Confused?

[Orthodox Andrew]

I was under the idea all the Apostles were celibate? Could somebody explain this verse to me? Thanks


"MARK1- Now as soon as they had come out of the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30But Simon's wife's mother lay sick with a fever, and they told Him about her at once. 31So He came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and immediately the fever left her. And she served them"

 

[Philip]

St Paul was certainly celebate. St Peter was not. It is interesting to note that St Peter was married before he was called by the Lord.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Thanks,


God Bless You.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

I don't mean to go off track here, but does the EOC consider St. Peter our first Pope?

 

[Maximus]

I don't mean to go off track here, but does the EOC consider St. Peter our first Pope?

Yes.

 

[Maximus]

Andreas -

Why be confused?

There's nothing wrong with marriage.

It's just that it is easier for celibate persons to serve the Lord with all their time and energy.

According to Church history St. Philip the Apostle had four daughters who all had the gift of prophecy.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Andreas -

Why be confused?

There's nothing wrong with marriage.

It's just that it is easier for celibate persons to serve the Lord with all their time and energy.

According to Church history St. Philip the Apostle had four daughters who all had the gift of prophecy.

You're right. I for some reason thought Roman Catholic Priests took the vow of celibacy due to Christ and all the Apostles being celibate. But now I see that's not the case.

 

[Philip]

I don't mean to go off track here, but does the EOC consider St. Peter our first Pope?

Was he chief of the Apostles and the first Bishop of Rome? Absolutely. We may disagree with the nature of the office, but certainly affirm that he held the office.

 

[Maximus]

Here's a curious thing from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History:

"Clement indeed, whose words we have just cited, after the above-mentioned facts, next gave a statement of those apostles who continued in the marriage state on account of those who set marriage aside: 'And will they,' said he, 'reject even the apostles! Peter and Philip, indeed, had children, Philip also gave his daughters in marriage to husbands, and Paul does not demur in a certain epistle to mention his own wife, whom he did not take about with him, in order to expedite his ministry the better' " (Book 3, Chapter 30:1).

What is curious about it is the part about St. Paul. St. Paul mentions his wife in "a certain epistle?"

Was St. Paul married at one time and later a widower?

Is that "certain epistle" the famous "missing epistle" of St. Paul?

Interesting.

 

[Photini]

What is curious about it is the part about St. Paul. St. Paul mentions his wife in "a certain epistle?"

Was St. Paul married at one time and later a widower?

Is that "certain epistle" the famous "missing epistle" of St. Paul?

Interesting.

Wow, that is interesting. If you find anything further out, let us know.
I believe I've gathered from somewhere that even though some of the Apostles, and the early Christians were married, many of them lived like monastics.

 

[Patristic]

Was St. Paul married at one time and later a widower?

I don't know if any of you are familiar with him, but N.T. Wright has a pretty convincing argument on this point. Wright argues that as a Pharisee Paul most likely belonged to the school of Shammai because he was so zealous and devout as a Jewish man. The teachers of this school had stringent marriage qualifications and the Pharisees of this school were supposed to be married, so Wright argues that Paul must have abided by this rule since he was so devout and pious. Then Wright speculates that after his conversion, when Paul replaced his zeal for the law with zeal for Christ, he and his wife probably parted ways. Maybe she did not convert and considered him a heretic now, or maybe something else happened? Anyways, after that Paul chose to remain single since it allowed him to devote all his energies to the Lord.

 

[Maximus]

Thanks for that info, Patristic.

It is interesting.

I wonder why I didn't notice it when I was reading Eusebius before.

Anyway, St. Paul must have written more epistles than the ones we have, if he mentioned his wife in one of them.

I lean toward the idea that she probably passed away rather than that they parted in some other way. But I don't have any reason for believing that other than St. Clement's words as quoted by Eusebius.

 

[MariaRegina]

Here's a curious thing from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History:

"Clement indeed, whose words we have just cited, after the above-mentioned facts, next gave a statement of those apostles who continued in the marriage state on account of those who set marriage aside: 'And will they,' said he, 'reject even the apostles! Peter and Philip, indeed, had children, Philip also gave his daughters in marriage to husbands, and Paul does not demur in a certain epistle to mention his own wife, whom he did not take about with him, in order to expedite his ministry the better' " (Book 3, Chapter 30:1).

What is curious about it is the part about St. Paul. St. Paul mentions his wife in "a certain epistle?"

Was St. Paul married at one time and later a widower?

Is that "certain epistle" the famous "missing epistle" of St. Paul?

Interesting.

Dear Maximus:

I have never heard of a missing epistle of St. Paul - although some might have been destroyed during the persecutions of the early Church.

