The algorithmic elves have been busy populating my social media feeds over the last few days with posts, tweets and threads about the little-known historical “truth” that the Apostle Paul was a married dude. Surprise!
Saul, later known as Pail the Apostle, was a married man. The proof in the Bible is that Paul was part of the organization called The Senadrins. Not sure if I spelled that correctly. But in order to be in the senadrin, one requirement was that youbhad to be married. As was also Gemaliel,Whom defended the Apostles .
Remember that Paul was a pharisee, and tradition says that most pharisees were married.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that St. Paul was married. On the contrary, there is over whelming evidence that he was unmarried through out his life. Paul is open, bold, outspoken and transparent. If he was married he never would have hidden such a sacred union.I am not surprised about few speculators after 2 thousand years weaving false narratives. Strangely there are also few insinuate that Jesus also had a family!. Absurd! It is a shame.What do these speculators gain?
Pls I didn't see this in my Bible Except me and my wife. We’re an obvious exception to this general exhortation that I’m giving the rest of you (oh, and also all Christians throughout time).
The Bible says whoever is in Christ is a new creature old things have passed away so apostle Paul as a new creature was not married in Christ but that doesn't negest the fact of his religions life the evidence is clear to be part of the senhindrin you must be married
Interesting question! I'm sure different people have different motives or reasoning as to why they understand Paul to have been married throughout his life. (eg. some early church father's postulated that he was, and some consider that to be very important evidence). But at least some see Paul's (supposed) marriage as being important in our valuing of marriage more broadly and not idealising singleness.
For example, this individual concludes his argument as to why Paul was married (at the time of writing.1 Cor) with: "It is not good for a man to be alone, nor is it good for any to denigrate holy matrimony in a confused over-eagerness to praise holy virginity."
Isn’t the issue that if Paul was married when he wrote this then it smacks of hypocrisy? Is that the intent of the Paul was married claims?
I agree (probably) with the “so what if Paul was married at some point” sentiment. But, I think that’s a naive or simple view. We need to be shrewd and in our guard - ready to defend the word as Spirit-breathed. Claims of hypocrisy are easy ways to attack the word and potential lead some believers astray.
Dani, your explanation on this, pointing us back to interpreting scripture within scripture is helpful - thank you!
Saul, later known as Pail the Apostle, was a married man. The proof in the Bible is that Paul was part of the organization called The Senadrins. Not sure if I spelled that correctly. But in order to be in the senadrin, one requirement was that youbhad to be married. As was also Gemaliel,Whom defended the Apostles .
Remember that Paul was a pharisee, and tradition says that most pharisees were married.
I’m curious to know if you actually read my article?
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that St. Paul was married. On the contrary, there is over whelming evidence that he was unmarried through out his life. Paul is open, bold, outspoken and transparent. If he was married he never would have hidden such a sacred union.I am not surprised about few speculators after 2 thousand years weaving false narratives. Strangely there are also few insinuate that Jesus also had a family!. Absurd! It is a shame.What do these speculators gain?
Pls I didn't see this in my Bible Except me and my wife. We’re an obvious exception to this general exhortation that I’m giving the rest of you (oh, and also all Christians throughout time).
The Bible says whoever is in Christ is a new creature old things have passed away so apostle Paul as a new creature was not married in Christ but that doesn't negest the fact of his religions life the evidence is clear to be part of the senhindrin you must be married
Dani, what do you think (or guess) are the motives of the people who claim that “Paul was a married dude all along”?
Hi Barbara,
Interesting question! I'm sure different people have different motives or reasoning as to why they understand Paul to have been married throughout his life. (eg. some early church father's postulated that he was, and some consider that to be very important evidence). But at least some see Paul's (supposed) marriage as being important in our valuing of marriage more broadly and not idealising singleness.
For example, this individual concludes his argument as to why Paul was married (at the time of writing.1 Cor) with: "It is not good for a man to be alone, nor is it good for any to denigrate holy matrimony in a confused over-eagerness to praise holy virginity."
(https://x.com/potamopotos/status/1707820121186509278?s=20)
So what? What if Paul was married? What if Paul was not? What does it really mattter when it is Spirit-breathed Word?
Isn’t the issue that if Paul was married when he wrote this then it smacks of hypocrisy? Is that the intent of the Paul was married claims?
I agree (probably) with the “so what if Paul was married at some point” sentiment. But, I think that’s a naive or simple view. We need to be shrewd and in our guard - ready to defend the word as Spirit-breathed. Claims of hypocrisy are easy ways to attack the word and potential lead some believers astray.
Dani, your explanation on this, pointing us back to interpreting scripture within scripture is helpful - thank you!