"But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I." 1 Corinthians 7:8
Why is it that many Christians ass-u-me that "Paul puts himself in the category of the unmarried"? They think that Paul was never married. In this verse, he lists two groups of people: the unmarried, and the widows. The Greek word translated as "unmarried" is agamos* (a = not, gamos = married), which apparently refers to both bachelors and widowers. This is just a thought, but could a possible rendering for this verse be, "But I say to the widowers and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I"? After all, we know that there had to be widowers as well as widows, so would Paul not say something to them, too? I suggest this not only because of the scriptural and extra-biblical evidence, but especially when the next verse is considered: "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Apparently, and I do not know how true this may or may not be, once you have been married, when you lose someone that close to you, it is difficult to return to the single state again and you yearn for companionship. I think this depends on the person, and I think verse 9 makes that clear. Some are able to remain single while others yearn for that companionship, and both are good and acceptable, as verse 28 makes clear.
Do people ass-u-me that Paul put himself in the category of the unmarried and not in the category of the widows due to the fact that the Greek word for widow is feminine, and thus he obviously could not put himself in that category? But the question remains, were there not widowers? Would Paul not address them somehow, too? Why do people ass-u-me that Paul put himself in the category of the unmarried and not in the category of the widowers, especially when agamos apparently refers to both? Also, if agamos really and truly means "unmarried," why do people ass-u-me that Paul was not simply stating that these people (the unmarried and the widows) remain single as he is—rather than eisegetically implying that he had never married. Being single does not mean that you were never married; it simply means that your current status is single. Singlehood does not include divorced people because according to John the Baptizer and Jesus, as well as Romans 7:3, while these people might be living in singlehood, they are considered married.
Do people ass-u-me that Paul put himself in the category of the unmarried and not in the category of the widows due to the fact that the Greek word for widow is feminine, and thus he obviously could not put himself in that category? But the question remains, were there not widowers? Would Paul not address them somehow, too? Why do people ass-u-me that Paul put himself in the category of the unmarried and not in the category of the widowers, especially when agamos apparently refers to both? Also, if agamos really and truly means "unmarried," why do people ass-u-me that Paul was not simply stating that these people (the unmarried and the widows) remain single as he is—rather than eisegetically implying that he had never married. Being single does not mean that you were never married; it simply means that your current status is single. Singlehood does not include divorced people because according to John the Baptizer and Jesus, as well as Romans 7:3, while these people might be living in singlehood, they are considered married.
- Paul was a widower. (Most likely. Strong evidence.)
- Paul was divorced.
- Paul was never married. (Least likely. No evidence.)
All the evidence from Scripture and Jewish customs points to the fact that Paul was most likely married. Jewish males were typically married by the time they were in their mid-twenties. Paul's family were strict Hebrew Jews (Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5). Paul says that he followed the traditions of his ancestors with zeal, exceeding those of his own age (Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:4-6). In order to be part of the Sanhedrin, one had to be married. There appears to be strong evidence that Paul was part of the Sanhedrin (especially when you consider how he describes himself as "a Hebrew of Hebrews"). Paul was a chosen and prepared vessel for the ministry he was given, and to write things like 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 and Ephesians 5:22-33, while God could use an unmarried man to do so, the typical method that God employs is to use a person that is prepared for that role. In other words, in order for him to write about marriage God wanted him to experience marriage firsthand. Paul never refers to himself as a virgin, or classes himself with such, nor does he ever imply or state that he had never been married. Those who argue that Paul had never been married have zero support for the position.
It is possible that upon his conversion to Christianity Paul's wife left him and returned to her family, which would give support to Paul's words in verses 12-16. In these verses, Paul nowhere says that a Christian is free to remarry. He says that if the unbelieving partner wants to leave, let them. If you try to force them to stay, you will have the kind of marriage that Proverbs frequently talks about concerning the contentious woman. This in no way hints at or alludes to the freedom to remarry. This would be a direct contradiction to God's words recorded in verses 10-11, as well as to Jesus' words where He states that re-marriage is adultery, and to 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3. So, perverse Christian, stop trying to pit Paul against God and have him contradict God's clear teachings on the issue. While it is possible that Paul's wife may have left him, the evidence is more strongly in favour of the fact that he was more than likely a widower.
Chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians is where the perverse Christian attributes all sorts of contradictions to the Apostle Paul. Here are just a couple of them:
- God says (vv.10-11) but I say (vv.12-16). God has said this, but I know better than God and so I am telling you the exact opposite. God has said not to divorce, but I am telling you that it is okay to do.
- Verse 27. "Are you bound [deo] to a wife?" The Greek word here is the exact same word found in verse 39: "A wife is bound [deo] as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." The same truth is found in Romans 7:2-3: "For the married woman is bound [deo] by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man." Verse 27 makes the best sense in light of widowers/widows, because the very next verse states, "But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned." Only widowers/widows are legitimately loosed/released from a spouse. If this referred to divorced people, then we have a number of contradictions because according to verse 39 and Romans 7:2-3, as well as Jesus' words on the issue (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18), a divorced person has sinned if they have re-married; they are guilty of committing adultery, and adultery is a sin.
