1 Corinthians 7

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by kyredneck, Mar 29, 2010.

  1. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    v. 40 ........after my judgment: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

    A couple of questions:

    Do any of you all think that this is an odd thing for Paul to say, 'I think I have the Spirit in this matter',? Your thoughts?

    How much of the context of the 7th chapter is he referring to that he 'thinks' he's in agreement with the Spirit?
     
  2. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good Morning!

    It means Paul was human like the rest of us and in the absence of clear scripture gave us his best opinion.
     
  3. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul is giving his opinion, that a widow would probably be better off to remain unmarried.
    The important thing is to serve God, to put God first in your life. If a person is married, God should still be first in his life. Unfortunately, there are many Christian couples who do not put God first in their marriage.
    No I don't think it was odd, Paul knew he represented the mind of the Spirit in what he said. I think he was very sure of his walk with God and learned to listen before he spoke.
     
  4. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quoted from people smarter than me. :tongue3:


    Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
    1 Corinthians 7:40
    Verse 40. If she so abide. If she remain a widow, even if she could be married to a Christian.
    After my judgment. In my opinion, 1Co 7:25.,

    And I think also that I have the Spirit of God. Macknight and others suppose that this phrase implies entire certainty; and that Paul means to affirm that in this he was clear that he was under the influence of inspiration. He appeals for the use of the term (dokw) to Mr 10:42; Lu 8:18; 1Co 4:9; 8:2; 11:16; Heb 4:1, etc. But the word does not usually express absolute certainty. It implies a doubt, though there may be a strong persuasion or conviction; or the best judgment which the mind can form in the case. See Mt 6:7; 26:53; Mr 6:49; Lu 8:18; 10:36; 12:51; 13:2; 22:24; Ac 17:18; 25:27; 1Co 12:22, etc. It implies here a belief that Paul was under the influence of the infallible Spirit, and that his advice was such as accorded with the will of God. Perhaps he alludes to the fact that the teachers at Corinth deemed themselves to be under the influence of inspiration; and Paul said that he judged also of himself that he was divinely guided and directed in what he said.--Calvin. And as Paul in this could not be mistaken; as his impression that he was under the influence of that Spirit was, in fact, a claim to Divine inspiration, so this advice should be regarded as of Divine authority, and as binding on all. This interpretation is further demanded by the circumstances of the case. It was necessary that he should assert Divine authority to counteract the teaching of the false instructors in Corinth; and that he should interpose that authority in prescribing rules for the government of the church there, in view of the peculiar temptations to which they were exposed.
     
  5. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Good Morning MK, Bob, and Amy. Sorry for not responding sooner, but all three of you have made comments that's caused me to rethink and dig deeper into 1 Cor 7. Thank you for those comments. Consider these verses from the same chapter:

    v 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment. (concerning vv.1-5)

    v 10 But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord......

    v 12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord.......

    v 25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgment.......

    v 40 ...she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

    It seems to me that Paul is making a definite distinction between his own judgments as an Apostle endowed with authority, and commandments directly from the Lord.

    Comments?

    Does anyone know of any other places in the epistles where the Apostles make this distinction?
     
  6. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the second of four instances where Paul appealed to what was customary in all the churches (cf. 4:17; 11:16; 14:33). He was telling this church directly that their theology was wrong, not his.

    As Robertson and Plummer said'
    “Paul’s intent is not to lay down a rule that one may not change; rather, by thus hallowing one’s situation in life, he is trying to help the Corinthians see that their social status is ultimately irrelevant as such (i.e., they can live out their Christian life in any of the various options) and therefore their desire to change is equally irrelevant—because it has nothing to do with genuine spirituality as their slogan would infer.

    Paul is saying that many Christians put more emphasis on getting an education than they do on serving the Lord. This is getting things out of order, so Paul is warning them of that.

    I still believe that the "I say" is Paul following the Holy Spirit and Scriptures and the folks here were not.
     
  7. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Thanks Bob. But it seems to me that Paul's 'I says' are contrasted with 'the Lord says':

    v 10 But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord......

    v 12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord.......

    v 25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgment.......

    v 40 ...she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.
     
  8. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe that in these instances Paul is trying to give good counsel on matters that come down to that of Christian liberty. Since Paul was clearly an apostle, we do well to consider his advice seriously. However, not all are called to the same life.

    Paul was called to minister as a single man, yet he says clearly it is better to marry than to burn with lust and that there is no sin in marrying and serving as a married person as long as both husband and wife are prepared for the consequences. Two choices, both are not sinful, yet one may be too hard for some and the next may be to hard for others.

    There is wisdom, rather than specific rules, in Paul's words following his own mandate that all of scripture is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction. (2 Tim 3:16)
     
  9. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    It think Paul is just simply stating the Lord's command in addition to his own.

    Paul was given authority by Jesus so his words are to be taken seriously. But certain commands originated with God, such as not to divorce.

