Paul And Marriage

[Rivers]

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul seems to be anti-marriage. The chapter heading says this:

Paul answers special questions about marriage among those called on missions—Paul praises self-discipline.

This would clear things up but I don't see anywhere in the chapter that states that that Paul is talking to missionaries. How did Bruce R. McKonkie or whoever wrote this chapter heading, get the idea that Paul is talking to missionaries?

[Hughes]

Yup... wondering...

1 Corinthians 7:38 "So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better."

[Zakuska]

Hughes seems to forget that:

1) Paul is giving his own "opinion" about several things in this chapter.

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Notice how he contrasts his "thoughts" on the matter with what the Lord has actually said and commanded.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. ...

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, ..

vs.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

and...

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

And here again:

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Notice also that Pauls advice is being given for a specific reason and time frame:

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

The current distress.

It wasn't council or command that was supposed to last forever. The Lord forsaw how people would twist Pauls council and "expressly" commanded him to write to Timothy about it:

1 Tim 4

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Forbbing to marry is departing from the Faith.

Missionaries you ask? Every Member a missionary:

24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

I think because Paul is writting and answering questions of people who are Missionaries in the church. Who is he addressing when he says that he is answering a letter they had sent to him?

Remember also that up until about the 1950s-1960s when my dad went out on his mission. Missionaries were often married when sent out.

My 2 cents.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

We know that Paul often talks about a particular "cross" he has to bear- some kind of great temptation perhaps.

I think maybe these statements relate to that somehow.

Yet is in Ephesians 5 I think, where he speaks of being "married" to Christ as Christ is married to the church and being "one flesh" with our spouses- to me this indicates a real conflict within him over the nature of Marriage.

He clearly is not against it there- yet in other places it certainly reads that way.

We also know that Paul did not write all the Epistles- is that a factor? Perhaps one of our scholars could speak to that question.

[mfbukowski]

My 2 cents.

Baloney! That was great stuff! Thanks- Very insightful!

[Zakuska]

Baloney! That was great stuff! Thanks- Very insightful!

It reminds me of the way the Word of Wisdom is worded.

D&C 89

1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—

2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

It wasn't a command from God but good sensible health council.

[Hughes]

Hughes seems to forget that:

1) Paul is giving his own "opinion" about several things in this chapter.

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Notice how he contrasts his "thoughts" on the matter with what the Lord has actually said and commanded.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. ...

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, ..

vs.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

and...

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

And here again:

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Notice also that Pauls advice is being given for a specific reason and time frame:

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

The current distress.

It wasn't council or command that was supposed to last forever. The Lord forsaw how people would twist Pauls council and "expressly" commanded him to write to Timothy about it:

1 Tim 4

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Forbbing to marry is departing from the Faith.

Missionaries you ask? Every Member a missionary:

24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

I think because Paul is writting and answering questions of people who are Missionaries in the church. Who is he addressing when he says that he is answering a letter they had sent to him?

Remember also that up until about the 1950s-1960s when my dad went out on his mission. Missionaries were often married when sent out.

My 2 cents.

Also notice that Paul states, "those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this."

And, Explains why it is better not to marry.

"32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."

And so while it's better not to marry, it's better "36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married."

So, no there's no teaching here from Paul saying or mandating we shouldn't marry, nothing about missionaries being different. Simply a principle set out that those who remain unmarried choose the better path because their devotion is to the lord only.

[altersteve]

Also notice that Paul states, "those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this."

And, Explains why it is better not to marry.

"32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."

And so while it's better not to marry, it's better "36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married."

So, no there's no teaching here from Paul saying or mandating we shouldn't marry, nothing about missionaries being different. Simply a principle set out that those who remain unmarried choose the better path because their devotion is to the lord only.

Just so you know, when talking to Latter-day Saints about the Bible, it would be better to use the King James Version. Few Mormons are familiar with other Bible translations. Just a heads up for future discussions.

[Zakuska]

Also notice that Paul states, "those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this."

