Why does Paul differentiate between concession and command in 1 Corinthians 7:6? Immediate Literary Context 1. Verses 1-5 – Concession pertains to the temporary abstinence (“except perhaps by mutual consent”). 2. Verse 7 – Paul’s personal wish for universal celibacy is likewise qualified by divine gifting. 3. Verses 10-12 – Paul explicitly distinguishes “not I, but the Lord” (direct dominical teaching on divorce) from “I, not the Lord” (apostolic judgment on mixed marriages). The pattern shows Paul policing levels of authority. Why the Distinction? 1. Pastoral Flexibility • Marriages vary in physical strength, season of life, health, and spiritual maturity. A binding command of periodic abstinence would burden couples unequally and risk “Satan’s temptation” (v. 5). • Concession dignifies both spouses’ consciences, requiring mutuality rather than unilateral asceticism. 2. Avoiding Ascetic Legalism • Some Corinthian believers, influenced by dualistic Greek thought and proto-Gnostic tendencies unearthed in later Nag Hammadi texts, devalued the body. By labeling abstinence a concession, Paul blocks a new legalism from replacing pagan license. 3. Upholding Creation Theology • Marriage predates the Fall (Genesis 2:24). Rendering conjugal rights is therefore commanded (v. 3), while temporary suspension is only permitted. The distinction honors the created goodness of marital intimacy. 4. Consistency with Jesus’ Teaching • Mark 7:6-13 warns against “commands of men” that nullify God’s word. Paul safeguards against adding extra-biblical ordinances while fully endorsing Christ’s own marriage directives (vv. 10-11; cf. Matthew 19:4-6). 5. Spirit-Inspired Yet Non-Compulsory Counsel • 1 Corinthians 7:40 affirms, “I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” The concession originates in the same Spirit who inspires commands, but its nature differs: it is wisdom literature within apostolic epistle, not covenant statute (cf. Acts 15:28, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”). Harmonization with Wider Scripture • Romans 14:5-6 – “Each of them should be fully convinced in his own mind.” Concession aligns with individual conviction in disputable matters. • 2 Corinthians 1:24 – “Not that we lord it over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy.” Apostolic leadership fosters joy, not bondage. • Exodus 19:5 vs. 1 Kings 8:27 – Even OT law recognizes situational allowances (e.g., Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Paul models the same covenantal flexibility under fulfilled law. Historical Witness • P46 (c. AD 175-225) and Codex Vaticanus both preserve κατὰ συγγνώμην / οὐ κατ’ ἐπιταγήν without variant, underscoring the early, uncontested transmission of the concession/command line. • Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 3.12) cites 1 Corinthians 7 to rebut Encratite celibacy mandates, showing second-century recognition that Paul offered permission, not law. • The Didache (ch. 6) echoes Pauline liberty, urging believers to “keep what you can” of the yoke, again distinguishing universal precept from spiritual counsel. Theological Implications 1. Liberty is God-given but bounded by love and holiness. 2. Commands are universally binding moral absolutes; concessions are Spirit-guided applications for contingent circumstances. 3. The inspiration of Scripture encompasses both; thus, the concession still carries canonical authority, but its binding force is conditional, not absolute. Practical Application for Modern Believers • Couples may prayerfully agree to short seasons of abstinence for focused devotion, but they must promptly resume intimacy to guard against temptation. • Church leaders should avoid legislating private marital practices beyond Scripture. • Singles called to celibacy receive it as a divine “gift” (v. 7), not an imposed rule. Conclusion Paul differentiates concession from command to preserve apostolic authority, guard Christian liberty, counter ascetic error, and shepherd believers’ marital well-being—all while maintaining perfect harmony with the rest of God-breathed Scripture. |
    |