The British writer Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), characterized by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history," observed, "Life cannot subsist in society but by reciprocal concessions." A concession, by definition, is something conceded or granted to another: "something done or agreed to usually grudgingly in order to reach an agreement or improve a situation." Relationships, whether between individuals, groups, or nations, are rarely successful when the parties involved are unwilling to consider the views and values of others and, at times, make concessions and accommodations to those opposing views and values. "I'm right, you're wrong!" and "My way or the highway!" are mindsets guaranteed to facilitate conflict and chaos, and the result will aways be division.

Those social/societal scholars who have studied the various dynamics of both functional and dysfunctional relationships, point out that there are a couple of "styles of concession." One is characterized as the Sequential approach, where each side reciprocates concessions. This is reflected in the quote by Samuel Johnson at the beginning of this article. All of those involved in any serious discussion of opposing views and/or values must be willing to acknowledge, by way of concession, that some aspects of those opposing positions have some degree of validity and merit. This does not mean that one must embrace or adopt those opposing positions, but it does mean that one must be willing to accept those who hold them and to acknowledge the fact that to them they are of great significance. And we would expect them to reciprocate: to extend the same courtesy to us with regard to our own views and values. This approach is manifested beautifully in Paul's advice in Romans 14 (check out my article titled "A Safety Valve for Steamed Saints: Biblical Advice for Avoiding the Big Bang" - Reflections #120). The other major style is characterized as the Holistic approach, where the making of concessions begins only after all the many sides of the issue are fully explored and discussed. Only after careful and respectful inquiry are continuing points of difference considered for possible concessions. Clearly one must never concede or compromise Truth, but where there are differing and opposing understandings and applications of ultimate Truth, one should be willing to make concessions to further harmonious relationships. Unity in diversity is a biblical concept; it is entirely possible, if we are willing, to be united in Truth, without being uniform in tradition. It is here that concessions, not compromises, come into play.

We would all likely agree that the apostle Paul was a man of strong personal convictions, and that he was uncompromising when it came to his stand for Truth. He was quick to oppose those who sought to undermine the message of the Gospel. And yet, Paul was also willing, time and again, to make concessions to those who were struggling in their understanding of that message, or who perhaps had differing ways of expressing their devotion to the Lord than he personally was comfortable with embracing. By way of example, Paul understood that offering sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem, or observing certain purification rites, was in no way, under this dispensation of grace, connected to one's salvation. Yet, there were some brethren who did value such outward expressions, and for the sake of perpetuating peace among the saints, Paul engaged in such acts by way of concession to their convictions (Acts 21:17-26). I dealt with this very event in my article titled "Conforming to Jewish Custom: Did Paul Sin by Yielding to the Advice of James and the Jerusalem Elders?" (Reflections #166). Paul also recognized that circumcision was no longer necessary for a right relationship with God, yet because some still struggled with that, Paul went ahead and circumcised Timothy by way of concession (Acts 16:3). Paul was certainly not willing to compromise Truth on this matter, as many passages in his writings clearly state, but he most certainly was willing to make certain concessions for the sake of greater unity and harmony in the One Body of Christ.

This mindset of the apostle Paul is beautifully depicted in the seventh chapter of the first of his two epistles to the Corinthians preserved for us in the NT canon. In this chapter, Paul is giving some very important and sound advice on marriage, and some of the problems as well as blessings associated with marriage. I examined that advice by Paul in my book "Down, But Not Out" (pages 146-162 in the 1st edition; pages 169-187 in the 2nd edition). I would also urge the reader to consider my following article: "Advice for Troubled Marriages: The Counsel of 1 Corinthians 7" (Reflections #93). It is beyond the scope of this present Reflections to go into all that Paul wrote in that chapter, but one thing I would point out is that Paul had some strong convictions about this topic. He also had some very personal convictions on the matter. For example, given the difficulty of the times in which he and his fellow believers lived, he makes it clear that he strongly believes, and he also strongly suggested, that it could be beneficial spiritually NOT to be married. He most certainly was not advising couples to divorce, but if they were not married, for whatever reason, he thought it would be better to remain in that state. Paul appears to have been single at this time, and he states, "I wish that all men were even as I myself am; however, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that" (vs. 7). Paul stated, "I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy" (vs. 25), and that opinion is that if you are single, stay that way. But, Paul refused to command this of anyone, for the Lord Himself had not done so. Thus, if one felt the need or desire to marry, then Paul fully supported them in that resolve. It was not for him, but he was willing to concede that such a choice was of great value for others!

