Dealing with Paul's "own thoughts"

[StephenMartyr]

I had a small discussion with a good friend of mine and it concerned Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. We talked on the marriage section, chapter 7.

The conversation turned to this verse:

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

...and he said something along the lines that some parts of Scripture aren't "from God", as the above text "shows". Notice my quotation marks. Some parts of Scripture are direct commands from God, some aren't. Not all scripture being "from God".

How does one make good that ALL (ALL) Scripture is God breathed?

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All this in light when Paul says, "...I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment..."?

 

[Dachaser]

I had a small discussion with a good friend of mine and it concerned Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. We talked on the marriage section, chapter 7.

The conversation turned to this verse:

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

...and he said something along the lines that some parts of Scripture aren't "from God", as the above text "shows". Notice my quotation marks. Some parts of Scripture are direct commands from God, some aren't. Not all scripture being "from God".

How does one make good that ALL (ALL) Scripture is God breathed?

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All this in light when Paul says, "...I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment..."?

Paul is just staying that Jesus did not refer to this directly, but whatever Paul wrote down was fully inspired, so same as if Jesus said it.

 

[KGP]

Paul is just staying that Jesus did not refer to this directly, but whatever Paul wrote down was fully inspired, so same as if Jesus said it.

I disagree that it is the same as if Jesus said it. Jesus did not say this, Paul did. And Paul did not say this under direct revelation but instead out of the treasury of his heart and wisdom. And it was the will of the Holy spirit to speak these words not through Jesus but through Paul, and not under the compulsive weight of direct revelation but through personal wisdom instead. There is a reason for these distinctions.

Now, the Holy Spirit, was behind and in all of this to ensure that his heart in this, which is I think the essence of what you were communicating David. These texts are from God and for us exactly the same as every other word written. It is all FOR us, it is all wisdom and food and life for us. But there is still a distinction. Jesus didn't say this. Paul did. God didn't reveal this directly as with other aspects of Paul's writings. These are Paul's thoughts and his heart. But God has set them here before us as our portion, so we need to glean from this portion lest we be neglectful of what God has provided.

To the text:
What you have here then is an example of pastoral distinction between what is essential to Christian obedience and what is left to conscience or freedom. This almost has a "let he who has ears let him hear" sort of thing going on. There are teachings on practical matters that not all Christians can accept at the time, some are for more mature believers, some are for those who are called.

And as such, it would be a horrible burden on some people to demand they remain single if in fact they have not been providentially disposed to such a life. There is indeed freedom in the Lord for these people to marry and employ the godly use of the body for sexual expression within the marriage covenant. That doing so in Paul's present time will likely add difficulty in other areas of life does not make it immoral or out of bounds, and Paul is making it clear that the Lord has no particular command that would so bind someones conscience. There is freedom, and for that God be praised.

But at the same time, Paul is sensing in his own conscience that he must speak a word, even absence the command of the Lord, out of his own wisdom and experience (which is not after the flesh but the Spirit, as he attests) in order to, in love, spare some from the inevitable burdens and sorrows that a marriage in such a time as his would bring, what with persecutions and arrests and difficulty in securing provision for a partner or family. Whoever can be spared from these, let him be spared and remain single, flexible, adaptable, self sufficient and most useful to the Lord.

But nobody in the body of Christ is to be set upon or scolded or worse by anyone in the community for engaging and entering covenant relations. Add to this that by expressing thoughts on marriage in this way, none are able to be tempted to take leave of their covenant marriage obligations to their spouse under the pretext of divine command either.

There are so many layers here, and by communicating in this way all parties in the body of Christ are built up and encouraged in their position, whether they have married or remained single. It's really beautiful.


I hope this is helpful

 

[Dachaser]

I disagree that it is the same as if Jesus said it. Jesus did not say this, Paul did. And Paul did not say this under direct revelation but instead out of the treasury of his heart and wisdom. And it was the will of the Holy spirit to speak these words not through Jesus but through Paul, and not under the compulsive weight of direct revelation but through personal wisdom instead. There is a reason for these distinctions.

Now, the Holy Spirit, was behind and in all of this to ensure that his heart in this, which is I think the essence of what you were communicating David. These texts are from God and for us exactly the same as every other word written. It is all FOR us, it is all wisdom and food and life for us. But there is still a distinction. Jesus didn't say this. Paul did. God didn't reveal this directly as with other aspects of Paul's writings. These are Paul's thoughts and his heart. But God has set them here before us as our portion, so we need to glean from this portion lest we be neglectful of what God has provided.