    So I think Paul is saying that what he is teaching cannot be found in the commandments of God, but nevertheless they are to be adhered to because he has authority from God to teach them.
     
  10. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    We might just have to differ on this. I'll go back to verse 6 and the rest of the ones you listed fall right into it as I see it. Many have taken verse 6 and the others you bring up to mean that the apostle did not consider the foregoing words to be inspired by God. I disagree with any interpretation of that type as it is untenable, because he claims in 1 Corinthians 14:37 that the things which he was writing were the commandments of the Lord.

    In verse 10 I believe it means , Paul was teaching here,what had already been taught by the Lord.

    Verse 12, Paul is following the Holy Spirit and saying what he is about to say wasn't previously taught by Jesus when He was here on earth, but it is God's Word.

    Many have used verse 25 to teach that the contents of this chapter are not necessarily inspired, I disagree as noted above.

    Verse 40, “I think I also have the Spirit of God.” Some good folks in my way of thinking misunderstand his words here to mean that Paul was not sure of himself in saying what he was saying or that his words were not inspired here! Again I disagree with such an interpretation. As noted above I don't believe one can question the inspiration of Paul's writing here.
     
  11. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Forgive my 'cherry picking' from your posts, the both of you made excellent points, but this is what I wish to focus on. Lest anyone question if I question the authority given to the Apostles within Christ's kingdom:

    And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness. Mt 10:1

    I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mt 16:19

    Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mt 18:18

    For though I should glory somewhat abundantly concerning our authority (which the Lord gave for building you up, and not for casting you down), I shall not be put to shame:
    2 Cor 10:8

    For this cause I write these things while absent, that I may not when present deal sharply, according to the authority which the Lord gave me for building up, and not for casting down. 2 Cor:13:10

    And it seems to me that Paul made no bones, gave no apology, and gave no explanation about exercising that authority in instances such as these, he just did it:

    I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing......to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor 5:3,5

    .......Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme. 1 Tim 1:20

    If whatever Paul bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven, why would he even bother to make [known] a distinction between his judgments and the Lord's commands in 1 Cor 7 ?
     
  12. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because no man is God. Because we need no high priest.

    Paul is clear, that some things are his own opinion as he was led by the Holy Spirit. They will work just fine for him, but its not a sin (that is not against the commandment of God) should a Christian choose a different path.

    If Paul hadn't set up the distinction between himself and God, then he would be placing himself and the other apostles in between God and man. Thus, making null and void the idea that we need no mediator between God and man but Christ. It is misunderstanding of scriptures such as this, that gives the Pope his power.
     
  13. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    I agree with that MK.

    I agree with that also. But again, I ask the question:

    I know of nowhere where Paul or any of the other Apostles emphasize that it's their 'opinions' given, except in this 7th chapter of 1 Corinthians. Why 1 Cor 7 ? What is 'different' about this chapter?

    Again MK, I agree with everything you've said here; you make some very good points. But I believe the answer to my question is something other than this. I will get back.

    Thanks for commenting. :)
     
  14. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Ah, I decided to keep it brief and to the point. I consider !st Cor 7 to be an 'imminent return' passage, or as asterisktom says,' soonness' passage.

    Consider these excerpts from the 7th chapter:

    v 26.....by reason of the distress that is upon us...

    v 29.....the time is shortened....

    v 31.......for the fashion of this world passeth away

    I believe Paul was so convinced of the imminent return of Christ, that his general advice to all was, 'let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God'. I think that if there were no ' distress that is upon us', or, if 'the time was not shortened', or, 'the fashion of this world was not passing away', Paul would have never advised slaves to remain slaves, or widows to remain widows, or the unmarried not to marry. His intent was for them 'to be free from cares' during these times of trouble, and he felt he was advising them 'for their own profit'. He wanted them to be prepared for the coming of the Lord.

    Comments?
     
  15. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unless you are aguing that the entire book of Corinthians relates to the "soonness" of Christ's return then you have to consider Paul's words later on in the book concerning the length of women's hair and whether she should pray with her head covered. (chp 11:14-16 or so)

    In this place too Paul says he has no specific opinion or tradition and this time he is not relating it in any way to Christ's return.
     
  16. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    Sorry, I don't fully get your point here. I will say this though, the length of one's hair has no impact on one's life in this time world. However, telling a slave to remain a slave, or a widow to remain a widow, or the young not to marry, would carry a tremendous impact on one's life. You're not comparing apples with apples here, IMO.

    Well, this is one of the questions I had; does anyone know anywhere else in the epistles that it's emphasized that it's an opinion that's given? And, I looked in the 11th chapter and I don't see an opinion stated anywhere. Maybe you can direct me?
     
  17. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I understood you correctly, you said that since this passage was special in that it was the only place where Paul gave us his opinion. Period.

    I simply showed that Paul have given his opinion elsewhere, so this passage can't be considered to be special enough to lead us down the path you seem to be taking: ie that Paul only gave this advice to the people of his time because he believed Christ was come soon.