And, Explains why it is better not to marry.

"32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."

And so while it's better not to marry, it's better "36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married."

So, no there's no teaching here from Paul saying or mandating we shouldn't marry, nothing about missionaries being different. Simply a principle set out that those who remain unmarried choose the better path because their devotion is to the lord only.

And yet Paul is able to say this in the same discourse.

1 Cor 11

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

How is an unmarried man going to by "in the Lord"... without his woman?

Like I said... chapter 7 was for "the current Distress". He needed people who were able to focus on the work and not be incumbered with having to weight on tables and wash clothes.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Zakuska

[T-Shirt]

In 1 Corinthians: 7, we don’t know the exact content of the letter that the Corinthians sent to Paul, and the questions they asked, and most importantly, we don’t know, for sure, the context of their questions. However, it seems pretty clear that in verses one through six, he is simply explaining that sexual relations are acceptable, only in marriage.

Verses seven through nine, I think, are some of the most misunderstood verses in all of scripture, and maybe the most misused, as well. Many use this verse as proof text that Paul was not married, and that he wished all men were single, as he was. I disagree with this. Some think that Paul may have been widowed or divorced, which, I suppose, is possible, but I tend to disagree with this as well. Before I get into my reasoning behind this, let me first explain what I believe to be the context of this chapter, and most particularly, verses 25 through 40.

In verse 26, we read:

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

The key to understanding lies in the word, “distress”. It is translated from the Greek word, “anagke”, which means, “necessity”. Some interpret the word distress to refer to the belief that the second coming of the Lord was imminent, but this is not very consistent with other words of Paul, especially those found in Thessalonians. I think the “present necessity” was that of preaching the gospel. There was a sense of urgency concerning the spreading of the gospel, as seen in verse 29. The counsel that Paul is giving is for those who are being called to travel and preach the gospel. In this context, his instruction makes good sense and eliminates the difficult to reconcile contradictions with other words of Paul where he recommends and in some cases, requires marriage. Verse 29 is in complete contradiction with verse five, unless Paul is speaking to married men who are being asked to travel for a time to preach the gospel.

Verse 25 is also very important, and it leads me into the explanation I mentioned above concerning Paul’s marital status.

Verse 25 reads:

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Paul seems to be offering his personal instruction to those called to preach the gospel, based on his own experiences. My position is, that Paul was married, but traveled without his wife, which was not the case with other apostles. His personal experience was, that missionary work was much easier if one’s spouse did not travel along. His reason for giving this as his opinion, rather than by commandment was that other apostles did travel with their wives, which seemed to work fine for them. We see evidence for this in 1 Corinthians 9:5:

5 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?

This is part of why I think Paul was married, but there is more. First, let’s look at verses 7-9:

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

When Paul says, “even as I myself” and “abide even as I”, I don’t think he is referring to marital status, but to continence, or his gift to maintain self control while away from his wife. In context, this makes much more sense. Speaking to future missionaries, he desires that they serve their missions while still single, because he feels it will be easier for them, but if they cannot maintain themselves, then they should marry, even if this may complicate their missionary service.

Now let’s look at more evidence of Paul’s marital status:

• 1
  

– Ignatius included Paul in his mention of men of God who were married:

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. For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite, but out of regard for the propagation of mankind.

(Ignatius, Epistles of Ignatius)

• 2
  

- Philippians 4:1-3

1 Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.

2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

I believe that in verse three, Paul is addressing his wife (yokefellow), who he left in the care of the Phillipians during his travels.

The word, “yokefellow” is from the Greek, “suzugos”, which means co-yoked and comes from the Greek word, “suzeugnumi”, which means to yoke together or to conjoin in marriage. We see this in Matthew 19:6:

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The phrase, “hath joined together” is translated from, “suzeugnumi”.

