Soul Ties?

[LinkH]

eZoolander,

I went to visit an aunt today. We showed me pictures of her granddaughters who I remember being little girls about three and four. I probably saw them in their tween years at a reunion. She had pictures of them with their husbands, but both were prom pictures. They'd each gone to their proms with their future husbands, and both had families and children. They live in a little southern town of about 8,000. I wonder if this kind of thing happens more in small towns where there aren't a lot of other potential mates to choose from.

 

[DZoolander]

eZoolander,

I went to visit an aunt today. We showed me pictures of her granddaughters who I remember being little girls about three and four. I probably saw them in their tween years at a reunion. She had pictures of them with their husbands, but both were prom pictures. They'd each gone to their proms with their future husbands, and both had families and children. They live in a little southern town of about 8,000. I wonder if this kind of thing happens more in small towns where there aren't a lot of other potential mates to choose from.

Could very well be.

About 10 years ago my wife and I decided we wanted a change of pace. We were both from big cities, and we wanted to try something different. So we bought a house in a very rural area of North Carolina. Full time population of the city was like 700 (although there was a larger snowbird population), and the county was somewhere around 18,000.

Small city life was definitely interesting...and in a lot of ways very much what you're describing about it being obvious people have a lack of good options.

One girl that I always think of was the girl that cut our hair. She was nice enough - and we had pleasant conversations. Our conversations often went along the lines of:

(Heavy drawl) - Do you watch the God channel?
Me: Can't say I do.
Her: It's sooooo fascinating. You know, you and your wife are always welcome at our church.
Me: That's very kind of you, thank you for the invitation.
etc...etc.

Well, one day I noticed the pics she had up of her, her husband and her kids. So I complimented the kids. She then proceeded to tell all about her marriage, how they'd met, etc...and that her husband was her best friend's ex-husband.

Wasn't my place to ask more questions - but gotta admit the thought crossed my mind "Wow your options must be really limited if you, miss God Channel watching churchgoer are married to your best friend's ex hubby."

Then there were other little weird things about small town living.

Like, we had a miscarriage while we were living up there. Not really something I talk about - but the result of it is something that kinda parlays into my impression of small towns... When she was being seen by the doctor, as part of the screening process, they had to give her a bunch of questions (I guess to find out her risk of exposure to various diseases/etc).

Among the questions were things like:

Have you ever accepted money for sex?
Have you ever had sex with an intravenous drug user?
Has your husband ever accepted money for homosexual sex?
Has your husband ever engaged in homosexual sex?

etc..etc...etc.

She was taken aback a little bit by just how seemingly off the wall and unbelievable those questions were...so she asked the nurse "Does anyone ever say 'yes' to those questions in a town like this?"

Nurse's reply..."You'd be surprised."

Apparently those little towns are cesspools of debauchery - even smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt. lol

 

[mkgal1]

^ Wow. That sounds like an interesting experience (I can't say I've ever been asked any of those questions).

Link had posted this earlier:

I don't think everyone has to marry young, but it is a good solution for some younger people who find a good match early on. Paul says 'to prevent fornication, let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband.' There are advantages to marrying young, but they aren't usually financial.

....and my thought on that is: if a person doesn't have enough self-control prior to marriage, is it really reasonable to expect them to have self-control after marriage (just b/c they are now "allowed" to have sex)? There are *still* plenty of circumstances that will call for self-control after marriage.

IMO....that's just another misuse of text.

 

[LinkH]

^ Wow. That sounds like an interesting experience (I can't say I've ever been asked any of those questions).

Link had posted this earlier:



....and my thought on that is: if a person doesn't have enough self-control prior to marriage, is it really reasonable to expect them to have self-control after marriage (just b/c they are now "allowed" to have sex)? There are *still* plenty of circumstances that will call for self-control after marriage.

IMO....that's just another misuse of text.

or another case of yoru disagreeing with the text. Marriage doesn't eliminate the need for self control. I did not say that. paul did not write that. But it does play a role in avoiding fornication. In mariage, there is an outlet for these passions.

 

[Dave-W]

In mariage, there is an outlet for these passions.

Sometimes. Or not.

 

[mkgal1]

or another case of yoru disagreeing with the text. Marriage doesn't eliminate the need for self control. I did not say that. paul did not write that. But it does play a role in avoiding fornication. In mariage, there is an outlet for these passions.

Nope. I don't disagree with the text one bit (just your interpretation and use of it).

"Love is patient....love is kind....love doesn't seek its own way....", I don't perceive jumping into marriage as a prudent way to "avoid fornication" (adultery is sexually immoral, too......and it doesn't seem that marriage does much to put an end to that).

 

[Dave-W]

Nope. I don't disagree with the text one bit (just your interpretation and use of it).

OK - how DO you interpret 1 Cor 7.2-3 and verse 9?

2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[mkgal1]

OK - how DO you interpret 1 Cor 7.2-3 and verse 9?

Didn't I expand on that earlier? My main grievance is that passages are often used without the context in which they were originally addressed. Taking something out of one context and assuming it applies in the same way in another context changes the whole meaning (I think). It's important to keep things framed properly.

In that passage....verse 9, especially? The key word is probably "passion" and what the true intention of that word was--and "immoralities" and what was meant by that. There's probably far too much unraveling to do, and that would derail the thread if we were to go down that rabbit hole too far.

In a nutshell, though.....from what I understand.....that whole letter written by Paul to the church at Corinth was to address some of their concerns/confusion. Mainly, it's addressing the issue of whether a married person could be devoted enough to their work for God (and, if already married, should they abstain from sex altogether).

The other belief that Paul was up against was the male Greek's accepted practice of having sex with prostitutes and having no obligation of fidelity to their wives (what I believe Paul is referring to when he writes about "because of immoralities" and "each man is to have his own wife"). The early Christians of Corinth---as I see it---were stuck between two very different cultures and unsure of how to "do marriage" or even if marriage was acceptable for them. From what I can tell from what I've read---sex as an expression of love was counter-cultural. That seems to be what Paul's main emphasis was---trying to turn their minds towards sexual relations being about love/loyalty/exclusivity. All of that has to be kept in mind when reading this. Their philosophy of sex and marriage was completely different than most of us hold to in this era.

IOW (shorter answer):

But because of immoralities [Greek men having sex with prostitutes and having no sexual allegiance to their wives], each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband [sexual loyalty and exclusivity].
3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband [mutual expression--no selfishness...genuine love/compassion].

9 But if they do not have self-control [don't repress your calling], let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion [if singleness isn't for you....marriage is not any less "holy" than remaining single].

 

[Dave-W]

In that passage....verse 9, especially? The key word is probably "passion"

Um - hello - that is the NASB translation and "passion" is in italics, meaning it was added in by the translators and does not appear in the Greek at all.

Mainly, it's addressing the issue of whether a married person could be devoted enough to their work for God (and, if already married, should they abstain from sex altogether).

Which was an error brought into the church by the Stoics. They were splitting up to be :single for the Lord; and many could not stand the strain were hooking up (in modern parlance) for relief. (the "immoralities") Paul says marrieds are NOT to refrain, but if you both agree, you can for a LIMITED TIME only. (his mentor Gamaliel taught max 2 weeks) That was his "concession."

Verse 9 was specifically talking to female widows and singles. (in the Greek it more applies to widows)

 

[mkgal1]

Um - hello - that is the NASB translation and "passion" is in italics, meaning it was added in by the translators and does not appear in the Greek at all.

Okay--then the word "burn" (and what was meant by that).

I don't perceive it to mean "lust"....but more along the lines of a person feeling strongly about choosing a certain path and/or vocation. In other words: some people can't even imagine seeing them selves married---others can't imagine seeing them selves single for the rest of their life. We "burn" when we're not living out our "calling" or whatever term you want to use (what Paul used was "his own gift").

Which was an error brought into the church by the Stoics. They were splitting up to be :single for the Lord; and many could not stand the strain were hooking up (in modern parlance) for relief. (the "immoralities") Paul says marrieds are NOT to refrain, but if you both agree, you can for a LIMITED TIME only. (his mentor Gamaliel taught max 2 weeks) That was his "concession."

Verse 9 was specifically talking to female widows and singles. (in the Greek it more applies to widows)

Okay.....I don't necessarily disagree with you. This passage was mostly about correcting errors that were influencing and confusing the church at the time.

I'm uncertain of why you brought up verse 9 being directed mostly to female widows and singles. Does that make a difference? My response to that specific verse was this: paraphrased = "if singleness/abstinence isn't for you....marriage is not any less "holy" than remaining single".

 

[LinkH]

9 But if they do not have self-control [don't repress your calling], let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion [if singleness isn't for you....marriage is not any less "holy" than remaining single].

This is the part I was talking about. If singleness isn't for the young folks, and fornication is a temptation, marriage is a solution. Some self-control will still be required of course. It seems like you come to the same conclusion I do about what Paul is saying.

Notice at the opening of the passage, Paul is addressing the idea of a man not touching a woman.