    My personal belief is that Paul knew that life changes. When he gives his advice to slaves and others we consider to have had terrible lives he is merely telling them to be content and live for Christ where they are. The only way I see to get your interpretation is to pull things from their context.
     
  18. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    It's the only place that I know that Paul emphasizes that it's his opinion.

    Where? Reference please? I'm not doubting you, I can't find it.

    So far MK, you haven't come up with anything to convince me otherwise, and trust me, I AM flexible on this one.

    I don't see how you can say it's out of context:


    26 I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is.
    29 But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none;
    30 and those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and those that buy, as though they possessed not;
    31 and those that use the world, as not using it to the full: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
     
    #18 kyredneck, Apr 1, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 1, 2010
  19. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    I gave you the reference above: 1 Corinthians 11:14-16. When Paul gives his comments and then says that "we have no tradition" to me that means, one must decide the issue for themselves. In other words Paul gave the advice and we can take it or leave it, because it isn't something to argue about (if any man be contentious).

    Okay,

    26 what distress was on them that isn't on Christians today?

    29 What time? You say the time of Christ, but I say they were being persecuted to the point that marrying was going to cause each party great distress, perhaps even to the point where some found marriage to be worth more than standing for Christ. In other words "time is short" simply means it won't be long until the new couple must face persecution

    30 see above. These are all ways people were going to respond to the persecution of the time (for that matter these are all ways we respond to persecution today)

    31 The fashion of this world still passes away. This isn't something that applies only to that time, though the customs, cultures and nations that existed then, certainly don't exist now. Then again, the Berlin Wall was still up when I was kid and still pointed to by many in this country as a sure threat to democracy.
     
  20. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,559
    Likes Received:
    274
    I believe the Christians of that day understood the significance of the words of John the Baptist when he warned of the wrath to come, and told them that even now the axe lieth at the root of the tree. They understood, that meant soon. The Christians of that era never disputed or negated the words of Christ when He spoke of the days of vengeance and the end of the age that was going to happen before that generation passed away. They understood something huge was imminent. I've no reason to doubt that they were aware of these beginning of signs that were happening in and around Judea. JFB on the date of writing of 1st Corinthians: “...the date of the Epistle is fixed with tolerable accuracy, about Easter, certainly before Pentecost, in the third year of his residence at Ephesus, A.D. 57.”

    Nero was emperor, Felix was procurator of Judea. Here are some events that were happening A. D. 52-60:

    http://virtualreligion.net/iho/collapse.html#Egyptian

    "Prophets" promise Signs: the Egyptian

    160 Now the affairs of the Jews grew continually worse and worse. For the country was full of bandits and imposters who deluded the crowds.

    161 Yet every day, Felix [procurator of Judea, 52-60 CE] captured many of these (imposters) as well as the bandits and put them to death...

    167 The bandits' deeds filled the city with such pollution [i.e., murders]. Moreover, sorcerers and charlatans called on the mob to follow them into the wilderness.

    168 For they said that they would show them unmistakable wonders and signs happening in accordance with the plan of God. Many, in fact, were persuaded by them and paid the penalty for their folly. For they were brought before Felix and he punished them.

    169 At this time a man from Egypt came to Jerusalem. He said he was a prophet and urged the masses of common people to go with them out to the mountain called the Mount of Olives which lies five furlongs from the city.

    170 For he claimed that he wanted to show that at his command from there Jerusalem's walls would fall down. He promised to provide them entry to the city through them.

    171 When Felix heard of this, he ordered his soldiers to take up their arms. Setting out from Jerusalem with a large force of cavalry and infantry, he overtook the Egyptian and his followers, slaying 400 of them and taking 200 prisoners.

    172 But the Egyptian himself escaped from the battle and disappeared. And now the bandits once more stirred up the populace for war with Rome by telling them not to heed them. They even burned and pillaged the villages of the disobedient.
    --- Josephus, Antiquities 20.160-161, 167-172

    Procurators & Bandits

    54 Now, in the meantime, Felix incited crimes with untimely cures, the worst being copied by Cumanus, to whom the (other) part of the province belonged. It was divided thus: the natives of Galilee were subject to the latter and the Samaritans and Judeans to Felix. They were at odds from of old; and now in contempt of their rulers their hatred was less restrained. Therefore, they ravaged each other: sending out troops of bandits, they set up ambushes and sometimes came together in battle. Their spoils and prizes they brought back to the procurators. At first both were pleased. (Yet) soon, with the destruction spreading, they [the procurators] came between them [the bandits] with armed troops. But the troops were killed and the provinces would have burst out in war if Quadratus, the governor of Syria, had not intervened. There was no longer doubt that capital punishment was in store for those Jews who broke out to slaughter (Roman) soldiers.
    --- Tacitus, Annals 12.54
     
    #20 kyredneck, Apr 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 5, 2010

Share This Page

Loading...