Foreign Wives

[Kavik]

Not sure what happened with my last post -

The big issue for the older folks would be intermarriage with blacks. There were two groups, black and white. Whites were English or Scotch-Irish.

Parts of the Northeast got imigrants from a wider variety of ethnic groups. I think whites in parts of the south had more homogeneous ethnic background.

Yeah, I kind of thought maybe the South would be more the black/white distinction. And, the ethnic background was more homogenized.

Prior to the textile mills opening in northern New England, as far as Europeans go, it was basically English, Scots, Irish and French Canadian. Once the mills opened, the city where I live had at least 20 different ethnic groups who all lived in more or less separate very ethnic neighborhoods. Some of those neighborhoods still exist, particularly the French Canadian.

Marriages between different ethnic groups was pretty rare up until probably the 1930's-1940's.

 

[tourist]

Problem is, Paul does not appeal to his opinion in that case but the historical account in Scripture, thus God does not permit it...

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
(1Ti 2:11-14)

No mention of 'thus says the Lord, only Paul's spiritual estimation as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Based on that passage I don't see how this relates to excluding women from positions of authority in a church or other institution.

Eve may have been deceived but Adam knew full well what he was about to do and the consequences afterward yet he still went ahead and sinned. If there is such a thing as lesser or greater sin then Adam's was greater.

I believe that Paul was addressing the current culture and traditions of that particular time and location.

 

[Funkus]

there's also the fact Paul had great problems maintaining order and many opponents as he states openly. by teaching this half his problems disappear! although in jest, Paul's zeal for the spread of the faith does seem to enter doctrinal areas at times, its zeal+culture maybe, but if he hadn't then would the message have prevailed? So even if quieting women down only made a small difference in helping Paul maintain order i think his zeal would have calculated it was worth it, later when things stabilised he could have relaxed it as well maybe. i see a zeal thing here at work, like a military man compromising on something to achieve a goal, he's super focused on the church taking root in the pagan soil and is scared floods of women may pour in disorderly as women were attracted to it. so i see it as an early church context thing here, spread of faith, zeal

 

[BenFTW]

In Matthew 18, we read about those who have made themselves eunuch's for the kingdom of heaven's sake.



The 'grounds deemed admissible' are missing from the passage. Paul does not say anything about an option for her to divorce in that verse.

He actually does.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 King James Version (KJV)
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

First, even in God’s command the person has a caveat, that if they decide to depart from their husband they are to remain unmarried or reconcile with the husband. Hence admissibility isn’t even necessary, they simply can choose to be separated.

Then, in terms of admissibility we see that Paul did give, in context, one such justification and that is if the unbelieving spouse decides they do not want to remain espoused to the believer. This is why he says that the believer isn’t under bondage in such cases (1 Corinthians 7:15). They may amicably part ways.

 

[crossnote]

No mention of 'thus says the Lord, only Paul's spiritual estimation as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Based on that passage I don't see how this relates to excluding women from positions of authority in a church or other institution.

Eve may have been deceived but Adam knew full well what he was about to do and the consequences afterward yet he still went ahead and sinned. If there is such a thing as lesser or greater sin then Adam's was greater.

I believe that Paul was addressing the current culture and traditions of that particular time and location.

1. If as you say Paul was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that is good enough for me.
2. It relates in that it forbids women to have authority over a man, whether the home or Church.
3. paul was speaking to the universal condition, not local, since he reached back to Adam and Eve, the prototypes.
4. No one said Adam’s sin was lesser, the point being Eve was deceived not Adam...not good for teaching authority.

 

[presidente]

He actually does.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 King James Version (KJV)
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

First, even in God’s command the person has a caveat, that if they decide to depart from their husband they are to remain unmarried or reconcile with the husband. Hence admissibility isn’t even necessary, they simply can choose to be separated.

