Comments on: Divorce, Remarriage and the Gospel 7: Paul http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-gospel-divorce-and-remarriage-7-paul ...dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:03:04 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: ddickens http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-gospel-divorce-and-remarriage-7-paul/comment-page-1#comment-6846 ddickens Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:06:15 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-gospel-divorce-and-remarriage-7-paul#comment-6846 I am of the camp that Paul misunderstood eschatological matters. I don't believe that God "let him in" on it. (I think in terms of Jesus talking about no-one knows.) I think I am comfortable putting Paul's statements about time being short in the realm of "his opinion" part of the Bible instead of "his revelation" part. Just because a Biblical figure says something doesn't mean that Biblical figure is speaking truth. We assume that because Paul's letters are pastoral in nature that all, or nearly all, of the statements are "authoritative". Most people only give way on the explicitly personal messages and the points where Paul illudes to something being just his opinion. I think my first step toward a more Christ-like view of the Bible (instead of a Pauline view of the Bible) was allowing myself to see more of Paul's person in his letters. Sorry, I guess this is sort of an aside. But Paul's statements about marriage and divorce have only meant much to me in how he applies Jewish tradition/law to non-Jews. I am of the camp that Paul misunderstood eschatological matters. I don’t believe that God “let him in” on it. (I think in terms of Jesus talking about no-one knows.)

I think I am comfortable putting Paul’s statements about time being short in the realm of “his opinion” part of the Bible instead of “his revelation” part. Just because a Biblical figure says something doesn’t mean that Biblical figure is speaking truth. We assume that because Paul’s letters are pastoral in nature that all, or nearly all, of the statements are “authoritative”.

Most people only give way on the explicitly personal messages and the points where Paul illudes to something being just his opinion. I think my first step toward a more Christ-like view of the Bible (instead of a Pauline view of the Bible) was allowing myself to see more of Paul’s person in his letters.

Sorry, I guess this is sort of an aside. But Paul’s statements about marriage and divorce have only meant much to me in how he applies Jewish tradition/law to non-Jews.

]]> By: Jeremiah Lawson http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-gospel-divorce-and-remarriage-7-paul/comment-page-1#comment-6819 Jeremiah Lawson Wed, 31 May 2006 00:16:15 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-gospel-divorce-and-remarriage-7-paul#comment-6819 The question of whether the time is short is eschatological seems to be a thorny one. I've heard and read people say it just means the present crisis without explanation or that none of the terms Paul used in referring to the time is short had any eschatological import. And yet Rom 13:11-12 makes it hard for me to think Paul is somehow only referring to a situation specific to Corinth. Why is it that "the time is short" can be used as a reason to make a case for not marrying in 1 Corinthians and not also in Romans? Calvin's statement that "the time is short" simply means that life is short also seems, practical as it is in many ways, to not quite explain things. The question of whether the time is short is eschatological seems to be a thorny one. I’ve heard and read people say it just means the present crisis without explanation or that none of the terms Paul used in referring to the time is short had any eschatological import. And yet Rom 13:11-12 makes it hard for me to think Paul is somehow only referring to a situation specific to Corinth. Why is it that “the time is short” can be used as a reason to make a case for not marrying in 1 Corinthians and not also in Romans? Calvin’s statement that “the time is short” simply means that life is short also seems, practical as it is in many ways, to not quite explain things.

]]>