Foreign Wives

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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)

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.