That same concession was made by Paul with respect to choices made by couples to abstain from sexual intimacy for a period of time for the sake of prayer and spiritual reflection (vs. 5), as long as they didn't persist in depriving one another of that marital privilege. Yet, in such a delicate matter, Paul again made it clear that his advice was "by way of concession, not of command" (vs. 6). Paul certainly had an opinion on the matter, and he certainly felt strongly about it. But in the absence of divine directive, the less we seek to dictate to others the better. Provide counsel when sought - yes; issue edicts drawn from personal convictions - NO, never. Paul's statement in this text (1 Corinthians 7:6) is unique in that the Greek word he uses here is found nowhere else in the New Testament writings. "But this I say by way of concession, not of command." This is the Greek word "sungnome," which means "a concession; be indulgent to someone; a concession to meet someone half way" [Drs. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-Englich Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 773]. Paul is not speaking for the Lord here, for this counsel is not commanded by God; Paul is speaking for himself, sharing his own personal preferences. Therefore, he makes it clear these are nothing more than opinions, and that he is thereby willing to concede the fact that should others choose not to follow his advice, they have not sinned (vs. 28). "All Scripture is therefore not inspired; not even all of these counsels of St. Paul seem to have been so. So desirous did he seem to be that all he says on this subject should be regarded as coming from himself without any inspiration of God, that he declares it not only in the sixth verse, but also in the twenty-fifth verse" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 19, p. 229]. In other words, this advice is no more "inspired" (God-breathed) than other passages where Paul is speaking for Paul (i.e., "Hey, Timothy - when you come bring my books and cloak," etc.).

Dr. Adam Clarke (1762-1832), the British Methodist theologian, wrote, "It was a constant custom of the more conscientious rabbins to make a difference between the things which they enjoined on their own judgment, and those which they built on the authority of the law. Thus, we may understand the apostle here as saying that the directions already given were from his own judgment, and not from any Divine inspiration" [Clarke's Commentary, vol. 6, p. 221]. Although Paul would love to spare them from undue troubles in their marital lives (vs. 28), and seeks only to benefit them by his advice (vs. 35), nevertheless "he leaves the details of their lives, whether celibate or married, to their individual consciences" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 19, p. 225]. "He laid no injunction, but left them to their liberty" [Dr. John Gill (1697-1771), An Exposition of the New Testament, e-Sword]. This is brought out more clearly in some versions of the text than others. For example, in the Complete Jewish Bible, this verse reads, "I am giving you this as a suggestion, not as a command." The New Life Version reads, "This is what I think. I am not saying you must do it." The Worldwide English version reads, "I say you may do this. I do not say you must do it." Thus, Paul's counsel here is not given "as a command which requires unquestioned obedience, but as a concession that may be used or left unused" [Dr. R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 279].

Sometimes, and perhaps even most times, we should give one another some degree of credit for having honest, seeking hearts and minds open to God's leading. Yes, there are times when wise counsel can be helpful, especially when that counsel is sought by one who is struggling. Too often, however, we tend to insert ourselves into situations and then "speak for God" when all we may, in fact, be doing is seeking to impose our own personal perceptions and preferences on others with whom we differ. David Lipscomb (1831-1917), a leader in the so-called Restoration Movement, perhaps sums up Paul's intent in this passage best: "Paul leaves the details of their lives, whether married or unmarried, to their individual circumstances, for what is suitable in one case may be the reverse in another. So, each must act as he is able" [A Commentary on the NT Epistles, vol. 2 - First Corinthians, p. 97]. Dear Lord, help us all to love more and legislate less!

From a Minister in North Carolina:

Hey, Al. I need to order three copies of your book "Down, But Not Out" which you wrote on the topic of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. My elders and I are studying this subject together. One of the elders already has your book and is recommending it to the rest of us, but we need three more. Thank you, brother.

From a Reader in Arizona:

Al, would you please send me your book "From Ruin to Resurrection" and your thumb drive containing the class you taught on "The Minor Prophets." My check is enclosed. Thank you.

From a Reader in Arkansas:

Al, I would like to purchase your thumb drive on "A Reflective Study of Revelation." Thank you!

From a Reader in Indiana:

Al, I just noticed on the Friends of the Restoration web site that your birthday was today (March 2nd). Happy 75th! As one who has passed that road sign nine years ago, welcome to the next twenty-five! Thanks for your thoughts, admonitions, and challenges through the years!

From a Minister in Texas:

Dear Al, I pray you and your family are well. Yes, Facebook does help us keep track of you and yours!! I just read your latest article titled "The Worm at the Cross: David's Psalm & Isaac's Hymn" (Reflections #879). Thanks once again for all that you do!! You are a true blessing in our lives!

From a Reader in Oklahoma:

Al, when one reflects on the glory of Jesus, and then looks at their own being by comparison, it is easy to see how we are all "but worms." And yet, a worm has many uses. They are very high in protein, and they're a main food source for many of God's creatures. They eat organic matter and then turn it into one of the best fertilizers around, as well as aerating the soil in the process. And let's not forget that they can't be beaten as fish bait. So, even though we are "but worms" ... we are GOD-made, and therefore we are worthwhile worms. We must be - otherwise, Christ would not have died for us!

From a Retired Army Chaplain:

Shalom, Al. I am on my way to Israel this coming Sunday. It is a humanitarian trip to support Israel, especially the Jewish settlers in Samaria and Judea (I don't use the terms "West Bank" or Palestine). I have printed out and am taking with me several of your Reflections articles as study materials (please excuse the pun, but these will be my "Diet of Worms" - LOL). I was so edified by your last issue of Reflections ("The Worm at the Cross"). My love to you and the family!

********************
If you would like to be added to or removed from this
mailing list, Contact Me and I'll immediately comply.
If you are challenged by these Reflections, feel free to
send them on to others and encourage them to write for
a free subscription. These studies are also offered on a
special thumb drive. Check the link below for the
details, and for all past issues of these Reflections:
https://www.zianet.com/maxey/Reflect2.htm