To what does “this” refer?

Explanation:

When Paul writes, “As a concession…I say this,” he uses the term συγγνώμη for concession. This is the only use of the term in the New Testament, and it carries a sense of meeting someone halfway.¹ This implies that whatever this refers to, it must fit the bill as a concession. The most likely candidate is what follows in 1 Corinthians 7:7.²

Paul has just explained that married people must not abstain from sexual relations, unless for an agreed-upon time for the sake of prayer. Paul used three imperatives (commands) in 1 Corinthians 7:2–4: Let each man have his own wife. Give the wife her conjugal rights. Do not deprive one another. It seems that the Corinthians think that married people should abstain from sexual relations, so Paul addressed the issue directly. Of course, now that he has addressed the issue of married people, he meets the Corinthians halfway and concedes that their suggestion was not completely wide of the mark. In some respects, Paul agrees that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Paul himself is celibate, so he understands their motivation, but he is careful to point out that not everyone has this gift from God. Thus, Paul’s comment is a concession that the principle that it is good for a man not to touch a woman has merit, but celibacy is not a command, and in fact, not even permitted for married people. What is a command is that married people not abstain from sexual relations.

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that it fails to see that Paul makes a concession in 1 Corinthians 7:5b. This means that the concession does not have to be what follows in 1 Corinthians 7:7, but it could refer to what Paul has just explained. Paul says that married people must not abstain from sexual relations, except perhaps for the sake of prayer (1 Corinthians 7:5). Now Paul points out that abstinence for the sake of prayer is a concession, and not a command.³

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it is hard to see how Paul could label abstinence for the sake of prayer as a concession.⁴ This is especially the case given that Paul has already qualified his comment with three criteria. He says that married people must not deprive one another, except perhaps for the sake of prayer. The conditional expect perhaps indicates that Paul has special circumstances of spiritual anxiety in mind. He further qualifies abstinence in marriage by saying that the two parties must agree that abstinence is the right course, and only for a time. Thus, Paul has expressed three conditions for abstinence in marriage. Abstinence is reserved for overwhelming spiritual anxiety, must be agreed to, and only for a time. There is no need for Paul to add that he says this as a concession, not a command. He has already stressed that married people should not abstain and explained the only valid criteria for abstinence. There is no need for Paul to point out that abstinence for prayer is a concession.

Explanation:

In Greek, the forward position of a clause is considered the emphatic position. This means that when an author wants to draw a reader’s attention to something important, he puts it in the first position. When it comes to 1 Corinthians 7:6, Paul puts now this I say in the first position. He does this to draw his readers’ attention to what he is about to say. In other words, he is about to make an important concession, and his readers should pay attention. Of course, the concession he makes is that while married couples should not abstain from sexual relations, remaining single altogether is still a worthwhile option. Still, he is careful to point out that the concession is not a command, and that celibacy is only for those who have chastity as a gift from God (1 Corinthians 7:7).

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that Paul uses the same phrase now this in 1 Corinthians 7:35, and in that case, the phrase refers to what preceded the verse. This means that, even when this is in the emphatic position, it could refer to what precedes or what follows. One must use the context to decide between these. Once one decides from the context whether the demonstrative refers to what precedes or follows, then one can see why Paul is emphatic about that point.

Response to counterargument:

There are three problems with this view. First, The phrase now this in 1 Corinthians 7:35 is not the same as the clause now I say this in 1 Corinthians 7:6. It is possible that when now this is combined with the verb to say, it takes on special grammatical nuance that points forward.⁵ Second, it is not right away clear that now this in 1 Corinthians 7:35 refers to what follows and not what precedes. It is possible that now this refers to what follows. Third, the counterargument states that one should look at the context to decide whether now I say this refers to what precedes or what follows, which means that the position of now this in 1 Corinthians 7:35 cannot be used to argue for or against what this refers to in 1 Corinthians 7:6. That is because the context is the ultimate decider, not the position of the demonstrative.

Possible weaknesses:

The only problem with this view is that it seems more natural to remark, I say this as a concession not as a command, after the statement that is intended to be taken as a concession. In other words, we expect the demonstrative this to point to what precedes. Still, even if we expect the demonstrative to point backward, this is no rule of grammar.

