The elephant in the Epistle - Addressing 1 Corinthians 7:25

According to Paul, all Scripture is God-breathed, but according to Paul, not all Scripture is God-breathed. Upon reading this statement, it sounds insane. No matter how many times you read it, it doesn't improve. These two statements are inherently contradictory. Scripture cannot simultaneously all be God-breathed, but also not all God-breathed.

Even the most amateur apologist knows which one of these statements is true. It may even be the only Greek word your average Bible student knows: "All Scripture is [theopneustos]..." (2 Timothy 3:16a). If you happen to have a study Bible to hand, open it, and see what it says about 2 Timothy 3:16. It will almost certainly lay this out. Mine do. And in some cases, you don't even have to go to a footnote. Some translations opt for a literal approach, such as the YLT, the NIV, and the MOUNCE.

But I don't think I'm exaggerating too much if I say there is not a single verse in Scripture that the devil will not twist towards his own agenda. Maybe a little. I'm not sure what he could do with Numbers 1:21, for example. But we're talking about the one who tried to tempt Jesus by quoting the Psalms, so there are obviously options.

One of the options is 1 Corinthians 7:25, which says "Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy." This seems like valid opposition to 2 Timothy 3:16, both to unbelievers who are looking for Bible contradictions, and to heretics, who have an agenda that does not fit well with the divinely inspired Scripture.

As my opening statement alludes to, both of these Scriptures were penned by the Apostle Paul. This should immediately cause us to question the interpretation. We have three possibilities here:

1. This is a genuine example of an Apostle contradicting himself.

2. Our interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is wrong.

3. Our interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:25 is wrong.

   
   

   Even for an unbeliever, the first answer, while theoretically possible, seems to be a stretch. For a Christian, whose main source of doctrine is the inspired word of the Living God, it should be unfathomable. How likely is it for one man to possess and profess two radically different views on the nature of Scripture? Unfortunately, it is possible, but for sake of argument, let's shelve it and examine the other two possibilities. If either of these turns out to be correct, and the verses can be reconciled, we need not assume, or further entertain, the contradiction.

2 Timothy 3:16 is quite explicit. It clearly and unambiguously sets out its category, namely "all Scripture", then makes its assertion about it, specifically that it "is God breathed". This is clear and plain to anyone who reads it. This is especially the case when we pair it with one of many other Scriptures, like 2 Peter 1:19-21: "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Even on its own, 2 Timothy 3:16 seems quite clear and explicit. When lumped in with other equally clear verses on the nature of Scripture, that interpretation is solidified. But then, what about 1 Corinthians 7:25?

First of all, a good rule when it comes to Scripture is that if you have a large number of verses that seem to say one thing, but only one verse that seems to say another, it's statistically more probable that you're misinterpreting the one than the many. Let's read our problem verse again:

"Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy."

Now, does anyone else notice the irony in using a verse in which Paul says "...I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy" to effectively say "the Lord has not made Paul's writings trustworthy"? If, as I believe, all Scripture is inspired by God, then it is totally logical for Paul's judgment, made trustworthy by that same God in his capacity as a Spirit-led Apostle, to be considered God-breathed.

But what's interesting is that when we expand our reading of 1 Corinthians 7, even the phrase "I have no commandment from the Lord" takes on a whole new meaning. Or at least, new to those who are new to Scripture.

See, it should be common knowledge that "The Lord" can refer to the Godhead as a whole, or to any individual member of the Trinity. Specifically, one can refer to Jesus, in His single person, as "The Lord". This is why many Old Testament Scriptures, which clearly refer to Yahweh, are applied specifically to Christ in the New Testament. Amazingly, some verses even use both contexts of "Lord" without pausing for breath. Psalm 110:1, for example, says "The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”" In Hebrews 1, it is made clear that this means "The Lord (Father) said to my Lord (Jesus)...".

Now, if it is so obviously possible to refer to Christ, in His distinct person, as "the Lord", as Paul does quite frequently (Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:2 etc.), is it not at least slightly plausible that "I have no commandment from the Lord" might refer to Christ, in His distinct person? Let's look further back in the same chapter:

"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife." (v10-11).

Here, Paul makes it quite explicit: "I command, yet not I but the Lord". What is this command? Simply that whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

No, wait, whoops... It's the same principle, but not the same verse. See, my second quote comes from Mark 10:11-12, which is part of an account (Mark 10:1-12) where The Lord (i.e. Jesus) is questioned on divorce. A parallel account exists in Matthew 19:1-10. So, the command Paul claims "not I, but the Lord" can be located in two separate Gospels, likely describing the identical event. When Paul says "Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord...", that is not a disconnected thought. This is the same chapter, answering the same query from the Corinthians (see verse 1), which Paul gives judgment "...as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy". How, then, can we interpret this as "even though I say all Scripture is God-breathed, this is the exception"?

You see, then, that there is no contradiction here at all! Rather, in 1 Corinthians 7:25, Paul is continuing his thoughts, which he rather explicitly says God has made trustworthy! This makes sense, because if all Scripture is God-breathed, and 1 Corinthians 7:25 is a Scripture written by Paul's own hand, than God, by breathing out 1 Corinthians 7:25, has made Paul's judgment as infallibly trustworthy as if the Lord had spoken it with His own mouth! This isn't a contradiction, this is an affirmation!

But then, why do so many people appeal to 1 Corinthians 7:25 (not to mention verse 12) to prove that not all Scripture is God-breathed? For the same reason the Jews needed God to allow divorce in the Law of Moses, which The Lord did not abolish, but fulfilled (Matthew 5:17). Put simply, their hearts are hard.

Does this surprise you? If you're a believer, are you not painfully aware of the spiritual state of man, which means even you, in your flesh, are at the very least tempted to twist the word of God to suit your own desires? If you're not a believer, can you at least acknowledge that this is a fundamental teaching of the Christian faith? In the whole of Scripture, no one is good but One, that is, God, and God Himself says those exact words in Mark 10:18. Thus, it should be of no surprise to us that even though Scripture says that all Scripture is God breathed, sinners occasionally appeal to God-breathed Scripture to say that God-breathed Scripture isn't God-breathed.

But if we are to be Christians, this is unsustainable. Both the claim itself, and the false doctrines that are usually supported by, and the motive for, the claim. We must recognise, as the Lord, through Paul, tells us: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Anything and everything else will lead us straight into the jaws of the one who first asked "did God really say?"

AI usage

AI was used to create the header image of this article.