I Speak this by Permission, and not of commandment study

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

From what I understand, there is some disagreement on what Paul might have meant when he said  here

1 Cr 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

So I took to the commentaries (which I really prefer not to do for myself) but I will if there is a little more division concerning a particular scripture and to what it could mean or to what it might pertain to and I am glad I did actually, because I have finally settled the matter for myself. That Paul is speaking of 1 Cr 7:5 for the most part as I believe the following agree in the same also.

I thought these (together) were helpful, and confirming so I am posting some of those which further convinced me on this verse.  I do add a few of my own comments in between, along with some other verses from the scriptures elsewhere which helped to further solidify what I had found agreement with from the start concerning it. So the following are some diverse commentaries which I agree more with and actually do show agreement in the same between them in the  different ways they do). 

I don't know if anyone else was as curious as I was concerning this, but if you are and these can be useful great, if not that's great also.

Matthew Pooles commentary on 1 Cr 7:6

Some refer these words to all that had gone before in this chapter; but the best interpreters rather refer them to what went immediately 
before in the preceding verse, declaring, that he had no express command from God, as to those things of abstaining for a time for fasting  and prayer, and then coming together again, but he spake what he judged equitable and reasonable; but as to particular persons, they ought to judge and govern themselves according to their particular circumstances.

Me, now, I say, exactly to this, because Paul had just told them (the two being one) that

1 Cr 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

And so in the following verse 1 Cr 7:5 after it in the same manner

1 Cr 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; 
and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Which is immediately followed by the verse in question.

1 Cr 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Gill agrees and shows it similarly among some of the better commentaries as follows

Gills commentary

But I speak this by permission,.... Referring either to what he had said before, though not to all; not to 1 Corinthians 7:2 that for the 
avoiding of fornication, every man should make use of his own wife, and every woman of her own husband; since this is not by permission,  but by command, Genesis 2:24 that carnal copulation should be between one man and one woman in a married state; nor to 1 Corinthians 7:3 for that married persons ought to render due benevolence to, and not defraud each other, having a power over each other's bodies, is a  precept, and not a permission, Exodus 21:10 but to 1 Corinthians 7:5 their parting for a time, and coming together again: it is not an absolute command of God that they should separate for a time, on account of fasting and prayer, but if they thought fit to do so by  agreement, they might; nor was there any positive precept for their coming together again directly, after such service was over. The  apostle said this, not of commandment; but, consulting their good, gives this advice, lest Satan should be busy with them, and draw them into sin; but if  they had the gift of continence, they might continue apart longer; there was no precise time fixed by God, nor did the apostle pretend to  fix any: or it may refer to what follows after, that he would have all men be as he was; though he laid no injunction, but left them to their liberty; unless it can be thought to regard marriage in general, and to be said in opposition to a Jewish notion, which makes marriage a "command"

Gill adds as almost an after thought, that Paul could also be standing in opposition of a particular Jewish notion that makes marriage a command. On the other hand  we know in 1 Tim 4:3 that Paul himself calls the actual forbidding of marriage a doctrine of a devil. And since Paul says, "I speak this by permission" between the advice between married (above it) and unmarried and widows (below it) some believe he could also be speaking regarding what he says after, as followed this way

1 Cr 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

1 Cr 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, (See Mat 19:11)
and another after that.

1 Cr 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. (See Mat 19:9-11)

1 Cr 7:9 But if they cannot contain, (Mat 1911) let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. (See 1 Tim 4:3)

Now when the disciples responded to what Jesus said in Mat 19:9 marriage with the words, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." (which agrees with Paul's 1 Cr 7:7a's words) And where Jesus stated plainly,  "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given" in Mat 19:11 (also agrees again with Paul 1 Cr 7:7b's words ). So I do not see Paul speaking this by permission (in respects to an agreement) there but according to the truth of Christ concerning others being as himself in that state) specifically speaking to the unmarried and widows when it comes to marriage itself (and in the place follows after 1Cr 7:6 not before)

And so after considering these things and further examining it from that perspective, going onto the next commentary from hereon

Cambridge commentary  

6. by permission] i.e. by way of permission on the Apostle’s part to the Corinthian Church, not of God to him, as it is sometimes 
misunderstood. The original signification of the word thus rendered is agreement. Thence it comes to mean permission, indulgence, 
concession. Vulgate, indulgentia; Calvin (and Estius), venia; Beza, concessio; Wiclif, well, giving leave; Tyndale, of faveour.

