Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 1Cor. 7:36-38

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    ... I do not see where this set up house business is supposed to be in chapter 7. Do you know what they re talking about? ... But isn t 7:29 assumed by
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 5, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      > See TDNT vol 5, p. 836. #3- parqenos in the Ascetic Sense. "Parthenos
      > seems to have a specific ascetic sense in 1 C. 7:34, 36-38 and also in v. 25
      > (perhaps of both women and men) amd v. 28. The reference is to women in the
      > community who have agreed to set up house with a man in order that they may
      > acheive the ideal of Christian asceticism in economic independence. Almost
      > insuperable philological difficulties prevent us from seeing here a
      > reference to unmarried daughters" (contra Jeff Gibson, here). See
      > further J. Weiss, I Kor.

      I do not see where this "set up house" business is supposed to be in
      chapter 7. Do you know what they're talking about?

      > >Second, where is an expectation of a imminent parousia evident in chpt.
      > >7?
      >
      > I agree that it is not explicit in ch 7- but it is made explicit in the 15th
      > chapter, which, I would suggest, must be taken into account. That is, we
      > must have the whole in mind when we examine the parts.

      But isn't 7:29 assumed by virtually everybody to have to do with the
      parousia?

      > >If it is the main assumption here, why does not Paul take the time to
      > >disabuse the Corinthians of that notion?
      >
      > But that is exactly what he is doing.

      Huh?

      I particularly like the Thomasine = Gnostic statements in 7:31.

      But otherwise I don't see what the problem is here. Don't get married
      but it's OK if you do seems to be the gist. Paul's statement that
      this is his own opinion and not the Lord's necessarily, coupled with
      the overall propensity to compromise makes me think that Paul
      is doing what he says, giving his own odd opinion, and that there's
      no "cult of virginity" or anything of the sort at issue here.

      Steve
    • Paul Miller
      ... snip^ ... What insuperable philological difficulties? The NASV text seems to read one way, with daughters in the text, changing the meaning to something
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 5, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        > Almost
        > insuperable philological difficulties prevent us from seeing here a
        > reference to unmarried daughters" (contra Jeff Gibson, here).
        snip^
        > Jim
        > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        > Jim West, ThD
        > Adjunct Professor of Bible
        > Quartz Hill School of Theology

        What insuperable philological difficulties? The NASV text seems to read
        one way, with daughters in the text, changing the meaning to something
        altogether different than the RSV.

        36But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin
        daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so,
        let him do what
        he wishes, he does not sin; let [1][THEM]her marry.
        37But he who stands firm in his heart, [2]being under no
        constraint, but
        has authority [3]over his own will, and has decided this in
        his own
        heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.
        38So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage
        does
        well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do
        better.



        [1]Lit them
        [2]Lit having no necessity
        [3]Lit pertaining to

        Again I must appeal to the Greek folks on the list, what are the
        meanings of the word unbecomingly in this context?


        Paul Miller
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.