"Burn" is translated as "burn with passion" by the translators when they consider the context and how the word is used in other contexts. You might disagree, but it is good to have a good reason to disagree with the conclusion. It's a reasonable way of interpreting the text. Paul 'burned' when he heard of other people sinning, so it has something to do with the emotions in that context as well. I suspect 'burn' here could be a bit broader than sexual burning. The desire to marry can be related to other longings than just sexual release. There are desires for affection and companionship that aren't sexual per se. Hopefully, the translators looked at the other uses of the word in Greek. All of Ancient Greek has been put on one CD-ROM for scholars to look up such topics.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm uncertain of why you brought up verse 9 being directed mostly to female widows and singles. Does that make a difference?

It makes a couple of points. First, burn means a feeling of burning. It is used elsewhere to kindle up an actual fire. In context he means sexual desire.

Secondly, by being in the feminine in Greek, Paul is specifically speaking to women. (while most in modern English speaking society take it to mean males) That is in keeping with the bible's being more concerned with the female sex drive than the male.

 

[LinkH]

It makes a couple of points. First, burn means a feeling of burning. It is used elsewhere to kindle up an actual fire. In context he means sexual desire.

Secondly, by being in the feminine in Greek, Paul is specifically speaking to women. (while most in modern English speaking society take it to mean males) That is in keeping with the bible's being more concerned with the female sex drive than the male.

Maybe you could expound on this more. The tools I look the word up show that it is a present infinitive, middle or passage, and don't show it to be feminine.

I notice in your posts, you pay a lot of attention to the idea of men not denying women sex as important. There is one verse in the Old Testament about the situation where a man takes a second wife. He is not to deprive the first of food, clothing, or sex. Judaism gets the teaching about not depriving wives from that. Paul teaches it for both male and female.

 

[Hetta]

I don't think everyone has to marry young, but it is a good solution for some younger people who find a good match early on. Paul says 'to prevent fornication, let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband.' There are advantages to marrying young, but they aren't usually financial.

The advantage of marrying young, so far as you seem to see it, is access to sex. Should couples marry just because they want to have sex? What happens when they are sated with sex, or become perhaps bored with sex with the same person. I see SO many pitfalls with this kind of idea. I liked the idea that my kids would have just one partner, and that would be the partner they married, because promiscuity is a miserable option (imo). I have always made that clear to them, but at the same time left them free to make their own decisions - because they can't become adults without making their own decisions. IMO, they need to be adults, have graduated college, and have their career lined up before they marry. That way they can move on into an independent adult life without living with parents. If my other son had given in to the pressure to marry his GF, they would both be under 20, still in college, and absolutely incapable of supporting themselves. While it sounds wonderful to say that they could live with us, I can only say that living with your adult kids is hard enough without having a son/daughter in law living with you too. And hard for them also. But I am not opposed to dating. Young people will never learn about themselves or the kind of person they want to marry unless they date.

 

[Dave-W]

The tools I look the word up show that it is a present infinitive, middle or passage, and don't show it to be feminine.

It was Dr Derek Prince who made the statement that the passage as a whole was addressed to females.

While not a "recognized" biblical language scholar, his creds were good enough for him to take on anyone in that area. Before coming to faith during WW2, he taught the Greek philosophers (Plato, Aristotle et al) at the graduate level at Cambridge (in ancient Greek) He was quite fluent.

 

[mkgal1]

It makes a couple of points. First, burn means a feeling of burning. It is used elsewhere to kindle up an actual fire. In context he means sexual desire.

Secondly, by being in the feminine in Greek, Paul is specifically speaking to women. (while most in modern English speaking society take it to mean males) That is in keeping with the bible's being more concerned with the female sex drive than the male.

Okay. I can buy into that, but "sexual desire" is different than "lust". That's an important distinction (IMO).

There's a subtle (but very distinct) difference in the message of (to this specific group---with the intention of correcting the errors that had been brought into the church at the time) "if you have a desire to be married and to not continue to abstain from sex---marriage is just as "holy" as remaining single" --as opposed to using this text in modern times and directing it to a young couple that can't contain their sex drive and are looking for an "approved" way to exercise their drive. IMO---that's a distortion of the message of the text.

 

[mkgal1]

This is the part I was talking about. If singleness isn't for the young folks, and fornication is a temptation, marriage is a solution.

That's different than what I get from the text. You seem to be missing the subtle difference I'm trying to point out.

Notice at the opening of the passage, Paul is addressing the idea of a man not touching a woman.

Right---and that was to correct another concern/confusion the early Christians in Corinth had about sex ("are we to NEVER touch a woman---but abstain from sex? Even if we're married? Are we to live as individuals--and no longer remain married?"). That's what I was meaning in my earlier post---they were caught between two cultures and unsure of what they were supposed to do. It's as if they only recognized two options: abstain from sex or don't serve Christ. These were answers from Paul in response to questions and concerns (as I understand it--and it makes sense to my mind).

