1 Cor 7:8 (ESV): > "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am" 1 Cor 7:32-34 (ESV): > "... The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband." 1 Cor 7:38 (ESV): > "So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better" **Here is the antinatalist implication of these verses.** If we follow Paul's advice and stay single and childless, then humanity would go extinct (because nobody will replenish the population). But the doctrine that argues for human extinction (antinatalism) is widely regarded by Christians to be a false one. The implication that the "ideal" scenario is the one where humans die out is an incredibly repugnant one. So my question is, **how can Christians interpret 1 Corinthians 7 to avoid all of these 3 implications below?** 1. it is better for humanity to go extinct 2. it is better to be single 3. it is better to be childless **Edit**: My question is different from [the proposed duplicate](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74782/would-god-allow-all-of-humanity-to-be-celibate) , because the duplicate asks a general philosophical question, while my post asks a specific question about the interpretation specific Bible verses by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7:8; 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 and 1 Corinthians 7:38).

The "quieting of concupiscence" (*remedium concupiscentiae*) is one of the secondary ends of the sacrament of matrimony (cf. *Casti Connubii* §59), but what exactly is it? How does it "quiet" or "remedy" concupiscence?

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:10 ([NKJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A10&version=NKJV)) : > Now to the married I command, **yet not I but the Lord**: A wife is not to depart from her husband In [verse 12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A12&version=NKJV) Paul writes: > But to the rest **I, not the Lord**, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. How do Evangelicals explain this in line with scripture inspired by God?

**According to Catholic theologians, why does St. Paul say that a husband is "divided" between pleasing his wife and pleasing God?** Can't a husband please God by pleasing his wife? Or is that what Paul meant? 1 Cor. 7:32 -33: > 32. But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. > 33. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.

Luther denied that marriage is a sacrament conferring grace.¹ He said marriage is a “worldly matter” (*weltlich geschefft*).² But 1 Cor. 7:14 says the husband and wife can mutually sanctify one another: >For the unbelieving husband **is sanctified** by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife **is sanctified** by the believing husband… In view of this verse, how did Luther not think this shows that matrimony confers grace? 1. Reynolds 2016 §17.3 (pp. 742-54)
2. *ibid.* p. 749n102: "*Von Ehesachen* WA 30.3: 205/12–14. *Traubüchlein*, WA 30.3:74/2."

Is, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 , the state of virginity more meritorious than that of marriage? Catholics think it is, and some (all?) Protestants think it is not. Why? For example, the Council of Trent says: > Canon X.—If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema.