and Joseph Smith’s interpretation. It is novel and inconsistent with the text of the scripture taken in its context.

Do you have any links to any LDS articles discussing this passage? I’d love to take another look at this issue.

Peace,
Robert

 

[pablope]

These verses simply do not restrict the meaning of the teaching of Paul six chapters later. Paul is clearly offering his advice, but that does not mean it is uninspired. Indeed, this epistle is acknowledged by both LDS and Catholics alike as scripture, so I don’t think it holds up when one uses this argument to reduce the clear statements in Chapter 7 to something restricted to the immediate church in Corinth. Also, you say here that it would make a difference to know whether Paul had been previously married or not, but you don’t explain how this makes a difference in the analysis of what he is saying vis a vis the necessity of marriage in God’s plan.

AndYou’re free to disagree.

But I’m sure that was what he was required to find, to support his teaching on marriage. To follow the Catholic reading, which seems to harmonize Scripture and Tradition in a very seamless way, would be to suggest that the LDS teaching was a novel doctrine. I’m sorry, but I see nothing here that supports your conclusion, and Joseph Smith’s interpretation. It is novel and inconsistent with the text of the scripture taken in its context.

Do you have any links to any LDS articles discussing this passage? I’d love to take another look at this issue.

Peace,
Robert

Very well said, Robert…oh, and I am sure parker will disagree and will twist and turn every verse to fit LDS theology, instead of deriving theology from the verse, to the point of hair splitting arguments and semantics. :banghead: