I could say that Paul's use of "us" in 1 Cor 6:14 is a contradiction with 1 Cor 7. Except that's exactly the sort of "contradiction" I was mocking in this entry. The story is more interesting than that.
It seems unlikely that Paul would write that Jesus would return very soon in 1 Cor 7 and contradict himself a chapter before. Some commentators think that this does show an evolution of Paul's views in the years between 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians (there was at least a 5 year gap, from what I read). This page, for example, points this out (section headed "On End-of-Time Delay"), and refers to 1 Cor 15:51 (Adrian Plass's famous babysitting verse) as evidence that at this point, Paul believes some of his Corinthian readers will die before Jesus returns, but some will still be alive.
So, I think Paul did gradually push out his expectation of when Jesus would return, and this is evidenced in his letters. In 1 Thess, he's expecting to be alive at the Second Coming. In 1 Cor, he doesn't sound so sure, although he's still sure enough to tell his readers that it's not really worth marrying (although they can if they like), and to tell them that some of them will still be alive then.
I think this development is fascinating: we could go on to talk about how 2 Peter must be even later, as the author is then beginning to apologise for the slight delay. But my point in relation to the contradictions posting is this reading is completely forbidden to inerrantists, I imagine, as it allows that Paul was wrong and changed his mind. The inerrantist reading of 1 Cor 7 is actually a liberal paraphrasing of the text: not that Jesus really is coming back soon, as the text says, but, rather, wouldn't it be nice if we all lived as if he was? It's exactly the sort of thing I've heard mocked from the pulpit more than once, so it's ironic that the mockers are exactly those who're keen to get away with it here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-10-13 11:12 pm (UTC)It seems unlikely that Paul would write that Jesus would return very soon in 1 Cor 7 and contradict himself a chapter before. Some commentators think that this does show an evolution of Paul's views in the years between 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians (there was at least a 5 year gap, from what I read). This page, for example, points this out (section headed "On End-of-Time Delay"), and refers to 1 Cor 15:51 (Adrian Plass's famous babysitting verse) as evidence that at this point, Paul believes some of his Corinthian readers will die before Jesus returns, but some will still be alive.
So, I think Paul did gradually push out his expectation of when Jesus would return, and this is evidenced in his letters. In 1 Thess, he's expecting to be alive at the Second Coming. In 1 Cor, he doesn't sound so sure, although he's still sure enough to tell his readers that it's not really worth marrying (although they can if they like), and to tell them that some of them will still be alive then.
I think this development is fascinating: we could go on to talk about how 2 Peter must be even later, as the author is then beginning to apologise for the slight delay. But my point in relation to the contradictions posting is this reading is completely forbidden to inerrantists, I imagine, as it allows that Paul was wrong and changed his mind. The inerrantist reading of 1 Cor 7 is actually a liberal paraphrasing of the text: not that Jesus really is coming back soon, as the text says, but, rather, wouldn't it be nice if we all lived as if he was? It's exactly the sort of thing I've heard mocked from the pulpit more than once, so it's ironic that the mockers are exactly those who're keen to get away with it here.