A discussion on Paul's teachings about marriage and his views on women's rights in general

While reading Romans chapter 7, I was first struck by the seeming contradiction in Paul's statements on what marriage should look like for believers. In 1 Corinthians, Paul gives no alternative to being married once you're married, even in the case of adultery (or so it seems), which is directly against the lessons of his teacher, Jesus. He even says that if you DO  get a divorce, then you are not permitted to marry again. Period. Of course, he does allow for reconciliation and remarriage between the husband and wife, which is, admittedly, a small concession. In Romans, however, Paul teaches that if a husband dies, the wife is free from the marriage bond and allowed to remarry. Why is there such an obvious discrepancy between Paul's teachings to the Romans, who he had not even met yet, and his teachings to the Corinthians? 

Also, why does Paul only address the issue as it concerns men?

Many bible scholars agree that in Romans Paul is referencing the Mosaic law. He is saying that once we die in the flesh we are no longer bound by the law . This would extend to marriage laws as well. Once a death occurs, the spouse is free to remarry without repercussion. This does not answer my question, though, as to why there seems to be a difference between the teachings received by the Romans and the teachings received by the Corinthians. 

 To understand why Paul addressed each group the way he did, we must first consider the purpose behind the letters sent to the churches in Corinth and Rome, respectively. First, the Corinthian church was founded by Paul. He received a report concerning problems that were threatening to divide the church, as well as questions from leaders within the church regarding the church's running, leadership, and every day life of the believers. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that Paul's language regarding marriage, sex, and divorce (1 Corinthians chapter 7) was forceful so as to draw stark, decisive lines between what is morally "right and wrong". 

 The letter written to the church in Rome, however, is simply a letter of introduction. At this point Paul had yet to travel to Rome, so instead of addressing any pastoral concerns or addressing questions asked of him, Paul introduces himself to church with a detailed explanation of his beliefs on salvation. He includes a discussion of marriage and divorce in order to emphasize his belief that a believer is only under the law during life. You can clearly see this in Romans 7:4-6. Another interpretation of this verse is his argument that once an unbeliever accepts salvation, they die to their fleshly desires and are reborn as a new person in Christ. 

Therefore, the most logical conclusion concerning the discrepancy between the two teachings is that Paul felt as if he were able to speak more openly with the church in Corinth, as he was the one that founded the church, but that he felt the need to hold back a bit when addressing the Romans. Perhaps he wanted to make a "good impression", or it could be that he simply felt as though he should ease the Romans into his style of teaching so as not to scare them away. However, even that conclusion seems to be a stark contrast to the forward and almost egotistical personality readers are presented with time and time again.

 This simple and straightforward answer to the first point does not come close to answering the second, bothersome question. Why does Paul address only the men and their rights concerning marriage? It was discussed in class that Paul was considered very forward thinking when it comes to women's rights. Of course, during this time in history, women did not have many rights socially and were barely considered at all. So, a simple explanation is that Paul was affected by the social atmosphere of his time. I'm not completely satisfied with this answer though. It is my assertion that, if Paul was a forward thinking man for his time, he would have addressed women's rights too. Unfortunately, this is simply conjecture on my part, as none of the articles I pulled up for this blog agree with my supposition. For example, Christine Butler surmises that Paul's "one main concern" was to preach and teach the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. He was unconcerned, as such, with "women as women" or with their place in society or the local church. Pedro M. Rosario Barbosa agrees in an article entitled "Women According to Saint Paul". The author believes that due to the rise in feminism in the twentieth century, Christians are questioning certain passages in the bible that are clearly misogynistic. Most of these passages are pulled straight from the Pauline epistles and have earned Paul a reputation as being a raging sexist. Barbosa says, however, that Paul, in fact, held women in high regard and often placed their worth as equal to men in the sight of God. Rather, "in Paul, we see a definite case where we can see his love and appreciation for women despite his androcentric views". 

In conclusion, while it is fair to assume that Paul's teachings were influenced by the atmosphere of his time, Paul did make an effort to take the basic human rights of women into consideration when teaching, preaching, and addressing his letters. The ego that readers are presented with is simply Paul's unconcern for people as people, but getting his ministry out to as many "sinners" as possible. Of course, this is what eventually leads to his apparent beheading and martyrdom.