That is a question posed in a talk by EP Sanders I will discuss below. For now, let me begin by saying that one day I sat down and decided to read 1 Corinthians 7 in the NET Bible and read through all their footnotes. I learned that is clear that Paul encouraged celibacy and taught that marriage was a less desirable alternative to lifelong celibacy. Remember, for Paul the end of the mortal-world was coming soon, very soon. He was simply wrong about this. Most people back then did not live past about the age of 40. So Paul was not advocating being a lifelong celibate in the sense of being celibate into your 70s (when most people die today). He was thinking that his Gentile followers would just be celibate for a few years or so, or even less; when suddenly Christ would come and all mortal life would end and only immortal beings would reside on the new heaven and new earth.
It is clear that in Paul’s mind, the best kind of Christian, is one who can remain celibate if they are able given this apocalyptic (end-times) expectation.
Paul makes it clear that a true Christian was to imitate him when he says in Philippians 3:16-17 (EXB):
16 But we should continue following the truth [or live up to the standard] we already have.
17 Brothers and sisters, all of you should try to follow my example [become imitators of me] and to copy [watch closely; pay attention to] those who live [walk] the way we showed [modeled it for] you.
Also, in 1 Corinthians 11:1 (NKJV), Paul says, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.” Earlier, in 1 Corinthians 7:7 (NASB) he said, in the context of encouraging celibacy, "... I wish that all men were even as I myself am." So Paul expected Christians to imitate him and be celibate if able to so. However, he allows for different spiritual gifts, celibacy being one of many. Each has his own gift from God, one in this way, and another in that way.
Many scholars believe that this Pauline tradition of celibacy made its way to being put on the lips of Jesus (yet the historical Jesus may or may not have actually said anything about advocating celibacy). Nevertheless, in Matthew 19:12 (GOD'S WORD® Translation), Jesus said, “For example, some men are celibate because they were born that way. Others are celibate because they were castrated. Still others have decided to be celibate because of the kingdom of heaven. If anyone can do what you've suggested, then he should do it."
Again, some argue that Jesus' teachings on celibacy don't go back to the historical Jesus but are words echoed from Paul and put on Jesus' lips. Others think that Jesus may have suggested the option of celibacy as a practical way for a Jewish disciple to be a full time Kingdom of God proclaimer. But since Jesus (or the Pre-Resurrection Jesus) only preached this to his Jewish disciples (and the Post-Resurrection Jesus does not mention it), then it does not apply to Christians today. For Jesus was speaking in 30 AD, and predicted the massive death toll in 70 AD when the Romans slaughtered thousands of Jews. Hence, one could argue that he was advocating celibacy to avoid losing wives and children by the Roman sword in 70 AD.
So to imitate Paul as he imitates Jesus is to be celibate yes, but only in a first century context when in 70 AD Romans destroyed the temple and thousands of Jews. So when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:7 (CEB), “I wish all people were like me [i.e. celibate] …”, he is talking to first century Christians in a personal letter to them alone.
The fact is Paul was human. Abandoning Fundamentalism (Scriptural Literalism) means getting real. Paul said and did a lot of great things. For a defense of Paul, see the book The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church’s Conservative Icon by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan. It is important not to judge Paul from our 21st Century frame of reference. Paul was as much a product of his culture as we are.
We can revere Paul and even follow his example and his teachings on love and yet acknowledge he was human and was mistaken about celibacy and the timeframe of the end-times. After all, are we to worship Paul? Is Paul infallible like a Catholic Pope? Are we to treat Paul as if he was free of any human foibles or error or mistakes? Did not Paul himself say that all of us make mistakes (i.e. "sin") and fall short of God's glory, that is we all fall short of the Divine Ideal? What if we saw Paul as human like the rest of us?
I recommend listening to, Is Paul's Legacy Relevant Today? A Talk by E. P. Sanders, Th.D. At Villanova University. Published on Oct 21, 2009. In this lecture, world renowned Bible scholar, E.P. Sanders, begins by explaining that Paul's theory of government went out of fashion in 1689. Paul's ideas on government supports the "divine right kings" which was rejected by John Locke (who is largely responsible for the philosophy in the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence). Sanders explains that Locke knew he was rejecting Paul's views. In turn, the U.S. Founding Fathers ignored Paul's views on government and went with John Locke. Sanders points out that today the "divine right of rulers" is universally rejected; yet we have Paul unfortunately preaching it in his letters. If Paul had lived till today, I personally think that he would have changed his views when it comes to government. Paul was human and limited by his culture at that time. He had no concept of "American democracy" as we understand and experience that today as U.S. citizens. We can't fairly judge him from our perspective (our vantage point) but should be fair and examine what he said and did within his particular cultural and political context.
Sanders goes on to explain that Paul taught his followers to stay as you are, meaning that if they were single (unmarried) or widowed that they should stay single, because he was convinced the end of the world was coming soon. Sanders then asks if this is end-times belief and the emphasis on celibacy is relevant today, given that Paul was wrong about the end times coming soon in his lifetime? Sanders also points out that most of his converts were married around age 14 with girls marrying pretty much when they reached puberty. Now compare that with the average marrying age of 26 today.
Paul was an apocalyptist and thought the perfect government (God's Kingdom) was coming to earth to be established within the lifetime of his converts. Since the mortal world was passing away it made sense to not act like a mortal and be sexual and have children when soon it was all going to be destroyed anyway. But now we know that Paul was simply wrong about the soon end of all mortal beings on earth and the arrival of God's Government where only resurrected immortal beings would live on the new earth with God. Every generation of Christians, for the last two thousands years, has had certain Christians who think their generation will be the one that sees Christ return in their lifetime. Each generation that thought this way has been wrong. So many Christians today hold a more sober view, and practice a more realistic approach regarding the Second Coming and simply plan their lives as if Christ may not come in their lifetime. So they plan for retirement and marry and remarry and don't deprive themselves of a sex life.
In Paul's day people were dying around age 30 or 40, and girls were married around 14. Today we live into our 70s and people marry around age 26. Given these facts, does it not make sense to admit Paul's advice on sex when it comes to celibacy, may be outdated? After all, how many Christian widows who are in their 20s, 30s, or 40s, choose to listen to Paul and stay single? How many ignore Paul's advice and remarry?
When Paul gave his advice he was not envisioning young people waiting to get married until they are in their late 20s (the average age being 26) and widows living to age 70 or even 90. Would he have wanted the youth of today to deny themselves the bond of sexual love for over a decade? Remember, Paul is not necessarily a prude, as he even tells married couples in 1 Corinthians 7 not to withhold sex from each other and to be equal in giving each other pleasure. In other words, if Paul had found out he was wrong about the end-times coming soon, would he not have changed his tune when it came to virgins and widows?
Sanders asks these questions and makes you think. I think Paul would have changed his opinion on these matters if he was writing in today's cultural context. Sanders points out that in the first century, there were economic incentives for a woman to marry early, as a man was the sole breadwinner. Today women don't need a man financially like back then. If Paul could have seen that his Messiah did not come back soon, but two thousand years passed by, and if he saw how late men and women marry, and how independent women are, would he not teach something different? Perhaps Paul himself would have chosen to marry?
So, are we allowed to question the relevancy of Paul's advice on marriage and sex when he never-been-married virgins it is better for them not to marry at all?
Sanders further points out that Paul's idea of union with Christ was the original message and not Martin Luther's ideas. Sanders explains that in Paul's day his converts were still surrounded by civic religion when "partying" was the equivalent of going to a fast food restaurant. Basically the pagan priests were the butchers of the day that provided the red meat that today we get at a fast food restaurant in a hamburger. Prostitution was also a common activity and normal, but the prostitutes were also tied to pagan idolatry. Paul, being Jewish, worried that attending these activities that provide meat and prostitutes was a form of idolatry. For him, being indwelt by Christ meant you are causing Christ to participate in idolatry when you do these things. So he encouraged celibacy or marriage in this context. But today temple prostitution is not something to worry about.
Sanders explains that ancient paganism was "where the fun was at," as they included festivals and the games like the Olympic Games which was tied to Zeus worship; and the theater which was tied to the pagan civic religion and thus idolatry; so basically, joining Paul's group meant not having this kind of fun. It would be the equivalent today of saying you cannot go to anymore football games or movie theaters or fast food joints. From here Sanders returns back to seeing Paul's teaching that Christ rescued us through his faithfulness as we are indwelt by his spirit that fulfills the Law; and thus this means living as if you literally embody the spirit of Jesus and so you don't participate in pagan idolatry in the Roman festivals and theater and eating red meat from the pagan religious butchers (if it's going to cause your fellow Christian to stumble). As we can see, Paul's advice on sex took place within a first century frame of reference that does not exist today. We simply don't worship Zeus at our football games and our butchers don't serve us meat after dedicating it to a pagan deity!
So when Paul talks about sex and celibacy he is thinking of avoiding pagan prostitution, and young people marrying before age 15 (and when everyone was dying before age 40) and he believed the Messiah was coming back any day now. Paul's world is not our world!
So Sanders suggests that if Paul lived today that he probably would teach something different about sex. Sanders suggests that maybe Paul would even be lenient when it came to young people today having premarital sex; because today things are different, women don't marry at age 14 but about age 26, and the thing Paul feared most (temple prostitutes) is not an issue in America today. So since Paul was not a prude but just concerned about young men avoiding temple prostitutes (idolatry), and widows and unmarried women staying unmarried so they could devote themselves to piety given his expectation of the very soon return of Christ (due to his end-times expectations); then if Paul lived today it is reasonable to conclude that he very likely would have allowed premarital sex within a committed monogamous relationship. In other words, he would have likely not expected young women to deny their sex drive for decades until they married at age 26. As he thought they would only be celibate for a few years or less before Christ came. We know Paul would not have likely expected young people to suppress their sex drive for decades because in 1 Corinthians 7 he says lovers should not deprive each other of sexual release; and as a good Jew, Paul likely had a healthy view of sexual pleasure and the body as he had not been negatively influenced by Augustine's false dogma of Original Sin and Augustine's prudish despising of the sensual body. Instead, Paul's only Bible was the Old Testament, where God allowed polygamy and even concubines and there is an erotic poem the Song of Songs! The fact is that Jews like Paul saw the sex drive as good and holy from a Jewish (Old Testament) perspective. He was only seeking to manage those attending temple prostitutes and believed the end-times were immanent. Take away these concerns (prostitution and immanent end-times) and Paul was a typical Jew that saw sex and the sex drive as good and holy, even sex outside "monogamous married sex" as God's Law endorsed polyandry and concubines!
Sanders concludes by saying that while Paul's views on sex and the government are not always still relevant for today (if interpreted literally and legalistically), nevertheless his ideas on the mystical union with Christ is relevant and a positive idea: that can help us unite with one another in the bonds of friendship and community.