Talk:Was Paul a Roman Citizen
Was the apostle Paul married? It seems he was, though he may have been widowed and/or living in a sexually continent marriage by some point.
In 1 Corinthians 9 he refers to his wife, and complains that he and Barnabas should be compensated for their expenses just as Peter and the Twelve are, so that they can, among other things, afford to bring their wives with them.
(He goes on to make it clear he’s not just whining for a raise - he pays his own way, but still has a right to compensation, as does anyone else who gives their life to ministry.)
In Philippians 4, he enjoins his wife (sometimes translated as ‘companion’) to take care of some women in the Church.
Early Church Fathers also attest to Paul’s married status, including Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea.
Finally, Paul is, by his own admission, a Pharisee, and obedience to the commandment “be fruitful and multiply” was then, and is now, taken seriously by Orthodox Jews (as one rabbi friend told me, obedience to the commandment means married couples should have sex daily, and twice on the sabbath!). We would know Paul was almost certainly married, or at the least a widower, from that bit of information alone.
Though there is a passage in 1 Corinthians 7 that he recommends people engaging in missions who can “should remain as he is”, such as widows and the unmarried - which probably means widowers.
This has been interpreted at later ages to say he was celibate, but that seems to have been because of the growth of importance of celibate monks, and later of celibacy as part of clerical reform, rather than what is actually indicated. He may mean celibacy as a widower, and not remarrying, or he may mean remaining continent within marriage, and both of these ideas gained traction over the centuries and inspired clerical practice and discipline; but it is also possible he means something else altogether: Chastity, rather than continence or celibacy, or perhaps a willingness to leave the wife at home while he goes on mission, or something that would have been more clear at the time.
I have even heard it suggested that he really did not like his wife, or that perhaps he was a closeted gay man, and felt she was inflicted on him to keep him humble, so much so that she is in fact the “thorn in his flesh” (cf 2 Corinthians 12). I’m not sure if this is reflecting the reader’s misogyny, Paul’s, or something else entirely, though. (And, since this wasn’t clear to some readers, I don’t give much credit to either theory, but they are out there.)
So while much has been made of Paul’s celibacy at various points in history, it seems it was unwarranted. He was pretty clearly married, at least for some part of his life.
Now, that being said - it isn’t an article of faith. Whether Paul was married or not, or whether he was widowed by the time of his conversion, or his wife left him when he did, or anything, simply doesn’t matter to the gospel. It has no effect on the central message of Christianity, it has no effect on Church teaching, except where people have justified mandated celibacy using Paul as an example, but even that is adiaphora, not dogma. It is interesting to piece together, but it isn’t something that should challenge one’s faith.
1 cor 9, Paul says he has a right to be married, but later he mentions he did not use that right. In Phill 4 he mentions some women who worked with him, but no hint of marriage to one of them.
Paul later declared that he had the gift of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7.