1 Corinthians 7:36 Greek experts please view

Interesting qiestion, doe shte construction tell him to allow hisvirgin daughter to marry off, or is it that he should marry now his virgin financee?

 

if you compare different versions, you will see that even greek experts have real trouble trying to get to us what was really meant here!

 

>>>just another Greek novice here<<<

Unless you've studied Greek your best bet would be to compare versions and search modern commentaries.

You'll find that knowledge of Greek won't clear up the difficulties any more than the differences between translations.

Google Books offers numerous up-to-date commentaries that with a bit of patience and diligence should provide some answers... or at least help you understand the scope of various interpretations.

QUESTION—To whom is this addressed?
1. It is addressed to a man who is engaged to a woman [EBC, HNTC, NCBC, NIC2, TH; LB, NIV, NJB, NRSV, REB, TEV].
2. It is addressed to a man who has determined to live with a woman without having sexual relations [He; TNT].
3. It is addressed to a father who has an unmarried daughter [Alf, Ed, EGT, Gdt, ICC, Lns, My, NIC, Rb, TNTC, Vn; NASB].
Ronald Trail, An Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 1–9 (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 304–305.​

Rob

 

I looked into two of my old text books - Dana & Mantey and Summers (I have others) and they both said the same thing about gender (unlike today). Generally speaking gender follows the English structure but not always. IOW "The flower" has a life of its own in terms of gender. Nominative - Dana and Mantey has 5 different nominatives and it looks like the one which would fit the Father-Daughter scenario is The Independent Nominative which is "When an idea is conceived independent of any any verbal relation ..." a stand alone kind of designation. (page 70-71) Dana & Mantey.

IMO It's father-daughter and fiance. the "them" in let them marry - the hopeful young man (fiance) and the virgin daughter.

 

First of all, uperakmos is a hapax legomenon, occurring only here in the NT. It is what is called a two termination adjective. In other words, it only has two possible suffixes (m/f, n) instead of the three that the Greek adjective usually has (m, f, n). The reference books will thus tell you that in the context it could refer to either a man or a woman. It is used in extra-biblical sources for a virgin woman, so that could be the meaning here.

As for the fact that the adjective is nominative, that is because it is after the copula "he/she/it is." So it has to be nominative.

As for the meaning, I believe it should mean "one's prime of life." My go-to commentaries on the Greek, Alford and A. T. Robertson, both go with the father as the one being talked to by Paul, and I also think it refers to a father and his virgin daughter.

As to what the "disgrace" is, Alford (an old time Greek commentator, says as one of the possibilities that it might be the shame of having an unmarried daughter in the prime of life. I lean towards this interpretation, having lived in and visited other cultures. I think a Roman or Greek father at the time Paul wrote the epistle might be embarrassed to have a full grown daughter lounging around the house. So Paul is being an encouragement to such a father.

Interestingly enough, we are entering a time in American history where truly separated parents, seeking to act right about their daughter, might end up with daughters in the late 20's or early 30's still not married. I know several good, godly families with several unmarried adult daughters.

 

Could it tie into paul stating that its better not to marry in the time he wrote the letter, due to persecution going on , but in this case, OK to have Father allow His virgin daughter to wed now?

 

That makes sense.

 

As it seems that Paul would have to be addressing alocal situation that was brought to his attention, as not really something that seems to be God advicing us what to do in all times...

 

You're welcome, Jordan.