Was Paul Married

[Nikud]

I been reading a few different things and started looking at the Idea that Paul was married at one point.

Possible Evidence that Paul was married

1 Corinthians 9:5

Don't we have the right to takea believing wife along with us, as do the other Apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

The implication could be made that Paul was speaking about a wife he left behind

Galatians 1:14

I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews my own age and extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

One of the traditions, especially if he was a member of the Sanhedrin, is that he would have to be marry.

Acts 26:9,10

I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazarath. And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priest I put many of the Lord's people in prison, and when they were put to death,I cast my vote against them.

"I cast my vote against them" suggest he was in fact a member of the Sanhedrin which was a role normally for married men. Which suggest he was married.

Evidence he was not married

1 Corinthians 7:7

Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me - a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.

Paul States he is celibate. Which was a common practice for widowers.

Original defintions of celibate: the state of being unmarried

1 Corinthians 7:8

I do, though, tell the unmarried and widows that singleness might well be the best thing for them, as it has been for me.

Most see this a statement that he is not married, which could also mean he is a widower.

Now this next part is not scripture but it seems some of the early church fathers believed he was married.

"History of the Church" by Eusebius

Eusebius quotes Clement "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 Minisrty.".

If it is true that Paul was married, this could change the way we look at his statements about marriage.

Any takes on the subject.

 

[Mojo]

I been reading a few different things and started looking at the Idea that Paul was married at one point.

Possible Evidence that Paul was married

1 Corinthians 9:5

Don't we have the right to takea believing wife along with us, as do the other Apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

The implication could be made that Paul was speaking about a wife he left behind

Galatians 1:14

I was advancing in Juaism beyond many Jews my own age and extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

One of the traditions, especially if he was a member of the Sanhedrin, is that he would have to be marry. That's not saying he progressed that far.

Acts 26:9,10

I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazarath. And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priest I put many of the Lord's people in prison, and when they were put to death,I cast my vote against them.

"I cast my vote against them" suggest he was in fact a member of the Sanhedrin which was a role normally for married men. Which suggest he was married.

Evidence he was not married

1 Corinthians 7:7

Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me - a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.

Paul States he is celibate. Which was a common practice for widowers.

Original defintions of celibate: the state of being unmarried

1 Corinthians 7:8

I do, though, tell the unmarried and widows that singleness might well be the best thing for them, as it has been for me.

Most see this a statement that he is not married, which could also mean he is a widower.

Now this next part is not scripture but it seems some of the early church fathers believed he was married.

"History of the Church" by Eusebius

Eusebius quotes Clement "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 Minisrty.".

If it is true that Paul was married, this could change the way we look at his statements about marriage.

Any takes on the subject.

Of course he was married...he had a thorn in the flesh!!!

 

[The Revolting Man]

Kevin with something truly unique and interesting and Mojo with the funniest post in a long time. Nice.

 

[andrew]

Made my day. Perfect thread to close a session with. Lunch time!

 

[Nikud]

@IshChayil Regarding Paul being a member of the sanhedrin/ I doubt it. I know his teacher Gamliel was as we have rulings from Gamliel recorded. It would make more sense to me if Paul was a member of a beit Din (a court of 3 judges) which rules over smaller matters. Even that I'm unsure of because it wasn't the judges / Sanhedrin members who went around arresting people and having them executed etc. It almost seems more like he may have been affiliated with the Temple guard somehow. He's not a Levite though so there is more difficulty

I want to make sure I have this right. Bare with me.

During the time of Christ, there were two Sanhedrins in Jerusalem, one was a 23-member court run by the Sadducees that handled local Issues.
The larger one was , the Great Sanhedrin, and was comprised of 70 elders with a president, who in the time of Jesus was Gamaliel .

Acts 5:25 shows this group and the Great Sanhedrin coming together to discuss the problem of the Christians.

Is it not just as likely that Paul, who's mentor was the President of the Great Sanhedrin, was a member of Sanhedrin who handle the local issues where he would have done the things he told us he did. Exspecially since being a Benjaminite precluded him from being a temple gaurd.

I posted this part in another thread but reposted it here because of the relavence.

I read it is a requirement both in halakhah and Josephus confirms in practice, for members of Sanhedrin to be married.

I also read that it was not a requirement for Pharasees, Sadducees, and Esseends which were more flavors of religions or schools of thought. Today, they might be analagous to the various movements in Judaism, or submovements with movements.

I could be wrong.

 

[Nikud]

There were three types of courts (Misnah, tractate Sanhedrin 1:1-4 and 1:6):

The Sanhedrin , the grand court on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem , numbering 71

The courts of 23, called a Sanhedrin Ketana (small Sanhedrin). These courts could pass the death verdict. These existed on two levels, the one higher in standing than the other:

The cities of the tribes, had a court of 23

All towns of a minimum size (120 people) had to have a court of 23,

The smallest court of three was found in villages with a population of less than 120 people. Any smaller court (including a court of three laymen) could not pass binding verdicts and only dealt with monetary matters.

@IshChayil
It would make more sense to me if Paul was a member of a beit Din (a court of 3 judges) which rules over smaller matters.

Acts 26:9,10

I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazarath. And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priest I put many of the Lord's people in prison, and when they were put to death,I cast my vote against them.

