1 Corinthians 7 and Man’s Opinions

I’ve heard people debate this topic before, but after a recent discussion, I thought I’d throw my hat into the exegetical ring. Basically, the question is over the infallibity some of the ideas expressed in 1 Cor. 7. This may sound strange to those who aren’t familiar with the debate, as we’d say all things in the Bible are inerrant, right? Well, that isn’t entirely accurate. For one thing, there are cases where an idea is expressed but is clearly not correct, as with Job’s friends, who are clearly not in the right, being condemned at the end of the book. From this, we can see that there are some things which are expressed in the scriptures but are not necessarily correct.

Before we get into the reasons for the passage's rejection by some, it would be helpful to go through a summary of the passage itself, as this is a very important part of the story, and I would recommend you read the chapter yourself. At the beginning, he says generally that a man should have a wife (7:2) and describes other important parts about how a husband and wife ought to treat each other. However, things seem to go off the rails in verses 6 and 7, where he says this is a “concession, not a command.” In his view, his previous advice is helpful, but he wishes all could remain celibate and unmarried. From there, he forbids divorce within married couples, based on the Lord’s command, and then specifies that this is also true for marriages between a believer and unbeliever, on his own authority (“I, not the Lord”). In this section, though, he also allows for an exception in the case of the pagan party divorcing/abandoning the Christian. Then he describes in great detail how men ought not try to transcend their station on account of their freedom in Christ but simply serve where the Lord called them. Finally, for the most controversial part, he describes his advice for the betrothed. In summary, the married life involves hardship and worry over worldly matters rather than “things that are above.” This is why, as I’ve said, that Paul wishes all people could be celibate. Thus, in his view, a betrothed couple can remain betrothed, without the two ever becoming fully married, and this is a valid station that is “better” than the married life (7:38).

With all this established, let’s look at the contextual reasons for a rejection of the ideas expressed in 1 Cor 7:

In these passages, it would initially seem that St. Paul is giving very loose advice, all based on his own opinion. In this way, we then would choose whether to acknowledge or ignore such advice, as it all is merely based on opinions of men rather than the revelation of God. From here, we could look at the numerous passages where St. Paul and our Lord esteem the office of marriage, as well as the fact that paradise is itself populated by the first bride and groom, and thus it would seem St. Paul simply missed the mark on this one.

However, I think this is a misguided reading of the passage as a whole. First of all, I don’t think St. Paul is merely appealing to his own human opinions here and merely telling folks to choose what they think, and secondly, I really don’t think the passage is as bad or disjointed from the scriptures as it’s often construed.

If we look to the passages where St. Paul supposedly described as his own opinions and we then read them in full, they paint a much different picture.

The phrase “I, not the Lord” is a complicated one, as it is contrasted with the prohibition of divorce being from “not I, but the Lord.” Rather than throwing it to the winds of man’s opinions, there are two other good options available. First, it’s possible that he is simply saying he was given no specific revelation. We know St. Paul often functioned in a prophetic capacity, being taught the Gospel by Christ Himself post-ascension and having ascended into heaven in either body or soul. Thus, perhaps he was saying he has no specific teaching from Christ, but this would not contradict inerrancy, as an author does not need to have a verbal report from an angel, as with the Koran. Instead, the Lord works through His apostles to teach pure doctrine. The other option, which I favor, is that he is referencing the Lord’s established teaching--in which our Lord forbade divorce--with his own--which did not come from our Lord’s mouth but was still inspired. This teaching about the abandonment exception is not really contradictory, but was not given by Christ bodily.

The rest are, in my view, much easier to handle. In verse 12, the Apostle does indeed say “I have no command from the Lord,” but if you keep reading, he goes on to say, “-but I give my judgement as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.” In this way, he very clearly applies inerrancy to his words, saying that his judgement in this matter is trustworthy by “the Lord’s mercy.” At the end of the chapter, he shows a similar sentiment, where he says, ”Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is,” but he then continues, “and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.“ Once again, we see St. Paul describe the passage as his opinion, but then he grounds such teaching in the Spirit of God who dwells in him and inspires his words. In chapter 14, St. Paul deals with the complaint that his teaching on orderly worship is merely his opinion, and he responds as follows:

In this way, St. Paul grounds all his written advice in his prophetic inspiration.

But doesn’t this seem like a biblical contradiction? How can marriage, which God instituted and commanded, be inferior to celibacy, which is seldom spoken of? Well, for one thing, it is inferior in only one respect: utility. St. Paul’s description of the virtues of celibacy is simply that one no longer must worry as much about a spouse, family, etc. This is related to the words earlier in the chapter that a husband and wife ought not refrain from sex for too long, except to focus on devotion in prayer. Thus, it is not “better” in the sense that it is “holier,” but in that there are not the same worries about one's familial relations when we live in the world.

Though St. Paul is right in saying that the Lord did not specifically address the betrothed, He did actually speak very similarly to St. Paul on virginity:

The first sentence from Christ is exactly what St. Paul refers to in 1 Cor 7:5,36-37; it is better for a man not to marry--because of the utility of celibacy--but this is not given to all men as a spiritual gift, and thus they are encouraged to marry. The next about eunuchs is a mysterious one, and it was taken very poorly by some in the ancient church as a consecration of genital self-mutilation. This got so bad that the very first canon of the Council of Nicaea is devoted to correcting that error. However, I would contend that this is explained by St. Paul in 7:32-35, so the reason some were made eunuchs "for the kingdom of heaven" is that there is great utility in celibacy. As a Lutheran, it's important to note: this actually is the confessional position as well. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon explains the passages as follows:

Thus, based on the scriptures and the Lutheran confessions--not to menrion the church fathers--it would seem that St. Paul's advice does carry the weight of scriptural inerrancy, infallibility, etc.