Twisting the Word – Laws for Marriage
I just read a sloppy exegesis claiming that apostle Paul was married by trying to argue from the same Greek root word used in describing these distinct cases in 1 Corinthians 7.
Here’s a reply discussing that misguided post:
The exegesis is “adding” to the Word things which are not written exactly the same way how Hell became eternal instead of age-during too.
Fact is, apostle Paul is unmarried.
Here’s a proper exegesis:
The meaning of the root word translated as unmarried in 1 Corinthians 7:8 also occurs in 1 Corinthians 7:11 & 1 Corinthians 7:32.
It all means “never married” consistently:
“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, NASB)
Apostle Paul clearly spoke of “cases” in 1 Corinthians 7. For example, should he wanted to mean “unmarried” in the sense of “separated/divorced but married before”, he would have written “as I am” in verse 1 Corinthians 7:11, which he did not.
As for 1 Corinthians 7:32, the “unmarried” is contrasted against being “married” in 1 Corinthians 7:33 & includes both the “separated or never married case” together as discussed prior as 1 Corinthians 7:34 implies too.
In 1 Corinthians 7:8, the “unmarried” refers to the “never married” together with the “widows” which are ‘allowed’ to marry as the next verse 1 Corinthians 7:9 clearly says (‘a choice’).
If as the author claims that the “unmarried” in 1Corinthians 7:8 implies that “it includes those married but separated”, then the next verse, 1 Corinthians 7:9 implies that these ones “can marry” which is a contradiction!
Because those “divorced or separated” “cannot” marry but may remain such or be reconciled back to their spouse as 1 Corinthians 7:11 clearly implies.
This agrees with 1 Corinthians 7:39 too that one can only marry if one has “never married before” or “one’s spouse has died” (1 Corinthians 7:39).
Thus 1 Corinthians 7:8 clearly cannot include the possibility that apostle Paul was married at all. The Bible and the verses are very clear regarding these distinctions of cases in this chapter itself.