Then, in terms of admissibility we see that Paul did give, in context, one such justification and that is if the unbelieving spouse decides they do not want to remain espoused to the believer. This is why he says that the believer isn’t under bondage in such cases (1 Corinthians 7:15). They may amicably part ways.

The previous verse tells the wife not to depart.

 

[crossnote]

there's also the fact Paul had great problems maintaining order and many opponents as he states openly. by teaching this half his problems disappear! although in jest, Paul's zeal for the spread of the faith does seem to enter doctrinal areas at times, its zeal+culture maybe, but if he hadn't then would the message have prevailed? So even if quieting women down only made a small difference in helping Paul maintain order i think his zeal would have calculated it was worth it, later when things stabilised he could have relaxed it as well maybe. i see a zeal thing here at work, like a military man compromising on something to achieve a goal, he's super focused on the church taking root in the pagan soil and is scared floods of women may pour in disorderly as women were attracted to it. so i see it as an early church context thing here, spread of faith, zeal

Your treatment of Paul makes it sound like he was doing his own calculating, rather than speaking according to God's Holy Spirit.
You are not accusing Paul so much as you are accusing the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul.

 

[presidente]

He actually does.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 King James Version (KJV)
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

First, even in God’s command the person has a caveat, that if they decide to depart from their husband they are to remain unmarried or reconcile with the husband. Hence admissibility isn’t even necessary, they simply can choose to be separated.

Then, in terms of admissibility we see that Paul did give, in context, one such justification and that is if the unbelieving spouse decides they do not want to remain espoused to the believer. This is why he says that the believer isn’t under bondage in such cases (1 Corinthians 7:15). They may amicably part ways.

Btw, reread the passage. Notice the wording. I Corinthians 7

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

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.


The wife is forbidden from departing from her husband. If she does it anyway, she should refrain from participating in an adulterous remarriage. She should remain celibate or be reconciled. As Paul writes in Romans 7, the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives, so that as long as her husband lives, she shall be married to another man, she shall be called an adulterous.

Paul passes on the commandment of the Lord for the man NOT to put away his wife. There is no reference to the woman 'putting away' her husband. Only a restriction on not departing from him. Departing is not a divorce. It's departing.

There is nothing pro-divorce in these two verses.

 

[MattforJesus]

In Ezra chapter 10 there is much to do about putting away their 'foreign wives' even their children.

Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have been unfaithful and have married foreign wives adding to the guilt of Israel. "Now therefore, make confession to the LORD God of your fathers and do His will; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives." Then all the assembly replied with a loud voice, "That's right! As you have said, so it is our duty to do.
(Ezr 10:10-12)

"So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
(Ezr 10:3)

Yet in 1Cor7 it is the woman who is told not to leave her unbelieving husband (if he consents to stay), no mention if the man has an unbelieving wife (as in Ezra). It appears the children are 'sanctified-set apart' when there is at least one believer in the family.

And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
(1Co 7:13-14)


So how do we reconcile these passages...or should we, being under different Covenants?

A saint is supposed to be led of the Spirit.

In the Old Testament God did not want the Jews to marry foreigners so that they would not get carried away with their false religions, which king Solomon had 300 wives, and 700 concubines, as if he was collecting women like a child collects baseball cards, which God did not approve of it.

And he catered to their false gods by setting things up for them, but he eventually repented and stopped dong that as well as stopped enjoying the sin of the world.

But in the New Testament it does not matter if it is a foreign wife, for Jesus brought salvation, and the Spirit is given to a saint.

So if the husband and wive are different ethnic groups it does not matter for they are led of the Spirit.

If one of them is saved then the Spirit is working in their life, so it applies to the family as protection from God, and His way still shines in the relationship.

1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

That is as long as it does not become trouble.

It would seem like they could depart but they could not marry again if they are a believer, but the world will do what it does and will marry again.

 

[crossnote]

A saint is supposed to be led of the Spirit.