Explanation:

When we interpret Scripture it is good to favour the plainest understanding of a passage. In the case of 1 Corinthians 7:6, the plainest sense given the immediate context is that the concession Paul has in mind is abstinence for the sake of prayer.⁹ We can deduce that this is the plainest meaning because Paul has used three imperatives from 1 Corinthians 7:2–5, which are normally thought of as commands, and only one concession. The only concession is indicated by the conditional particle εἰ μήτι ἂν, which means unless perhaps (1 Corinthians 7:5). Paul says that unless perhaps in order to devote oneself to prayer, abstinence is not advisable for married couples. To make sure his audience understands that prayer is the only possible reason for married people to abstain from sexual relations, he points out that he says this as a concession (1 Corinthians 7:6).¹⁰

Counterargument:

There are two problems with this argument. First, while it might be true that the plainest sense should be favoured when it comes to competing interpretations, sometimes the plainest sense favours multiple interpretations. This means one needs to give additional argumentation for why one interpretation is more likely than another. Second, that Paul has in mind that this refers back to 1 Corinthians 7:5b is not consistent with the immediate context. 1 Corinthians 7:6 is followed by 1 Corinthians 7:7 where Paul says he wishes that everyone were as he is, but that each has his own special gift from God. Paul references the fact that he is single, and therefore celibate. He has repeatedly said that a married couple should not abstain from sexual immorality except for the sake of prayer. Why would he point out both that abstinence for the sake of prayer is a concession and that he prefers that everyone was as he is, in the same train of thought? If Paul really did wish that everyone was as he is, keeping in mind that each has their own gift from God, we should not think that he would point out that abstinence for the sake of prayer is a concession. He has already explained that abstinence for prayer is a concession when he introduced it as a possibility with the conditional particle εἰ μήτι ἂν (unless perhaps). He hardly needs to point it out as a concession again, especially since he himself sees abstinence as a good thing.

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that Paul would point out that his own choice to remain celibate is a concession, and not a command. Paul does not want to confuse his audience. He tells them not to abstain and then he tells them he wishes they were all like him and would abstain. Paul is a wise pastor. He sees some merit in the Corinthians’ suggestion that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, so he condones it in 1 Corinthians 7:7. Still, he explains that his affirmation of celibacy is a concession, not a command, and in light of 1 Corinthians 7:2–5, not applicable to married people.

Explanation:

Paul explains that a married couple should not abstain from sexual relations. The only exception to this is for prayer, but Paul explains this is a concession. The reason we can deduce that Paul points to abstinence for the sake of prayer as a concession is because in 1 Corinthians 7:7 Paul explains that abstinence is a gift from God.¹¹ Since abstinence is a gift, it is a concession and not a command 

Counterargument:

This argument misunderstands what Paul means when he says that abstinence is a gift from God (1 Corinthians 7:7). When he says this, he is referring to his life as a celibate person. In other words, to live a full life of celibacy is a gift. To abstain from sexual relations as an agreed-upon matter for a short period of time for the sake of prayer is not a gift, or a concession, but a matter of simple self-control. Sometimes our lives are overburdened by spiritual anxieties and a short season of abstinence and prayer gives us space to draw closer to God.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that it is hard to see why Paul would be so adamant about the fact that abstinence for the sake of prayer is a concession. Common sense says that abstinence for the sake of prayer is commendable, even for married people. Paul has already pointed out the restrictions which include agreement, or only for a short time. There is no sensible reason for Paul to add the further qualification that his advice on abstinence for prayer is only a concession.

Explanation:

Paul explains that he says this as a concession and not a command. To understand what this might refer to we have to reflect on Paul’s previous comments. We cannot take it that he refers to 1 Corinthians 7:5 because there he commands that a married couple ought not to defraud each other when it comes to sexual relations. 1 Corinthians 7:4 expresses a simple fact, and it does not make sense to think that Paul says a simple fact is a concession. Now when we reach 1 Corinthians 7:2–3 we can see that Paul’s statement here certainly does fit the criteria of concession.¹² Thus, when Paul says that this is a concession, he must mean that marriage is a concession.

Counterargument:

There are at least two problems with this view. First, it is a mistake to say that when Paul says this we must look to what precedes. Why not look to what follows? It is no rule of grammar that a demonstrative pronoun can only look backward.

Second, God instituted marriage when he created the universe. We know from Genesis 1:28 that God’s command to Adam and Eve was for them to subdue the earth and multiply. It’s not possible to multiply without sexual relations in marriage. Also, in Genesis 2:18 God explains that it was not good for man to be alone, so he created woman. Thus, a man is to cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). Since marriage is instituted by God, it cannot be a concession.

Explanation:

Paul opens 1 Corinthians 7:1 by explaining that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. He then explains that because of sexual immorality, each man should have a wife and each woman a husband (1 Corinthians 7:2). Now he says that this is a concession (1 Corinthians 7:6). In other words, because it is better for a man not to touch a woman, marriage is a concession.

Counterargument:

The problem here is that it is not clear that the principle it is not good for a man to touch a woman, is Paul’s own principle. He opens 1 Corinthians 7:1 by saying that he will not respond to a letter from the Corinthians. He then writes that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Given the fact that marriage was instituted by God, it seems that the principle it is good for a man not to touch a woman originates with the Corinthians, not Paul.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that it seems to devalue marriage. It is hard to see how marriage could be a concession as an outlet for sexual relations when it was instituted by God at creation.