From: William Dicks (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Aug 30 1996 - 01:48:00 EDT
At 02:52 PM 8/29/96 EDT, you wrote:
>>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
>If Paul's intention was to simply say "unmarried" he could have used AGAMOS,
>but if Paul intended to convey "free of the responsibilities of a wife"
>then LELUSAI would be the preferable choice.
>In context I have always taken that as the reason for his word choice rather
>than trying to make "previously married" fit in his arguement.
>David John Marotta
>B-Greek List Owner
>David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
>Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: firstname.lastname@example.org
>Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg PRODIGY: KCMR45A
>C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax IBM US: usuvarg8
My original posting was:
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?
William G Dicks (Systems Analyst - C++ & Theology Graduate) email@example.com
ISIS Information Systems
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:50 EDT