Abstract
Abstract In Paul’s communication to the Corinthian community, we find his reference to Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce as he seeks to rebuke some Corinthians’ desire to divorce for the sake of their ascetic pursuit. Following this enlistment of the authority of “the Lord” (1 Cor 7:10), Paul curiously offers his own instruction which contradicts Jesus’. Drawing on insights from the Roman and the Jewish contexts as well as the Foucauldian notion of power, this article argues that Paul is claiming to himself the power and the status of a paterfamilias. His divergence from Jesus’ prohibition of divorce stems from his possible concerns as the paterfamilias of the Corinthian community.
Highlights
It is commonly noted that Paul rarely refers to the sayings of Jesus in his epistles
In Paul’s communication to the Corinthian community, we find his reference to Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce as he seeks to rebuke some Corinthians’ desire to divorce for the sake of their ascetic pursuit
Drawing on insights from the Roman and the Jewish contexts as well as the Foucauldian notion of power, this article argues that Paul is claiming to himself the power and the status of a paterfamilias
Summary
It is commonly noted that Paul rarely refers to the sayings of Jesus in his epistles. Enlisting the authority of Jesus though Paul apparently is, Paul takes an intriguing turn as he overrides Jesus’ command by specifying when divorce is acceptable. 170 Chak Him Chow command, attention will be directed towards the claims that mixed marriage has not been discussed by Jesus, and that the divorces initiated by unbelieving spouses have been beyond the believers’ purview. These claims will be discussed in light of a Foucauldian insight on power and our knowledge of Roman divorce. It is possible that Paul’s decision to diverge from Jesus’ prohibition of divorce stems from concerns associated with Paul’s status as paterfamilias
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.