Verse 9 and verse 28 cannot logically be referring to divorced people as "unmarried" because Scripture repeatedly refers to them as being legitimately married, even when in adulterous relationships (Matt. 14:3-4; Luke 3:19; Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39). The only legitimately "unmarried" person groups that exist are the virgins and the widowers/widows. Verses 8-9 and verses 27-28 make the most sense when widowers are understood. Paul simply, and logically, cannot be referring to divorced people in verse 9 and verse 28 because in verse 39 and Romans 7:2-3 he makes it clear that by re-marrying they are sinning. Not to mention the words from God in verses 10-11. Jesus made this clear as well, stating that the re-married person is committing adultery (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18).
How about we, as professing "Christians," start believing what the Bible actually has to say instead of trying to force it to say what we want it to say based upon our sick, wicked, perverse hearts? God wrote the Bible; He said want He meant and means what He says, so let us start taking it seriously and acting accordingly.
ADDENDUM #1:
Those who believe that Paul was divorced like to attempt to use Philippians 3:8 as part of their proof texts, where Paul says, "I have suffered the loss of all things." Implying that this verse means or includes a divorced wife is the practice of eisegesis, reading into the Scriptures what one wants to find there and forcing them to say something they do not say.
ADDENDUM #2:
It truly amazes me the number of Bible teachers, preachers, and scholars who talk about interpreting the Bible historically, grammatically, and contextually, yet in practice fail to do precisely this. You cannot take our day and age with its societal practices and acceptances and try to impose them upon the biblical world. As Christians, we are supposed to conform to the Bible; not to try and force it to conform to our feelings and opinions. Just because you do not like what it has to say does not mean you get to ignore it or try to alter it in some way. To not accept what the Bible says and conform yourself to it is to be disobedient and rebellious.
ADDENDUM #2:
It truly amazes me the number of Bible teachers, preachers, and scholars who talk about interpreting the Bible historically, grammatically, and contextually, yet in practice fail to do precisely this. You cannot take our day and age with its societal practices and acceptances and try to impose them upon the biblical world. As Christians, we are supposed to conform to the Bible; not to try and force it to conform to our feelings and opinions. Just because you do not like what it has to say does not mean you get to ignore it or try to alter it in some way. To not accept what the Bible says and conform yourself to it is to be disobedient and rebellious.
* Agamos is used three other times in this chapter (and only in this chapter and in this book [11, 32, 34]), and "unmarried" seems to be the best rendering for them based on context. Verse 34 is a little confusing, however, especially when read from post-KJV Bibles, because an unmarried woman ought, technically, to be a virgin. (Remember, we are talking about their times, not about our perverse times.) In verse 34, if the widows were in view, Paul would have used the same word from verse 8. In pre-KJV Bibles, the passage makes more sense because two people are introduced (the wife and the virgin) and then dealt with individually. Paul says there is a difference between them as there is between the husband and the bachelor.
All the elements between these two Greek texts are exact the same, with the exception of a period being moved, four words being added (in the green), and two terms being swapped (in the blue).
Textus Receptus Greek: μεμέρισται ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἡ παρθένος. ἡ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ σώματι καὶ πνεύματι· ἡ δὲ γαμήσασα μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, πῶς ἀρέσει τῷ ἀνδρί.
Nestle-Aland Greek: καὶ μεμέρισται. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος καὶ ἡ παρθένος μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ τῷ σώματι καὶ τῷ πνεύματι· ἡ δὲ γαμήσασα μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, πῶς ἀρέσῃ τῷ ἀνδρί.
ἡ γυνὴ = the woman/the wife
ἡ παρθένος = the virgin/the maiden
ἡ ἄγαμος = the unmarried
Since γυνὴ is frequently employed when speaking of a wife, as can be seen from the preceding verse (33), the rendering of pre-KJV Bibles makes more sense than the nonsensical rendering of post-KJV Bibles, seeing as how an "unmarried woman" and a "virgin" are exactly the same thing (Again, we are talking about their times, not about our perverse times.), unless talking about widows, in which case Paul would have used χήρα. Does it make sense that verse 34 would begin by saying "his interests are divided" when the end of verse 34 does not say the same thing about the woman, that her interests are divided? Or does it make more sense that Paul is saying there is likewise a difference between a married and unmarried woman just as there is between a married and unmarried man?
Interestingly enough, the Newberry Bible, or The Englishman's Bible, contains footnotes where it addresses variants within the Greek manuscripts, and then identifies which manuscripts contain which variant. Not a single variant is mentioned or listed for verse 34. So why does the Nestle-Aland text have an alteration that no other manuscripts appear to have? I would trust the Greek text of the Textus Receptus in this case, seeing as how it makes the most sense of the information within and around it, as discussed above.
Interestingly enough, the Newberry Bible, or The Englishman's Bible, contains footnotes where it addresses variants within the Greek manuscripts, and then identifies which manuscripts contain which variant. Not a single variant is mentioned or listed for verse 34. So why does the Nestle-Aland text have an alteration that no other manuscripts appear to have? I would trust the Greek text of the Textus Receptus in this case, seeing as how it makes the most sense of the information within and around it, as discussed above.