Here is some additional information I found about these words:

Paul also used the word "yoke" (1 Timothy 6:1, quoted above). In the Bible, the word "yoke" is often used as a symbol, in different ways. In those days, a marriage was symbolically called a "yoke". The old Greek word suzugos (literally, "yoked together") was also used of people united through marriage. A zugon was "a pair" (or if you wish, "a couple"). The verb zugoo (zugoô) meant "to join together" or "to pair together". Azugos meant "unwedded".

Related words: Zeugnumi which meant "to join" (including joining a man and a woman in marriage); suzeugnumi (see Mark 10:9) which meant "joined together", "yoked together" (especially in marriage).

• 3
  

– Lastly, Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria agree with this:

Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives.

"Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry."

(Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius of Caesarea)

Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: "Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?" But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused.

(Clement’s Stromata, Book III, Chapter VI, 53)

Well, I hope this makes sense.

Best regards,

T-Shirt

Edited September 7, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Zakuska]

I nominate that as the best post on the thread! The best Post Ive seen in a long time!

I think that adds some very good context to 1 Cor 11 as well

1 Cor 11

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

If the man is not without the woman in the Lord and the woman is not without the man in the Lord. Where was Pauls woman so he wouldn't be alone?

Edited September 7, 2011 by Zakuska

[David T]

McConkie is unfortunately giving a summary of the JST updating of the text, not the original context of the letter.

Paul says it's ideally better to remain unmarried and celibate, but if that means you're going to fornicate, you might as well get married so it's at least legitimate and technically lawful. For him, that's the key reason marriage was allowed - as a legal concession for those who can't stand the calling of celibacy, one that he doesn't advocate, but recognizes and allows (see 1 Corinthians 7:6).

To paraphrase, "Not everyone can be celibate like I am, I wish everyone could be, but, hey, I'm a realist. It's better you get married and have an outlet than burn with lust and screw up." (see 1 Corinthians 7:8-9)

He definitely strongly advocates that those who have entered into marriage vows remain faithful to them, but it's definitely a second-tier vocation for Paul. At least at this stage of his understanding in his life.

It's understandable, then, why Joseph Smith, under inspiration, updated and revised this passage for application to those in his day with a new context to make it specific instruction to those called on modern missions - which is the new modern context McConkie summarizes.

For Paul, unmarried celibacy is the highest calling. Sex between married spouses is second tier, tolerated, but not preferred. All fornication is flat out unacceptable.

Paul's Apostolic counsel recorded in 1 Corinthians 7certainly isn't really the best companion to our modern The Family: A Proclamation to the World, but we shouldn't necessarily expect it to be.

[Hughes]

And yet Paul is able to say this in the same discourse.

1 Cor 11

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

How is an unmarried man going to by "in the Lord"... without his woman?

Like I said... chapter 7 was for "the current Distress". He needed people who were able to focus on the work and not be incumbered with having to weight on tables and wash clothes.

One of the reasons I don't like to use the KJV is because it's often confusing.

The NIV:

11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Since, many LDS Don't believe that woman came from man (during creation as discussed about the rib thread), the KJV effectively hides that point. But in answer to your question, an marriage isn't discussed in this passage, so your question isn't even relevant to the passage. And no chapter 7 wasn't advice for just that time period...

[altersteve]

Since, many LDS Don't believe that woman came from man (during creation as discussed about the rib thread), the KJV effectively hides that point.

Actually, there are probably more Latter-day Saints who do believe this than there are those who don't. Most of us, that I've seen, aren't as conservative as other Mormons are. Regardless, I see nothing in the KJV that "effectively hides that point," whatever that means.

And no chapter 7 wasn't advice for just that time period...

How do you know?

Edited September 8, 2011 by altersteve

[LeSellers]

The NIV:

11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

The problem with this is that the NIV got it wrong!

Here's what the Greek actually says:

but neither [is] a man apart from a woman, nor a woman apart from a man, in the Lord

Young puts this in the middle of a very long sentence, and I'm not advocating reading it out of that context, but the words "independent of" and "apart from" do not mean the same thing.

