From: Paul Zellmer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 27 1996 - 13:49:01 EDT
> William G. Dicks wrote:
> >I have been reading in 1 Cor 7 concerning marriage, divorce, etc. v27
> >DEDESAI GUNAIKI MH ZHTEI LUSIN LELUSAI APO GUNAIKOS MH ZETEI GUNAIKA
> >V28. EAN DE KAI GAMHSHiS OUX hHMARTES . . .
> >I understand that LELUSAI is Perfect M/P Indicative, and that the Perfect
> >tense denotes a present condition based upon a past action. This then would
> >mean that the person spoken about here was once bound, got loosed and is
> >still loosed. Which comes to my question. Does Paul in the context, based on
> >v28 then say that a person that were divorced/loosed can then get married
> >again? Theologically I have always believed, once divorced never to remarry
> >again. But, plain theology is not the issue here. What do you guys say about
> >the text here?
> >I will appreciate any comments here.
> >William G Dicks (Systems Analyst - C++ & Theology Graduate) email@example.com
> >ISIS Information Systems
> >South Africa
akio itou wrote:
> Hi Greeks!
> I may no agree with you on the understanding of the perfect tense, but the
> point which has led you astray is the connexion between v.27 and v.28. Or I
> should say each sentence in vv. 27-28. As I read the verses the subject of
> each person is not the same although grammatically the subject of each
> sentence is second person singular.
> So I consider that v. 28 concerns those who never married beofore! I think
> it works.
> Tokyo Christian University
I'm not clear on the logical case that you claim that Paul is making
here. What do you see as the function of EAN DE KAI at the beginning of
It appears to me that v. 27 is saying, "Whatever your current state, it
is best if you don't seek to change it." In v. 28, Paul states, "If you
change your current state by marrying, you haven't sinned. It may not
be best, but it's okay." If my interpretation is correct, does not the
first clause in v. 28 include the ones described by the last clause of
v. 27? If, as you see it, the clause in v. 28 includes only those who
have never married, then what is the contrast and exception that Paul
calls attention to by his conjunctions?
A question of mine concerning the tense in the last clause of v. 27 is,
how broad is the significance of the perfect? I.e., I realize that the
tense can indicate something which is completed in the past and the
consequences of which continue to the time of the statement, but can it
also be used to refer to a state? Can the second clause of v. 27, the
LELUSAI, be used to describe someone who is in the state of being loosed
from a wife because he never was bound in the first place?
Still very much in the learning process
And separated from my library by 10,000 miles :-(
Southern Methodist Missions
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:49 EDT