Temporary Separation from Spouse

[Josh]

I have no problem with a church saying they prefer or don't allow men to work in occupations that take them away from the home- that is their choice and if you join that church you agree to that. But to say that is not anabaptist is going too far- it may be a position many anabaptist churches take- but it isn't a defining characteristic of anabaptism.

Restricting occupations has been a characteristic of Anabaptism since its founding (and indeed of Christianity since its founding; the early church didn't tolerate occupations like proconsul and actor, to name a few).

[Josh]

And in addition to the family issues, this prohibition on overnight travel that Josh describes is perhaps partly an issue of the church maintaining control over members which is easier if they are nearby.

I really doubt it.

The most common reasoning I've heard is that it's important for Dad to be at home so he is sharing the duties of raising the children, disciplining them, and giving Mom a break since she already spends her whole day taking care of the children.

The other half of the reasoning is observing family and marital problems happening with men who are frequently away from home. In my denomination, an OTR trucker who starts having any problems with kids acting out, marital problems, etc. will be encouraged to find a way to change to local routes instead.

If you consider ensuring both parents are being active parents involved in their children's lives to be "maintaining control over members"... then yes.

[Bootstrap]

Is there any BIBLICAL basis for this restriction or standard?

Because that certainly wasn't the kind of world that people lived in during Biblical times. Where travel away from home for long periods of time was part of life.

1 Cor 9:5 says this:

Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

[Ken]

Is there any BIBLICAL basis for this restriction or standard?

Because that certainly wasn't the kind of world that people lived in during Biblical times. Where travel away from home for long periods of time was part of life.

1 Cor 9:5 says this:

Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

And what do you think that verse means?

I read it as a quote from Barnabas who traveled with Paul and it isn't clear that he was even married. So it appears more like a rhetorical question in which he is simply asking whether he as an apostle is entitled to have an ordinary life as well. Not that he is literally dragging a wife and children along with him on all of his various missionary exploits with Paul.

And I think what he is saying is that an apostle or believing Christian can also have a life and a wife on their life journey. I don't read it as any sort of mandate or suggestion that couples should never be separated, even for a single night. Which is the extreme version Josh described.

[ohio jones]

A quote from Barnabas?? It's far from obvious how that could be the case, since very next verse, with no change in the flow of the text, says "Barnabas and I."

[Ken]

A quote from Barnabas?? It's far from obvious how that could be the case, since very next verse, with no change in the flow of the text, says "Barnabas and I."

Yes, I apparently can't read. I read "I and Barnabas" as "I Barnabas." On a second read it is obviously Paul who is saying "Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us" which is probably rhetorical. Although the question of whether Paul was actually married doesn't seem to be definitely settled. There are those who believe he was married but separated. For example: https://postbarthian.com/2023/03/07/was ... -also-yes/

[Bootstrap]

Is there any BIBLICAL basis for this restriction or standard?

Because that certainly wasn't the kind of world that people lived in during Biblical times. Where travel away from home for long periods of time was part of life.

1 Cor 9:5 says this:

Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

And what do you think that verse means?

It's quite clear that Paul is saying that the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Peter bring their wives along with them on mission trips, at least sometimes. There's no claim that this is a requirement. In context, Paul is pointing out that he and Barnabas have always paid their own way, even though they have every right to be supported.

Paul is saying that they really should support missions. He is saying that he, Paul, has a right to be supported - but this is a right that he does not use, laying it down in order to better promote the Gospel.

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? 8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. 16 For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.

[Neto]

1 Cor 9:5 says this:

And what do you think that verse means?

It's quite clear that Paul is saying that the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Peter bring their wives along with them on mission trips, at least sometimes. There's no claim that this is a requirement. In context, Paul is pointing out that he and Barnabas have always paid their own way, even though they have every right to be supported.

Paul is saying that they really should support missions. He is saying that he, Paul, has a right to be supported - but this is a right that he does not use, laying it down in order to better promote the Gospel.

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? 8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. 16 For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.

Specifically, Paul was "arguing" that the basic principle is that "those who benefit should pay". So the idea was that under that principle, the non-Jews to whom he & his team (Banawa has a neat way of saying this, literally Paul PLURAL - "the Pauls") were ministering were the ones who should be supporting their ministry. He says elsewhere that he had "robbed" Christians (in other places) in order to be able to serve in new places. He DID have a "side-gig", but was also receiving financial help from established churches. (We also "robbed" congregations here in the States so that the Banawa could hear the Gospel. But we were not allowed to work at an outside job.)