The Hypocrisy of Paul :: Re Marriage and His Letters to Timothy & the Corinthians

IntroductionIn this post I would like to discuss the teachings of Paul as written in his first letter to the Corinthians regarding the issue of marriage. I will open with a passage from 1 Timothy”also believed to be a letter from Paul”, and juxtapose that passage with passages from 1 Corinthians. In doing this, I will attempt to show the following things to be true: that Paul is a hypocrite as defined in 1 Timothy; and that he could not have written both 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians as evident by their contradictory nature. ReferencesFrom the Recovery Version:

quote:

---

1 Tim. 4:1 -- But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will depart the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons (2) By means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, of men who are branded in their on conscience as with a hot iron, (3) Who forbid marriage and command abstaining from foods, which God has created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who believe and have full knowledge of the truth.

---

quote:

---

1 Cor. 7:7 -- Yet I wish all men to be even as I am myself; but each has his own gift from God, one in this way, the other in that. (8) But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, It is good for them if they remain even as I am. . (27) Have you been bound to a wife? Do not seek a release. Have you been released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. . (39) A wife is bound for so long a time as her husband lives; and should the husband fall asleep, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only to one the Lord. (40) But she is more blessed if she so remains, according to my opinion; but I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

---

DiscussionFirst, so as not to be accused of quote-mining, Paul in Corinthians does admit that marriage is not a sin (1 Cor. 7:28), but he clearly preaches for abstaining from marriage. In fact, it seems that he only offers it as a compromise to promiscuity (1 Cor. 7:1-2). He states that his words are from himself and not the Lord (1 Cor. 7:10), yet says ”I also have the Spirit of God,’ effectively serving to declare himself a giver of God's word.Next, let us move on to the key points I was wishing to address. Point one is that Paul is a hypocrite. Review the two passages, and you will see that by the 1 Tim. definition of a hypocrite Paul is such. Also, as to whether Paul wrote both letters is questionable, and the fact that they speak contradiction might be reason to believe they were not both written by Paul. ReconciliationMy question to believers, especially literalists, out there is this: how do you reconcile these two statements? The footnote in the Recovery Version to the passage from 1 Tim. reads:

quote:

---

Marriage and eating were ordained by God. Eating is for the existence of mankind, and marriage is for the continuation and multiplication of mankind. On the one hand, Satan causes men to abuse these two things in the indulgence of their lustful flesh; on the other hand, he over stresses asceticism in forbidding men to marry and in commanding men to abstain from certain foods. This is a demonic teaching!

---

What do believers make of this?MaxEdited by Todd, : Removed message to Admins.

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Okay. One could meet the 1 Tim. definition of a hypocrite bydeparting the faith - I don't see it.
giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons - not seen.
speaking lies - not seen.
being branded in his conscience as with a hot iron - not seen
forbidding marriage - not seen.
commanding abstaining from foods, which God has created to be partaken of with thanksgiving - not seen.And strictly speaking, he'd have to speak lies; but under a guilty of one = guilty of all interpretation, there's still no way to make the accusation stick.Paul speaks favorably of the single life. In verse 6 and verse 10 he clearly indicates that this is his own personal opinion. In verse 38 he speaks favorably of marriage: "[38] So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."The evidence is lacking. There is none. Nowhere in the entire editorial portion, much less outside of it, does Paul forbid marriage. There is no discrepancy. I'm not just saying that. Paul's opinion is not that marriage should be forbidden, and I don't think you can convince any reasonable person that your accusation is justified.