Paul is quite clear that men and women "come from" each other: Eve from Adam, and men from our mothers. This is the general context, but the whole of the passage makes it obvious that men and women must be together again as we were before, even though is seems unreasonable to assume that we, the sexes, were ever homogenous, or unisexual. Were that the case, why did God to the bother of creating us men and women in the first place? (Oh, yeah, that pesky “So the Gods created man in his own image, in the image of the Gods created he him; male and female created he them.” stuff.)

Lehi

[Hughes]

Actually, there are probably more Latter-day Saints who do believe this than there are those who don't. Most of us, that I've seen, aren't as conservative as other Mormons are. Regardless, I see nothing in the KJV that "effectively hides that point," whatever that means.

How do you know?

Because of Paul's general principle of devotion to the Lord is applicable to any time period.

"33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."

The problem with this is that the NIV got it wrong!

Here's what the Greek actually says:

Young puts this in the middle of a very long sentence, and I'm not advocating reading it out of that context, but the words "independent of" and "apart from" do not mean the same thing.

Paul is quite clear that men and women "come from" each other: Eve from Adam, and men from our mothers. This is the general context, but the whole of the passage makes it obvious that men and women must be together again as we were before, even though is seems unreasonable to assume that we, the sexes, were ever homogenous, or unisexual. Were that the case, why did God to the bother of creating us men and women in the first place? (Oh, yeah, that pesky “So the Gods created man in his own image, in the image of the Gods created he him; male and female created he them.” stuff.)

Lehi

It's your interpretation that "independent of" and "apart from" don't mean the same thing. ;-)

Chapter 11 doesn't imply that man and women must be together in marriage, rather it's an instruction of worship, much of it based in the culture of that day.

[Zakuska]

Because of Paul's general principle of devotion to the Lord is applicable to any time period.

"33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."

It's your interpretation that "independent of" and "apart from" don't mean the same thing. ;-)

Chapter 11 doesn't imply that man and women must be together in marriage, rather it's an instruction of worship, much of it based in the culture of that day.

And yet the chapter speaks of Child bearing...

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Which ties into...

1 Timothy 2:15

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

And not to mention Pauls flip-flop... on his own "policy"

1 Tim 5

14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

[Hughes]

And yet the chapter speaks of Child bearing...

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Which ties into...

1 Timothy 2:15

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

And not to mention Pauls flip-flop... on his own "policy"

1 Tim 5

14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

And yet the chapter doesn't speak of childbearing. 1 Timothy does.

Further, there's no flip flop, Paul doesn't forbid anyone to marry, bear children, etc. All he's saying is what is better.

[Zakuska]

I think John Gill might add some insight to the discusion.

1 Corinthians 11:8Ver. 8. For the man is not of the woman,.... In the present state of things, and according to the ordinary course of generation and propagation of mankind, man is of the woman, though not without the means of man; he is conceived in her, bore by her, and born of her; but the apostle respects the original formation of man, as he was immediately made by God out of the dust of the earth, before the woman was in being, and so not of her:but the woman of the man; she was made out of his rib, and took both her name and nature from him; God was the author, and man the matter of her being; her original under God, is owing to him; and therefore as he was first in being, he must be superior to her: this serves to prove all that has been as yet said; as that man is the head of the woman, the woman is the glory of man, what he may glory in as being from him; and therefore there should be this difference in their appearance at public worship.

1 Corinthians 11:9Ver. 9. Neither was the man created for the woman,.... To be subservient to her; for she was not in being when he was created; and though it is the proper business of man to provide for, take care of, and defend the woman, as the weaker vessel, yet these were not the original ends of his creation; he was made for God, for his service and glory:but the woman for the man; to be an help meet for him, who was already created; to be a companion and associate of his, both in religious worship and in civil life; and for the procreation and education of children.