To the text:
What you have here then is an example of pastoral distinction between what is essential to Christian obedience and what is left to conscience or freedom. This almost has a "let he who has ears let him hear" sort of thing going on. There are teachings on practical matters that not all Christians can accept at the time, some are for more mature believers, some are for those who are called.

And as such, it would be a horrible burden on some people to demand they remain single if in fact they have not been providentially disposed to such a life. There is indeed freedom in the Lord for these people to marry and employ the godly use of the body for sexual expression within the marriage covenant. That doing so in Paul's present time will likely add difficulty in other areas of life does not make it immoral or out of bounds, and Paul is making it clear that the Lord has no particular command that would so bind someones conscience. There is freedom, and for that God be praised.

But at the same time, Paul is sensing in his own conscience that he must speak a word, even absence the command of the Lord, out of his own wisdom and experience (which is not after the flesh but the Spirit, as he attests) in order to, in love, spare some from the inevitable burdens and sorrows that a marriage in such a time as his would bring, what with persecutions and arrests and difficulty in securing provision for a partner or family. Whoever can be spared from these, let him be spared and remain single, flexible, adaptable, self sufficient and most useful to the Lord.

But nobody in the body of Christ is to be set upon or scolded or worse by anyone in the community for engaging and entering covenant relations. Add to this that by expressing thoughts on marriage in this way, none are able to be tempted to take leave of their covenant marriage obligations to their spouse under the pretext of divine command either.

There are so many layers here, and by communicating in this way all parties in the body of Christ are built up and encouraged in their position, whether they have married or remained single. It's really beautiful.


I hope this is helpful

Everything written to us in the Bible has divine inspiration of and from the Holy Spirit, so the scriptures in all times speak as if Jesus Himself was addressing us.

 

[KGP]

Yes, you are correct. The Holy Spirit inspired and superintended the Scriptures; they are authored by him for the people of God. They are FOR us. I'll even go further and say that God ordained the circumstances in which the scriptures would be written so that by examining the contexts of these inspired words and the situations they are given in, especially the epistles, we can glean even more insight into the nature and character of God, the gospel, the church, and so on.

And at the same time, there is nuance to these things. Christ is addressing us, yes, but he is addressing us through someone other than Christ addressing someone other than us; and it's important that we get that else we flatten scripture and think it is all about us.

When in inspired scripture Paul says he has no command of the Lord, and then proceeds to give his own wisdom on an issue; we need to pay attention to the details to learn all there is to glean here.

We are in agreement that the word of God, all scripture, is God breathed, inspired, and the word of Christ to his church; the difference is that I wish to explain further what is in and behind what the OP is seeing in the scriptures because the OP's question is a very valid one. A short and trite answer may be correct, but there is more to be said on the matter if we are to build a robust understanding of scripture.

 

[KGP]

Some parts of Scripture are direct commands from God, some aren't. Not all scripture being "from God".

That we have it written, and translated, and copied, and readable, means that all scripture IS from God, because we attribute these things to his direct inspiration (the original writings) and his providential hand (in the translations, copying, preservation, distribution, etc.)

So the scriptures are all, every single word, FROM him, all TO us, all FOR us, for our conversion, learning, edification, growth, sanctification, faith, encouragement, and so on.

But certainly not every word in the scriptures that have come from God are from God. The scriptures that are from God contain speech from Satan, for example. That those words were recorded means we can say in that sense they were FROM God, TO us, FOR us. They are HIS words, but not his words.

 

[Dachaser]

That we have it written, and translated, and copied, and readable, means that all scripture IS from God, because we attribute these things to his direct inspiration (the original writings) and his providential hand (in the translations, copying, preservation, distribution, etc.)

So the scriptures are all, every single word, FROM him, all TO us, all FOR us, for our conversion, learning, edification, growth, sanctification, faith, encouragement, and so on.

But certainly not every word in the scriptures that have come from God are from God. The scriptures that are from God contain speech from Satan, for example. That those words were recorded means we can say in that sense they were FROM God, TO us, FOR us. They are HIS words, but not his words.

All of the doctrines and practices given to us by the Bible are from God, so indeed Paul staying this was his opinion is same as God opinion on the issue under discussion.