In the Old Testament God did not want the Jews to marry foreigners so that they would not get carried away with their false religions, which king Solomon had 300 wives, and 700 concubines, as if he was collecting women like a child collects baseball cards, which God did not approve of it.

And he catered to their false gods by setting things up for them, but he eventually repented and stopped dong that as well as stopped enjoying the sin of the world.

But in the New Testament it does not matter if it is a foreign wife, for Jesus brought salvation, and the Spirit is given to a saint.

So if the husband and wive are different ethnic groups it does not matter for they are led of the Spirit.

If one of them is saved then the Spirit is working in their life, so it applies to the family as protection from God, and His way still shines in the relationship.

1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
1Co 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

That is as long as it does not become trouble.

It would seem like they could depart but they could not marry again if they are a believer, but the world will do what it does and will marry again.

The OP rightly never made a case that ‘foreign wives’ represented another ethnicity but rather an unbeliever.

 

[acts5_29]

The OP rightly never made a case that ‘foreign wives’ represented another ethnicity but rather an unbeliever.

I wonder if Boaz and Ruth would like to weigh in?

 

[crossnote]

I wonder if Boaz and Ruth would like to weigh in?

Although, they were not mentioned in the OP, Ruth would be considered a believer from her confession and attitude towards Naomi, her Jewish mother in law. And remember Ruth was already married to Naomi's son who was also Jewish but died.

But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years, and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.
(Rth 1:3-5)

 

[acts5_29]

Although, they were not mentioned in the OP, Ruth would be considered a believer from her confession and attitude towards Naomi, her Jewish mother in law. And remember Ruth was already married to Naomi's son who was also Jewish but died.

But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons. These took Moabite wives; the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the other Ruth. They lived there about ten years, and both Mahlon and Chilion died, so that the woman was left without her two sons and her husband.
(Rth 1:3-5)

I was posting in agreement with you, by the way. (I know how the internet can be...)

Of course Ruth was a foreigner, but a believer. And King David's great-grandmother.

 

[Mem]

I also thought of Ruth also as I skimmed through all meticulously technical arguments. And, as I consider the account of Ruth (as an example of an 'approved' marriage to a 'foreigner', equipped with the fact that the truth of scripture is never contradictory, the NT commandment to that (paraphrasing) 'if you hate her (your wife), then you should divorce her" causes me to conclude this is speaking to 'alien(ated), ie (e)strange(d)' wives... It's a definite, inarguable commanded that you (singular) should love your wife as yourself (i.e. think of her as yourself). In terms of regard, I think this is speaking to an attitude of marrying (anyone that one would consider) 'separate and not equal' persons to be a (mockery?) of the institution of marriage, (love, honor, respect, etc... you know, the more undignified aspects of it. :/

 

[presidente]

the NT commandment to that (paraphrasing) 'if you hate her (your wife), then you should divorce her" causes me to conclude this is speaking to 'alien, ie (e)strange(d)' wives...

I think you are misparaphrasing the New Testament there. Jesus disagreed with some Pharisees about divorcing wives.

 

[Mem]

I think you are misparaphrasing the New Testament there. Jesus disagreed with some Pharisees about divorcing wives.

I was paraphrasing Paul.

 

[Mem]

ok... might ve been the OT... bbs with the exact quote.

 

[Mem]

Yep. Sorry, Tho I didn't misparaphrase but misattributed it to the NT. It's is in duet. 24 and also in Malach, which even so helps further my point, as the LORD speaks in Malachi 2:16 saying, '...He who divorces his wife covers his garments with violence' , ie proof of his hatred for her.

 

[Mem]

So, summarizing my thoughts on it, they were marrying women they did not love (as themselves); and rightly or wrongly could also be debated there, but I would take the position of 'wrongly', since God is displeased (still weighing exactly 'who' is doing the defiling of Israel here)

 

[JeremiahsCup]

A whore is a deep ditch and a foreign woman is a narrow pit ----Proverbs