How are they contradictory?Were the two letters written at the same point in Paul's life?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I gave you the verse, did I not, where Paul claimed his word to be also the word of God? I will quote it again:

quote:

---

1 Cor. 7:40 -- But she is more blessed if she so remains, according to my opinion; but I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

---

You have also ignored Paul's opening statement, which sets up the reason he is telling people it is okay to marry.

quote:

---

1 Cor. 7:1 -- Now concerning the things of which you wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (2) But because of fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

---

This effectively says, don't get married unless you cannot resist from graby-graby. And Paul later states that his words are spoken in the Spirit of God, and is thus saying, God says do not marry unless you cannot resist the urge to graby-graby.Now, I will admit, that the use of 'forbid' does make the statement somewhat restrictive in its meaning, but let us also look to Paul's intentions, which were to keep people from marrying, to keep people from sex and fornication. While he preached permision of marriage in place of uncontrolled sex, rubbing, graby-graby, etc., he preached stronger to the point that an individual is more with God who does none of those things, i.e., marry and fornicate.Even the text you quoted to support your own opinion really does nothing of the sort. 7:38 clearly preaches non-marriage over marriage; Paul is clearly preaching marriage down. Different versions of the Bible also use different wording. For example, in the Message, there is no use of 'forbid':

quote:

---

1 Tim. 4:1-5 -- The Spirit makes it clear that as time goes on, some are going to give up on the faith and chase after demonic illusions put forth by professional liars. These liars have lied so well and for so long that they've lost their capacity for truth. They will tell you not to get married. They'll tell you not to eat this or that food”perfectly good food God created to be eaten heartily and with thanksgiving by believers who know better! Everything God created is good, and to be received with thanks. Nothing is to be sneered at and thrown out. God's Word and our prayers make every item in creation holy.

---

(emphasis added)Does Paul in 1. Cor. 'tell you not to get married'? You tell me:

quote:

---

Have you been released from a wife? Do no seek a wife.

---

Max

Taken in isolation this could be construed as an indirect implication that Paul's teachings here are from the Holy Spirit.But he has taken care more than once to specify that these are his own opinions. He even obtained permission to include them, lest anyone make the mistake you advocate. "I, not the Lord" should be a bit much for the revisionists to screw up. Have any of them done so?The most you'll squeeze out of verse 40 is that the Holy Spirit does not disagree. Look carefully, and you'll see that this lack of disagreement applies to verses 39 and 40. Any time the status of the text changes from commandment to opinion it is clearly announced. See verses 10 and 12. For the one idea expressed mostly in verse 11, he switches back and forth and informs the reader in a clear, straightforward manner. The term 'forbid' does not come up, neither is there any forbidding of marriage using other terms. I thought "doeth well" would be a good thing, and I think the consensus is that sinning is not "doing well".This is the most peculiar job of forbidding something I've ever seen. If Paul is trying to forbid marriage, he's extremely inept and isn't qualified to write much of anything.Perhaps you've forgotten the obligation of the reader: your job is to figure out to the best of your ability what the writer is trying to say - not what you can twist out of the writer's words. Even so, the text doesn't have enough give for you to pull this one off.Not to get too off-topic, but might one not see this as an early baby-step in the direction of "women's rights"? Paul's opinion is a sound argument against arranged marriages, or any other scheme for placing a woman in a disadvantageous marriage.

NOGood = Forbid?????????? You LSM guys are gonna have fun on this forum.

Look here Max, Jon, Todd, whoever,Paul may have his own views on marriage.He also knows that there is nothing wrong with it. Just as there is nothing wrong with food.Did it ever cross your mind that maybe he is just warning people, either because of something that was going on then, or something he foresaw, that at some time there would be people trying to make good things bad?If someone said 'you are not allowed to marry'. or 'you are not allowed to eat pork' this would be seen as a return to the subservience of the past. If you read all of Paul you will see that while fasting is good, and being single is good, he only wants people to know that if someone is 'controlling' you even when it comes to licit pursuits, they are not to be trusted. It has nothing to do with whether he feels being single is better. It has everything to do with whether he feels that marriage is acceptable to God. He clearly does.

Shouldn't this be in the "surrender" thread? Edited by Ringo, : Added link.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You seem to be missing the very important part of what Paul wrote. Paul is replying to specific concerns of the congregation. Unfortunately we don't know what those were.These were Gentiles new to the Christian way of life. I think Paul, who is Jewish, was making a halakic explanation of what he felt was God's will concerning the questions asked. You would need to know the questions before you could fully understand the answers.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz