Use of in 1 Cor. 7:40

[JJM]

Does anyone think that it could indicate something stronger than a supposition? Chapters 1-3 seem to require this, but I'm not familiar enough with the words usage other places to make that determination.

 

[Job8]

Does anyone think that it could indicate something stronger than a supposition? Chapters 1-3 seem to require this, but I'm not familiar enough with the words usage other places to make that determination.

δοκῶ δὲ κἀγὼ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἔχειν
and I think I also have God's Spirit (literal)
and I think I also have the Spirit of God (KJV)

That is an understated way of saying "This is the Holy Spirit's judgment". Paul is giving his apostolic judgment here and confirming that this is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not a commandment, but it is a Spirit-guided judgment. It would be just like a Spirit-filled Christian giving advice and saying "I believe I also have the Spirit of God guiding me". But with Divine inspiration it is even more certain.

Since these words were written by Divine inspiration, we can rest assured that this is indeed God's will. Widows are free to remarry, but if they remain unmarried, they are freer to serve the Lord with more of their time and energy. Older widows were "servants" of the apostolic churches and great helpers to other Christians (1 Tim 5:2,3,59,10).

 

[JJM]

δοκῶ δὲ κἀγὼ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἔχειν
and I think I also have God's Spirit (literal)
and I think I also have the Spirit of God (KJV)

That is an understated way of saying "This is the Holy Spirit's judgment". Paul is giving his apostolic judgment here and confirming that this is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not a commandment, but it is a Spirit-guided judgment. It would be just like a Spirit-filled Christian giving advice and saying "I believe I also have the Spirit of God guiding me". But with Divine inspiration it is even more certain.

Since these words were written by Divine inspiration, we can rest assured that this is indeed God's will. Widows are free to remarry, but if they remain unmarried, they are freer to serve the Lord with more of their time and energy. Older widows were "servants" of the apostolic churches and great helpers to other Christians (1 Tim 5:2,3,59,10).

I want to stress that I do not doubt the inspiration of this statement or that it or what precedes it is true. However, what I'm questioning is whether or not "δοκῶ" implies that St. Paul did whilst writing it. The word literally means "expect", were to say "I expect I have the Spirit of God", it would imply a bit of doubt on my part, that is I assume it is the case but don't really know.

As I read the passage St. Paul is not saying that it is not a commandment of God, but that he is unaware of Christ speaking on the subject directly in his earthly ministry. However, he gives his opinion, and he believes that his opinion is guided by the Holy Spirit. The question here is whether or not this belief is something he knows in the fullest sense of the word or if it is something he thinks is probably the case.

That former seems to fit better with Chs 1-4, but the latter seems the more reasonably reading of the Greek. If latter is true it effects one's reading of 1-4 and of 13.

 

[Job8]

However, he gives his opinion, and he believes that his opinion is guided by the Holy Spirit. The question here is whether or not this belief is something he knows in the fullest sense of the word or if it is something he thinks is probably the case.

The former would certainly be the case, in view of 1 Cor 2:13,16:
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

We should always keep in mind that the Holy Spirit gave the apostles an apostolic wisdom and authority because they had the spiritual gift of "apostles". There is no "probability" here.

 

[JJM]

The former would certainly be the case, in view of 1 Cor 2:13,16:
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

We should always keep in mind that the Holy Spirit gave the apostles an apostolic wisdom and authority because they had the spiritual gift of "apostles". There is no "probability" here.

Yet the clear antecedent of "we" in those passages is not the apostles simply put but the the Church more generally. Moreover, being an apostle does not mean that one never makes and error of judgement. Consider the fight between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15, or Galatians 2 where Paul says Peter at least acted incorrectly and Barnabas was apparently fooled. Unless in both of these sections you assume that a simply moral and not an epistemic failure is being discussed Also consider 1 Cor. 13. This does not mean that he is wrong or could be wrong and this text still be inspired Scripture, but if he was unaware that he was writing Scripture, he could easily not know perfectly himself if he were right.

Besides that, I clearly understand what you are saying, and that chapter 2 seems to imply that he could not be mistaken here, but it is also possible to say that Chapter 7 implies you are reading 2 wrongly. I do not believe we should put the cart before the horse. Is there ever an instance of this word being used in which it means more than a supposition? I'm not super familiar with it, but having looked at the LSJ I'd say the usage must be either I.1.a, I.2, or I.4 all of which imply an epistemic uncertainty.

The Middle Liddell allows for it to mean "to have or form an opinion" this is slightly stronger but even then it is probably just an extended way of saying "think".

Are you suggesting it has taken on a stronger meaning in Koine? Why would he have not just said "δέ κἀγὼ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἔχειν"? What purpose could the "δοκῶ" serve but to imply an epistemic weakness?

 

[hedrick]

I don't think you're going to get an answer from a lexicon. Rather, look at the overall argument. Paul is speaking of celibacy. He regards it as a good thing, but says that people are free to make a different decision. This isn't a matter of doctrine. It's more like a personal preference. He'd prefer to see people remain single, but acknowledges that it's fine if they don't. So in this case he is simply asking that people treat his judgement seriously, but not claiming it is a command from God. I wouldn't extend this to other types of statement that Paul makes.

Even inerrancy (which I don't believe) doesn't prevent Paul from stating personal opinions, particularly if they are clearly labelled as such.

 

[JJM]

I don't think you're going to get an answer from a lexicon. Rather, look at the overall argument. Paul is speaking of celibacy. He regards it as a good thing, but says that people are free to make a different decision. This isn't a matter of doctrine. It's more like a personal preference. He'd prefer to see people remain single, but acknowledges that it's fine if they don't. So in this case he is simply asking that people treat his judgement seriously, but not claiming it is a command from God. I wouldn't extend this to other types of statement that Paul makes.

Even inerrancy (which I don't believe) doesn't prevent Paul from stating personal opinions, particularly if they are clearly labelled as such.

I don't know that in the context of a pastoral letter it really does make sense for Paul to state a merely personal opinion within the context of inerrancy.


Even so, he is not saying he thinks the Holy Spirit has guided him in the decision to choose celibacy; he is saying he believes the Holy Spirit has guided him in the decision to believe celibacy is preferable to married life but that married life is a morally viable option, at least for those who are too drawn by sexual acts to renounce them entirely.

However, this statement with reference to the Holy Spirit in 7 is made in the context of a greater epistemological argument within the context of the letter. Within the context of this epistemological argument the Holy Spirit reveals directly to individuals within the Church, "so that we can understand the things that were freely given to us by God." (2:12 ISV). This is most specifically about things pertaining to individual vocation (cf. 1:1; 1:26; 1:28), but the connection between generality and particularity is so great one could not entirely limit it to this, especially because he seems to broaden it to some degree in 13. In this context, St. Paul is claiming, by "I, too, have God’s Spirit" (7:40 ISV) in the context of a discussion of personal vocation over and above what is revealed in public revelation, that the Holy Spirit has revealed this to him. Given that, it is obvious to me that we must understand "Lord" in 7:10 and 7:12 to mean Jesus in his incarnate ministry and not God simply put, for he is claiming in 7:40 that the Spirit is revealing this.

But the question of the word "δοκῶ" is with reference to his personal epistemic confidence in this claim to personal divine inspiration. Basically, it seems to me (and I believe to some degree Sts. Augustine and Ignatius of Loyola agree with me) that this sort of direct illumination (or whatever you may call it) can only function properly if it is infallible and an infallible capacity on a personal level can only be infallible if it is self referential (that is if it recognizes its own infallibility) or else its infallibility will be tainted by the fallibility of the faculty recognizing it within the context of the individuals epistemic capacities. However, if I read "δοκῶ" correctly, then St. Paul is at least claiming no self referential infallibility.