Explanation:

Paul uses the phrase περὶ δὲ (now concerning) five times in the letter to the Corinthians and in each case it signals that a topic has ended and a new topic will be taken up (1 Corinthians 7:25; 1 Corinthians 8:1; 1 Corinthians 12:1; 1 Corinthians 16:1; 1 Corinthians 16:12).³ This suggests that Paul addresses specific issues raised by the Corinthians and he uses the phrase περὶ δὲ to alert them to each new topic.

Counterargument:

While it might be the case that ancient letters used the περὶ δὲ (now concerning) formula to initiate new topics, this does not mean that Paul responds to topics raised by the Corinthians. It could simply mean that he has a new important topic to discuss, and he uses περὶ δὲ to indicate this.⁴

Response to counterargument:

This argument would have some weight except it can be rejected for two reasons. For one, even though περὶ δὲ (now concerning) on its own does not imply that Paul quotes directly from the Corinthians, neither does it rule out the notion that he quotes directly from the Corinthians. No one would deny that if he were about to address a specific issue raised by the Corinthians, περὶ δὲ would be a good grammatical construction to indicate this. Second, and more importantly, Paul specifically says that he is about to point out specific issues raised by the Corinthians. Paul writes, Now concerning [περὶ δὲ] the matters about which you wrote, and he follows this up with the clause, It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Given the use of περὶ δὲ to introduce new topics throughout the remainder of the letter, and the fact that Paul specifically notes that he will address the issues raised by the Corinthians, we should take it that the clause, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, comes from the Corinthians.

Explanation:

The clause, It is better for a man not to touch a woman, has to do not with touching but with sexual intercourse. We could paraphrase the clause as, It is better for a man not to have sexual relations. How do we know that this is an idea that originated not with Paul but with the Corinthians? The idea that it is better for a man not to have sexual relations seems to go against the scriptural notion that God created men and women to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28).⁵ Of course, the only way to be fruitful and multiply is through sexual intercourse. Further, in Genesis 2:18 it says that it is not good for a man to be alone.⁶ The author goes on to say that a man should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). That the two shall become one flesh is generally taken to include intimacy, cooperation, and sexual intercourse. Thus, marriage, and sexual intercourse in marriage, are affirmed in Genesis, so for theological reasons the statement cannot originate with Paul.

Counterargument:

While it might be that marriage and sexual intercourse are condoned in Genesis, Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 7:2 that the reason for marriage is because of sexual temptation. Paul says, but because of sexual temptations each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. Paul’s point seems to be that marriage is a concession because of sexual temptation. It’s because of sexual temptations that each man and woman should get married. Of course, it is better for a man not to touch a woman, but if the temptation is too strong, he should marry.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument completely misunderstands what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:2. We know from Genesis 1:1 – 2:25 that marriage is good, and that humans are called to be fruitful and multiply. We also know that Paul treats marriage as a special institution in other places, even comparing the marriage relationship with Christ’s relationship to the church (Ephesians 5:25–33). This means we are bound by Scripture to interpret marriage as a blessing from God. Since marriage is a blessing from God that is meant for procreation and companionship, it is hard to see why Paul would say that marriage was instituted as a concession for sexual temptation. So, what does Paul mean when he says that because of sexual temptations each man should have his own wife, and each woman her husband? The verb to have in this instance is a euphemism for sexual relations.⁷ This makes perfect sense if Paul responds to the Corinthians who have suggested that it is not good for a man to have sexual relations. The Corinthians seem to say that even married people should abstain from sexual relations with each other. Paul responds by saying that because of sexual temptation, this is not a good idea. Rather, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and the wife her husband. In other words, married people are not compelled to abstain from sexual relations with each other, because abstinence might lead to sexual temptations.⁸ Sexual relations outside marriage are immoral, and so married folks ought to have sexual relations with each other and not abstain (unless they agree to abstain for a time (1 Corinthians 7:5)).

Explanation:

There is literary and archaeological evidence to suggest that the Egyptian cult of the goddess Isis was practiced in first-century Corinth. One of the hallmarks of the Isis cult was the suggestion that even married people abstain from sexual relations. For example, the Latin poet Ovid writes, Let the goddess Isis give you a pretext for denying your sexual favours. Likewise, the poet Propertius writes, that you pretend that the days of Isis have come and require abstinence. Given that there is evidence that the Isis cult operated in first-century Corinth, we should not be surprised that these religious groups influenced the Christians in Corinth.⁹

Counterargument:

