Re: Loosed from a wife - 1 Cor. 7:27

From: William Dicks (
Date: Wed Aug 28 1996 - 01:43:43 EDT

At 10:49 AM 8/27/96 -0700, you wrote:
>> William G. Dicks wrote:
>> >
>> >I have been reading in 1 Cor 7 concerning marriage, divorce, etc. v27
>> >
>> >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)
>> >ISIS Information Systems
>> >Gauteng
>> >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.
>> Akio
>> 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
>v. 28?
>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 :-(
>Paul Zellmer
>Southern Methodist Missions

I am just wondering about your last thoughts there, Paul. Surely, if this
person was never bound Paul, the apostle, that is, could have used another
word - maybe AGAMOS "unmarried" - to try and explain a state of never being

William G Dicks (Systems Analyst - C++ & Theology Graduate)
ISIS Information Systems
South Africa

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:49 EDT