1 Corinthians 11:10Ver. 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head,.... The generality of interpreters, by power, understand the veil, or covering on the woman's head, as a sign of the man's power over her, and her subjection to him; which Dr. Hammond endeavours to confirm, by observing that the Hebrew word dydr, which signifies a woman's veil, or hood, comes from a root which signifies power and dominion; but in that he is mistaken, for the word is derived not from hdr, to rule, govern, or exercise power and authority, but fromddr, to expand, stretch out, or draw over, as a woman's veil is drawn over her head and face. The Greek word exousia more properly signifies the power she had of putting on and off her covering as she pleased, according as times, places, and persons; made it necessary:because of the angels; various are the senses given of these words, some taking them in a proper, others in a figurative sense: some in a proper sense of angels, and these either good or bad. Tertullian {e} understands them of evil angels, and that a woman should cover her head in time of worship, lest they should lust after her; though much rather the reason should be, lest they should irritate and provoke lust in others: but it is better to understand them of good angels, who attend the assemblies of the saints, and observe the air and behaviour of the worshippers; wherefore women should cover their heads with respect to them, and not give offence to those pure spirits, by an indecent appearance: it is agreeable to the notions of the Jews, that angels attend public prayers, and at the expounding of the word; they often speak {f} of an angel,twlpth le hnwmmh "that is appointed over prayers"; hence {g} Tertullian seems to have took his notion of an angel of prayer: and of angels being present at expounding of the Scriptures, take the following story {h};"it happened to Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai, that he was riding upon an ***, and as he was journeying, R. Eleazar ben Arach was leading an *** after him; he said to him, Rabbi, teach me one chapter in the work of Mercavah (Ezekiel's vision); he replied to him, not so have I taught you, nor in the Mercavah a single man, unless he was a wise man by his own industry; he answered him, Rabbi, give me leave to say one thing before thee, which thou hast taught me; immediately Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai alighted from his *** and "veiled himself", and sat upon a stone under an olive tree; he said to him, Rabbi, why dost thou alight off from the ***? he replied, is it possible that thou shouldst expound in the work of Mercavah, and the Shekinah be with us,wntwa Nywlm trvh ykalmw, "and the ministering angels join us", and I ride upon an ***?''And a little after,"R. Joshua and R. Jose the priest were walking on the road, they said, yea, let us expound in the work of Mercavah; R. Joshua opened and expounded, and that day was the solstice of Tammuz, and the heavens were thickened with clouds, and there appeared the form of a bow in the cloud, "and the ministering angels gathered together", ewmvl Nyabw, "and came to hear": as the children of men gather together, and come to see the rejoicings of the bridegroom and bride.''Moreover, this veiling of the woman in public worship because of angels, may be an imitation of the good angels, who when they sung the praises of God, and adored and glorified his perfections, covered their faces and their feet with their wings, Isa 6:1. Many understanding these words in a figurative sense, and in this also they are not agreed; some by angels think young men are meant, who, for their gracefulness and comeliness, are compared to angels; others good men in general, that attend religious worship; others ministers of the word, called angels often in the book of the Revelations; which last seems to be most agreeable of any of these senses; and the women were to cover their heads, that they might not offend either of these, or stir up any impure desires in them; see Ec 5:6 but as these words follow the account given of the creation of the woman from the man, and for his sake; this may have no reference to her conduct in public worship, but to the power she had of using her covering, or taking it off, or putting it on, at the time of her espousals to a man; which was sometimes done by proxy, or messengers, whom the Jews call Myxwlv, "angels" {i}; their canon is,"a man may espouse (a wife) by himself, wxwlvbw, "or by his angel", or messenger; and a woman may be espoused by herself, or by her angel, or messenger:''wherefore because of these angels, or messengers, that came to espouse her to such, she had power over her head to take off her veil, and show herself, if she thought fit; or to keep it on, as expressing her modesty; or just as she pleased, when she by them was espoused to a man, for whose sake she was made; which sense, after Dr. Lightfoot, many learned men have given into, and seems probable.{e} De Veland. Virg. c. 7. {f} Shemot Rabba, sect. 21. fol. 106. 2. Zohar. in Gen. fol. 97. 2. {g} De Oratione, c. 15. {h} T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 14. 2. {i} Misn. Kiddushin, c. 2. sect. 1.

Hmmm these veils being spoken of here do seem to have to do with a Marraige and spouses.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rivers]

McConkie is unfortunately giving a summary of the JST updating of the text, not the original context of the letter.

Thank you very much. That's the answer to my main question right there.

[altersteve]

It's your interpretation that "independent of" and "apart from" don't mean the same thing. ;-)

Um, well, no, they really don't mean the same thing at all.

Paul was obviously married himself. His Jewish background would have required it, although it's hard to say whether he was widowed or divorced at the time of writing the epistle to the Corinthians; Bible scholars are divided on the matter. Furthermore, we can't be entirely sure what he was really talking about in 1 Corinthians 7. He mentions in verses 1 and 2 "the things whereof ye wrote unto me," that "It is not good to touch a woman." Scholars are also divided on whether or not this statement was in response to their question, or if he was quoting the question itself. Some Bible translations render it one way and others render it the other, so we can't know for sure. However, Joseph Smith revised verse 1 to say, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me, saying: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." The rest of chapter 7 is simply a response to this. What the question entailed is unknown to us. So all you're doing is taking Paul's words out of context. It seems to me, though, that they were asking Paul about getting married while serving as missionaries which is how Joseph Smith interpreted it. If his revision of 1 Corinthians 7 is correct, then all Paul is talking about is how it is better not to marry while serving as a missionary, which is entirely true. He was not saying that it is better not to marry at all. When the Bible (and by that I mean what the authors of the Bible originally wrote, not a faulty modern translation), it becomes obvious what its teachings on marriage are. Paul was not saying that it is better to remain celibate than it is to marry. There is no question about that.

I know this because he did teach that marrage is important. In Ephesians 5, he writes about marriage and compares it to the relationship between Christ and the Church. Isn't the relationship between Christ and the Church eternal? So then is the relationship between man and woman. When Paul writes in chapter 11 that a man is not without the woman, and vice-versa, "in the Lord," he means that they must worship the Lord together, equally. This is more significant than you seem to be making it. If something is "in the Lord," then it is eternal, no matter what kind of contorted logic you try to use to demonstrate that Paul was saying something else. But to me, it's very clear. The husband and the wife are equal in the eyes of the Lord, and their union is eternal, and the husband and wife will be heirs together of the grace of life, as Peter wrote (1 Peter 3:7).

You misrepresent the Bible's teaching.

[volgadon]

Paul was obviously married himself. His Jewish background would have required it,

Umm, no.

[altersteve]

Umm, no.

Wasn't marriage required under the law of Moses?

Edited September 12, 2011 by altersteve

[Franktalk]

Was Paul married, more than likely yes but it is unknown.

"The Bible does not definitively state what was Paul's marital status. However, the social norm of the time required Pharisees and members of the Sanhedrin to be married. As Paul was a Pharisee and likely a member of the Sanhedrin, he was almost certainly married at one point. If this is the case, Paul would have been a widower at the time of his ministry."

http://www.biblestudy.org/apostlepaul/timeline-life-of-paul-from-birth-to-first-missionary-journey.html

The way Paul wrote of marriage I think at one time he was.

[Jesterss]

Was Paul married, more than likely yes but it is unknown.

"The Bible does not definitively state what was Paul's marital status. However, the social norm of the time required Pharisees and members of the Sanhedrin to be married. As Paul was a Pharisee and likely a member of the Sanhedrin, he was almost certainly married at one point. If this is the case, Paul would have been a widower at the time of his ministry."

http://www.biblestud...ry-journey.html

The way Paul wrote of marriage I think at one time he was.

*reviving a not so alive thread*

But paul did not know the historical Jesus. He wrote the Pauline epistles 20 to 40 years after Jesus' death. Meaning he was not of age to marry during Jesus' time. Therefore, any argument stating it was social norm is irrelevant as his age of marriage didn't occur until after Jesus. Therefore would have stayed unmarried if we go along with his teachings.