The fact that the Isis cult was located in first-century Corinth, and the Isis cult encouraged abstinence, does not mean that the Corinthian church was influenced by these religious ideas. In fact, we expect that if Paul addressed a specific religious influence, he would mention the Isis cult. Instead, he addresses broad human concerns regarding marriage and the temptation to sexual sin.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that it assumes Paul does not address the religious influence of Isis when it might be that this is precisely what he does throughout 1 Corinthians 7:1–40. He does not need to name the Isis cult in order to address their influence. Rather, his concern is to address the broader principles possibly raised by the Isis cult, that it is good for married people to abstain from sexual intercourse. The Isis cult was not the only first-century religious group making such claims to abstinence.¹⁰ For some reason, the Corinthians have it in their head to encourage abstinence in marriage, and they ask Paul his opinion (1 Corinthians 7:1). He responds that from a Christian perspective, married people should not abstain from sexual relations unless they agree to for a short time (1 Corinthians 7:3–5).

Explanation:

Paul either quotes a sentence from the letter the Corinthians sent to him to the effect that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, or this is his own advice. The latter is ruled out because it does not make sense for Paul to say, It is not good for a man to touch a woman, and then to immediately say that married men should have sexual relations with their wives (1 Corinthians 7:2).¹¹ This leaves us with the first option, which is that when Paul writes, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, he quotes from the Corinthians.

Counterargument:

This argument overlooks the fact that Paul introduces 1 Corinthians 7:2 with but because of sexual temptations. In other words, Paul opens this section by stating what is preferred, namely, celibacy, but he immediately explains that because of sexual temptation, people ought to marry.

Response to counterargument:

The problem here is that if Paul really thinks that it is better for a man not to touch a woman, we don’t expect him to immediately follow this principle by giving full rights to sexual relations within a marriage. Why does he not encourage married people to abstain in the power of the Lord? Also, it is notable that throughout 1 Corinthians 7:2–40, Paul painstakingly repeats his instructions for both men and women. For example, the man should have his wife, and the wife should have her man. The husband should give conjugal rights to his wife, and the wife conjugal rights to her husband. Paul goes on this way throughout the section. On the other hand, the woman is not mentioned in the clause, It is good for a man not to touch a woman. That the clause is directed only at men, and that Paul addresses men and women throughout 1 Corinthians 7:2–40, suggest that the phrase comes from a source other than Paul’s own thinking.¹²

Possible weaknesses:

From a theological perspective, this view is strong because it makes sense of the statement, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, without doing damage to the institution of marriage that God ordained. If the view has a weakness, it is that Paul would possibly have offered a stronger grammatical clue for the fact that he quotes from the Corinthians. For example, he could have included ὁτι (that) as an indicator that he is about to quote, or he could have said as you wrote in your letter. Still, as the arguments show, a strong case can be made that Paul does in fact quote or paraphrase the Corinthians' letter.

Explanation:

Paul writes that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. We know that he himself was unmarried, and it seems that he sees celibacy and singleness as a preferred state of being (1 Corinthians 7:8). Still, when he says that it is good not to touch a woman, he does not use the term good in any moral sense, as though celibacy were a command from God. Rather, he means that celibacy is commendable but not strictly commanded.¹³ We know this because he will go on to write that if one marries, one has not sinned (1 Corinthians 7:28).

Counterargument:

It is possible that the statement, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, is Paul’s own opinion, but it could also be a statement that the Corinthians used in their letter to Paul. We know that he responds to a letter from the Corinthians, and in those days it is unlikely that the Corinthians had a copy of the letter themselves.¹⁴ Thus, it is reasonable that Paul quotes from the Corinthians letter in order to remind the Corinthians of the matter he will address.

Added to this, in Greek, the phrase it is good for a man is καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ. Paul uses the same phrase in 1 Corinthians 7:26, where he writes that he thinks it is good given the present necessity, that it is good for a man (καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ) to remain as he is. That Paul uses the term καλός (good) in 1 Corinthians 7:26a and b is redundant.¹⁵ This implies that Paul once again quotes from the Corinthians’ letter. In other words, he explains that he thinks it is good for a man to remain as he is, and quotes the letter from the Corinthians to show that there is some truth in the Corinthians’ notion that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. The difference is that when it comes to married people, this principle is not acceptable because of sexual temptation (1 Corinthians 7:2). But when it comes to single people, Paul thinks celibacy is a good option.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it fails to grapple with the circumstantial nature of an epistle. In 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul explicitly states that he will respond to the matters that the Corinthian church wrote to him about in a letter. This is a clue that what follows is a response to the Corinthians' concerns. Added to this, Paul knows that marriage was established by God. Given the circumstantial nature of the letter, and that marriage was established by God, we have reason to think that the clause, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, comes from the Corinthians, and not Paul.