"Burn" is translated as "burn with passion" by the translators when they consider the context and how the word is used in other contexts. You might disagree, but it is good to have a good reason to disagree with the conclusion. It's a reasonable way of interpreting the text. Paul 'burned' when he heard of other people sinning, so it has something to do with the emotions in that context as well. I suspect 'burn' here could be a bit broader than sexual burning. The desire to marry can be related to other longings than just sexual release. There are desires for affection and companionship that aren't sexual per se. Hopefully, the translators looked at the other uses of the word in Greek. All of Ancient Greek has been put on one CD-ROM for scholars to look up such topics.

And concepts can get lost in translation due to the bias of the translators and the bias of the reader.

I'm not "disagreeing" with the translation of "burn with passion"--I'm disagreeing with your application of it. I do agree with what I bolded.

I can have a "burning passion" to creatively express myself through playing of an musical instrument---and if someone deprived me of an instrument to use (and that creative expression were repressed).....I would whither away and --most likely--become depressed. That's how I would describe a "calling" or a "path" that we innately recognize as being something that's a part of us---or something we must do in order to be "ourselves". I think that's what Paul was expressing to those that were questioning whether they should remain single or to marry.

 

[mkgal1]

it is better to marry than to burn

I just was reading through this and this phrase sort of caught me in a bit of a different way. That's two alternatives.....correct (marry or "burn")? I've read the commentaries that describe this as a "heat" that's sort of "eased" after being able to express the desire in marriage.....but that sort of paints a picture to me that I don't see as favorable to marriage (if put that way). Do you know what I mean? It conjures up this image of a couple that are so eager to be with each other sexually that they can't contain themselves---then they marry and it's like throwing a bucket of water on them (and the "fire" goes out). With "fire" being used as synonymous with "sexual desire".....how can that be a good thing (especially with the couple being young and immature)? That seems to be describing a desire that runs so hot it quickly burns itself out. How is that a good start to marriage?

That's one reason I'm opposed to interpreting this passage like that and using it as support for marrying young.

To me, the translation that it's "better to marry than to burn" (with burn = tried with fire ) makes more sense. With that, the imagery of Shadrach, Meshach, and Agendego in the fiery furnace comes to mind. A person with a strong desire to marry (for more reasons than just sexually) would "burn" in a trial of repressing their true (and pure) desires to marry.

 

[LinkH]

It was Dr Derek Prince who made the statement that the passage as a whole was addressed to females.

While not a "recognized" biblical language scholar, his creds were good enough for him to take on anyone in that area. Before coming to faith during WW2, he taught the Greek philosophers (Plato, Aristotle et al) at the graduate level at Cambridge (in ancient Greek) He was quite fluent.

Some of his teachings are on the Internet. Can you identify this specifically? Was his argument based on the grammar of the word or historical and cultural context?

 

[LinkH]

I just was reading through this and this phrase sort of caught me in a bit of a different way. That's two alternatives.....correct (marry or "burn")? I've read the commentaries that describe this as a "heat" that's sort of "eased" after being able to express the desire in marriage.....but that sort of paints a picture to me that I don't see as favorable to marriage (if put that way). Do you know what I mean? It conjures up this image of a couple that are so eager to be with each other sexually that they can't contain themselves---then they marry and it's like throwing a bucket of water on them (and the "fire" goes out). With "fire" being used as synonymous with "sexual desire".....how can that be a good thing (especially with the couple being young and immature)? That seems to be describing a desire that runs so hot it quickly burns itself out. How is that a good start to marriage?

That's one reason I'm opposed to interpreting this passage like that and using it as support for marrying young.

To me, the translation that it's "better to marry than to burn" (with burn = tried with fire ) makes more sense. With that, the imagery of Shadrach, Meshach, and Agendego in the fiery furnace comes to mind. A person with a strong desire to marry (for more reasons than just sexually) would "burn" in a trial of repressing their true (and pure) desires to marry.

Marriage helps prevent fornication in the chapter. We see that in the opening verses. As far as 'burning', it may not be exclusively sexual tension. But this reminds me of a bit of advice I got in college. When you are in a relationship, it is a lot easier to fall into sexual sin. When there is someone you want to be close to and care about, fornication can be more of a temptation. It's not only about lust-filled young people who just want to go out and have sex with someone...anyone of the opposite sex (who is reasonably attractive or whatever.) The 'burning' may be all those relationship-related desires that can lead one to fall into fornication. There are a lot of emotional, relationshippy-type desires that can lead someone to fall into sin.

A lot of emotional needs can be relieved and fulfilled through a sexual relationship in marriage, and Paul wrote of fasting with consent for a time but then coming together again lest Satan tempt them due to a lack of self control.