Please do tell us more!

Your sister in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

 

[MariaRegina]

Thanks for that info, Patristic.

It is interesting.

I wonder why I didn't notice it when I was reading Eusebius before.

Anyway, St. Paul must have written more epistles than the ones we have, if he mentioned his wife in one of them.

I lean toward the idea that she probably passed away rather than that they parted in some other way. But I don't have any reason for believing that other than St. Clement's words as quoted by Eusebius.

Dear Maximus:

The Orthodox Priest in my parish told us that St. Paul was a Jewish Rabbi and all Jewish Rabbis had to be married.

Because of the famous Pauline Privilege, some Priests have come to the conclusion that St. Paul might have divorced his wife due to her lack of faith. Perhaps that is why St. Paul is singled out by feminists?

In our Orthodox Christian wedding ceremony (The Crowning), Ephesians is the passage we read. Some of the Greek ladies request that the Priest reads the epistle in Greek so that the English speaking friends won't understand what is being read. Our priest said that he would proclaim it very clearly in English so that everyone would understand that women are to be submissive.

Care to comment here?

Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

 

[Pap]

Didn't the Catholic priests become celibate because of financial reasons.
I understand the Pope of the day figured out that if a priest was single he needed less money because he didn't need to support a wife and children. Also when he died, his estate went back to the Church because he had no family to inherit his property.

 

[nicodemus]

Dear Maximus:


In our Orthodox Christian wedding ceremony (The Crowning), Ephesians is the passage we read. Some of the Greek ladies request that the Priest reads the epistle in Greek so that the English speaking friends won't understand what is being read. Our priest said that he would proclaim it very clearly in English so that everyone would understand that women are to be submissive.

Care to comment here?

That has got be one of, if not the most misunderstood passage in Scripture. Most people stop at Ephesians 5:24

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

However, if you continue on, the demands placed upon the husband are also quite steep:

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Verse 25 theoretically ensures that a husband will do right by his wife because he loves her. Just as Christ loved the Church means that Christ will listen to the pleas and petitions of the Church and that a man will do the same with his wife. That doesn't mean that she's not supposed to have an opinion or make her wishes known.

Verses 26-33 go on to provide ample evidence that this "being the head of the wife" in no way allows for any type of mistreatment or subserviance.

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

I'm the first one to admit that at times, I don't like the way it sounds either, but I also think our modern, "post-enlightenment" minds have a hard time grasping the true meaning and we read it wrongly. I'd like to read some commentaries by the Fathers and see what they say, because I know my feeble mind isn't grasping it on its own.

 

[MariaRegina]

That has got be one of, if not the most misunderstood passage in Scripture. Most people stop at Ephesians 5:24

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

However, if you continue on, the demands placed upon the husband are also quite steep:

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Verse 25 theoretically ensures that a husband will do right by his wife because he loves her. Just as Christ loved the Church means that Christ will listen to the pleas and petitions of the Church and that a man will do the same with his wife. That doesn't mean that she's not supposed to have an opinion or make her wishes known.

Verses 26-33 go on to provide ample evidence that this "being the head of the wife" in no way allows for any type of mistreatment or subserviance.

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

I'm the first one to admit that at times, I don't like the way it sounds either, but I also think our modern, "post-enlightenment" minds have a hard time grasping the true meaning and we read it wrongly. I'd like to read some commentaries by the Fathers and see what they say, because I know my feeble mind isn't grasping it on its own.

Dear Nicodemus:

I was tired when typing that post. The Priest said that the husband is expected to love his wife unto death - being willing to die for his wife. That's a high calling.

 

[nicodemus]

Dear Nicodemus:

I was tired when typing that post. The Priest said that the husband is expected to love his wife unto death - being willing to die for his wife. That's a high calling.

Chanter,

Now that I go back and read what I wrote, I hope it didn't come off as aggressive or as berating you. That is not at all how I meant for it to come across. If I offended you, please forgive me.

 

[MariaRegina]

Chanter,

Now that I go back and read what I wrote, I hope it didn't come off as aggressive or as berating you. That is not at all how I meant for it to come across. If I offended you, please forgive me.

No, you didn't come across as offensive. After all I asked for comments -- and I'm glad you accepted the offer. What you said is what a lot of priests say. Have you read St. John Chrysostom's work on marriage?

Maybe that should be a separate thread. Or maybe for the sake of peace, we should keep it buried here.

 

[nicodemus]

Have you read St. John Chrysostom's work on marriage?

Yes. My wife has read it too. We both enjoyed it very much. I think the divorce rate in American would be cut in half if more people read it and took it seriously.