This I did not know, " The original signification of the word thus rendered is agreement

Meyer's commentary (below)  agrees in what I was trying to prove out as demonstrated in Paul's words following 1 Cr 7:6  but only in respects to his words to the unmarried and widows, so I cannot help but agree with both Gills and Meyers. Meyers also points out similarly Cambridge's point by way of the word pertaining to agreement/ indulgence. Which is also something between parties (and so more than one) as far as a course of action might go. Which makes sense since 1 Cr 7:5 shows a context that is between a party of two, a man and his wife in respects to defrauding not one another, "except it be by consent" for a time. Consent meaning, as a permission which there mist be a mutual agreement would agree in the context between the advice given for the two.

So again, 

1 Cr 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; 
and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Which is followed by

1 Cr 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Meyer's NT Commentary

1 Corinthians 7:6. Τοῦτο] does not refer to what follows (J. Cappellus, Rosenmüller), which it does not suit; nor to 1 Corinthians 7:2 
(Beza, Grotius, de Wette, Gratama, Baur, Hofmann); nor to all that has been said from 1 Corinthians 7:2 onwards (Bengel, Pott, Flatt, 
Billroth, Rückert, Osiander), for 1 Corinthians 7:2-4 contain precepts actually obligatory; nor to κ. πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἦτε (Origen, 
Tertullian, Jerome, Cornelius a Lapide, al[1083]), which is but a subordinate portion of the preceding utterance. It is to this utterance: 
μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε … ἀκρ. ὑμῶν, which directly precedes the ΤΟῦΤΟ, that it can alone be made to refer without arbitrariness,—an utterance which might have the appearance of an ἘΠΙΤΑΓΉ, but is not intended to be such. What Paul means is this: Although I say that ye should withhold  yourselves from each other by mutual agreement only perhaps for the season of prayer, and then come together again, so as to escape the  temptations of Satan; yet that is not to be understood by way of command, as if you might not be abstinent at other times or for a longer period ἐκ συμφώνου, but by way of indulgence (“secundum indulgentiam,” Vulgate), so that thereby concession is made to your lack of  continency, it is allowed for. Theophylact puts it well: συγκαταβαίνων τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ὑμῶν, and Erasmus: “consulo vestris periculis.”

 

Elliot's is interesting (see below) stating, Better, Now I say this as a permission,

So Paul's saying this  "as" a permission ( something "as a" permission, or something as a permissible as between the two) rather than I speak  this "by" permission (as by one, Paul). This would still agree  in Cambridge's orginal rendering of the word permission there as agreement (which would need more than just one because of what it is).

Elliot's

(6) But I speak this by permission.—Better, Now I say this as a permission, and not as a command. As the passage is given in our English version, it might seem as if the Apostle implied that he had no actual command, but only a permission to write this, which is not at all his meaning. What he does say is, that the foregoing instructions are not to be considered as absolute commands from him, but as general permissive instruction, to be applied by each individual according to circumstances.It has been much discussed as to what part of the previous passage the word “this” refers. It is perhaps best to take it as referring to the leading thought of the whole passage, which 
is that marriage is allowable, expressed especially in 1Corinthians 7:2.

Pulpit commentary

Verse 6. - I speak this. The "this" applies to his advice in general, but especially to the last verse. By permission. This phrase is  generally misunderstood. It does not mean that St. Paul was permitted though not commanded to give this advice, but that his gentle  advice was given "by way of permission" to Christians, not "by way of injunction." He means to say that he leaves the details of their  lives, whether celibate or married, to their individual consciences, 

 

Paul does know how to say very forthrightly, 

1 Cr 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

And two verses later say,

In 1 Cr 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

Which also makes great sense there  that he steps in because he is speaking to the unequally yoked brothers and sisters unlike the equally yoked as he is in 1 Cr 7:6 And since Jesus Christ is the head of the church, which is a body of believers (he is not head over unbelievers)  and we have believers and unbelievers joined in marriage.  Paul, being a minister of the churches steps in and addresses those unique (unequally yoked) unions. Many of which are not going to share (agreeably/with consent) in the same values and/ mutual submissiveness between themselves as might be found in the more equally yoked marriages (where both husband and wife believe) in the churches. But nevertheless Paul does not advise them against any commandment of God concerning these unequally yoked marriages,  he does not even encourage any of the believing spouses to put away their unbelieving spouses and tells them, that if they (the unbelieving) be pleased to dwell with those who believe in the Lord let them (the situation could be hopeful here). But it seems more of a passive form of instruction here,  and only on the part of the believer in letting them remain (if their other  part be pleased to dwell with them). But  also letting them depart if they did actually depart. As Paul says in 1 Cr 7:15

1 Cr 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:  but God hath called us to peace

The above commentaries come from 

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/7-6.htm 

 

If you have more in agreement with the same or hold a difference of opinion on the same feel free to post it below

Edited December 30, 2023 by AFlameOfFire
I can't get it to lay out correctly, so it is what it is

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

Testing here...