If Paul was a member of the smallest court the court of three laymen then he would not have the authority to arrest the Lords people or to cast his vote against those who were facing the death verdict.

 

[IshChayil]

I want to make sure I have this right. Bare with me.

During the time of Christ, there were two Sanhedrins in Jerusalem, one was a 23-member court run by the Sadducees that handled local Issues.
The larger one was , the Great Sanhedrin, and was comprised of 70 elders with a president, who in the time of Jesus was Gamaliel .

Acts 5:25 shows this group and the Great Sanhedrin coming together to discuss the problem of the Christians.

Is it not just as likely that Paul, who's mentor was the President of the Great Sanhedrin, was a member of Sanhedrin who handle the local issues where he would have done the things he told us he did. Exspecially since being a Benjaminite precluded him from being a temple gaurd.

I posted this part in another thread but reposted it here because of the relavence.

I read it is a requirement both in halakhah and Josephus confirms in practice, for members of Sanhedrin to be married.

Hey Kev, you may be right about the halakhic requirement to marry for members of sanhedrin.
since the shulchan arukh was only compiled much later it's not super easy to check this.
Sorry my responses here may be half-arsed. I'm quite tired and trying to bang some thing out (full slate today) but wanted to respond to your comments.

I also read that it was not a requirement for Pharasees, Sadducees, and Esseends which were more flavors of religions or schools of thought. Today, they might be analagous to the various movements in Judaism, or submovements with movements.

I could be wrong.

Halachikly speaking, it is a requirement for all Jews to marry. Modern Judaism largely derives from Pharisaical Judaism and even a full time scholar who studies 12 hours / day at Yeshiva his whole life, must get a wife. If someone is unwed, he's required by halachah to proactively seek a wife (this can be done via matchmaker or other means). He also must do his best to have at least 1 boy and 1 girl in order to fulfill "be fruitful and multiply". If he has 20 sons and no girls he has not fulfilled this commandment.

One reason I doubt Paul's being on the sanhedrin was there were often limiting factors like a certain seat should ideally have representation from a certain area, kind of like a senate, though that could be waved when a person indicated extraordinary Torah knowledge.
I think there was in Paul's time a bit of a power struggle between the sanhedrin and the priesthood. The priests were often Saducees (Tsadukiym - "righteous/just ones") whereas rabbinical Judaism worked to make inroads into their power structure.

Now I realize this is not a valid argument but it's a worthwhile circumstance.
If Paul were a member of the sanhedrin, I most certainly would have expected to have something about this in rabbinical literature or lore.
At least something polemical about him.

...
The courts of 23, called a Sanhedrin Ketana (small Sanhedrin). These courts could pass the death verdict. These existed on two levels, the one higher in standing than the other:
The cities of the tribes, had a court of 23
All towns of a minimum size (120 people) had to have a court of 23,
The smallest court of three was found in villages with a population of less than 120 people. Any smaller court (including a court of three laymen) could not pass binding verdicts and only dealt with monetary matters.

beit din of 3 judges dealt with much more than simply money matters. They could resolve calendar issues, "lay on hands" for new offices, officiate hatsilah (when a guy refused to redeem his brothers widow and another relative wanted her), evaluations of 4th year redeemable fruits (fruit from a tree under the age of 4 is not kosher), other non-deathy stuff. There were also temporary courts of 7 and 9 members for certain issues. We still have beitei din in operation today anywhere where Jews live. Orthodoxy teaches that it is a wicked person who sues another Jew in a civil (government) court.

If Paul was a member of the smallest court the court of three laymen then he would not have the authority to arrest the Lords people or to cast his vote against those who were facing the death verdict.

Good point about the smaller sanhedrins of 23. Today sanhedrin is used colloquially among Jews as a synonym for "the great sanhedrin" and that's all anyone ever talks about so that I didn't even think about the city level counsels.

I concede, Paul may have been a member of a 23 member sanhedrin.

 

[NetWatchR]

1 Corinthians 9:5
Don't we have the right to takea believing wife along with us, as do the other Apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

I have only this observation and nothing else to add. I disagree that this verse supports the argument that he was married because a single man would also say this as the spokesman for a group of people that included men who were married. Which is exactly what this looks like to me.

 

[Nikud]

I agree, a single man would also say this as the spokesman for a group of people that included men who included married men.

When looked at with the rest it supports the idea that Paul was married, but should not be considered evidence itself.

From now on I'll say that it supports the evidence of Paul being Married. Instead of using it as a statement of evidence.

 

[babe]

Paul makes a point of glorifying his sufferings in Christ. According to the logic of Ambrose Bierce, this would require him to be a polygynist. In "The Devil's Dictionary", Bierce gives the definition of polygamy.....

"Polygamy, n. A house of atonement furnished with multiple stools of torment, unlike monogamy, which has only one."

Genesis gives marriage the standing of an absolute positive command, which is why anyone who believes Jesus.... or Paul.... kept the commandments of God, should figure they were married at least once.

Since we're indulging in a little humor, and since I am notorious as a husband on account of my wanderings in the wilderness while wifey works and raises her daughters and manages my business..... here's my own little quotable quote:

Before you marry (a woman), you're the answer to all her problems. After you marry her, you are all her problems.