From: A Torah
Commentary on First
Corinthians 7-12 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2011
Chapter 7—Part 2:
Problem Texts
7:1: “It is good for a man not to (ATP adds: sexually) touch a woman.” This was a euphemism for having a sexual
relationship with a woman both in Hebrew society (see Old Testament precedents
section above) and in Greek usage as well.[1] It is commonly
looked upon as a slogan or credo that had developed in the Corinthian church to
sum up the sentiments of one or more of its factions and might even have been
the general opinion.[2] It is a direct quote from the Corinthian
letter to the apostle,[3] in
this scenario, and this interpretation is accompanied by the affirmation that
in verses 2-6 Paul rejects this view.[4]
Even if so, it is hard to
read this chapter without the conviction that Paul agreed with the view. In verse 8 Paul emphasizes that “I say to
the unmarried and to the widows: It is
good for them if they remain even as I am” (ATP: “they remain single even as I”). In other words he was unmarried and thought
it was the ideal situation—the same attitude as verse 1.
Hence, it seems more
likely that the Corinthians had taken an actual teaching of Paul and were
applying it without taking into consideration Paul’s recognition that virtually
any generalization has its limits. Since
the bulk of individuals in that age who were old enough to be concerned with
the question were almost certainly married—already--it could hardly be an issue
of abstinence versus marriage but abstinence within marriage, believing
that it “signaled greater devotion to God.”[5]
It does not take an overworked imagination to suspect that at least some of the consorting with prostitutes that Paul so vigorously condemned grew out of the inability to
[Page 27] express one’s physical urges with
one’s spouse.[6] Indeed one can even imagine some
rationalizing their behavior as, in an odd way, outright “virtuous” since they
were not “compromising” their spouse through insisting on a “demeaning” sexual
relationship.
It should be noted that
“Paul declares celibacy ‘good’—not obligatory or morally better than marriage.”[7] It is a case of one “good” (celibacy) versus
another “good” (marriage). Though there
are moral absolutes, there are also many cases where it is an issue of “better”
versus “best.” The decision in those
cases will vary according to the individual and specific circumstances and one
sees the need for that principle in making a decision between unmarried
abstinence and married sexuality.
Furthermore his concerns
are grounded not in just preference or idealism (though he makes both points
clear in the chapter) or aversion to sex itself (he outright commands it if one
is married). As Calvin J. Roetzel reminds us, “Paul prefers celibacy not because
women are ‘dirty’ or because sex is evil but because he feels that the special
urgency of the times requires emergency measures.”[8] Hence is introduction of “the present
distress” (
Some
have argued that Paul was of two minds in regard to the appropriateness of
sexuality and marriage and refer to the “wavering of his thought” on the
desirability of marriage as reflected in this chapter.[9] The “wavering” however derives from the fact
that he candidly admits: he prefers celibacy but not everyone might have a
similar preference or similar ability.
This is not “wavering” but a candid recognition that when there is more
than one morally appropriate option available, one must concede (as he does in
this chapter) the propriety of exercising an option he himself does not
personally prefer.
Others
see an inconsistency with Jesus’ elevation of marriage[10] (and
with it an implicit acceptance of sexual expression). If Paul really did write Ephesians (and even
those who claim he did not must concede that whoever did, thought the doctrine
was sufficiently “Pauline” to attach his name to it), then the apostle held to
a concept of matrimony that was equally respectful (Ephesians 5:22-33). Indeed, he develops it more explicitly and in
more detail than even Jesus.
Furthermore,
Jesus like Paul never married. If He
considered it proper to not do so while respecting and honoring the
institution, there is no reason to suspect Paul of some inconsistency with
Jesus when he takes the same approach.
Finally,
we should remember that Paul nowhere asserts that sexual satisfaction is the only
purpose of marriage.[11] He does, however, stress that it is a
normal obligation of matrimony, something far different. Furthermore in a congregation where some
found no moral objection to consorting with prostitutes (chapter 6), it was
important for him to stress that there was a legitimate means of meeting those
sexual needs without compromising either one’s personal integrity or one’s
commitment to God.
From
our modern standpoint it is, perhaps, perplexing that two major aspects of
marriage are not mentioned by Paul at all.
(1) Although he mentions love in several places
in the epistle—including the lengthy analysis in chapter 13—he conspicuously
does not provide any words of counsel on the need for love within
marriage. Richard B. Hays suggests,
“Perhaps love is implied in Paul’s call for mutual submission of marital
partners, but he does not make the point explicit.”[12]
[Page 28] Perhaps
the true reality is that however useful “love” is as an emotional ideal, a
mutual respect and desire to please provides a far more practical application
of what love is about in daily life.
Paul himself seems to have looked upon love in this (or a similar) way
for the emphasis throughout chapter 13 is on the behavior of love and
not the emotion of love.
(2) Though Paul stresses the importance of
continued sexuality within marriage, he omits any mention of having children as
the rationale. To deduce only from what
he actually says, sexual congress is enjoyed in order to meet each other’s
needs. Children would, in that context,
be viewed as an extra blessing that results from it.
Early 20th
century religious thought made it the central purpose of marriage; early 21st
century thought (and not just among the unreligious) make it a quite
dispensable result of the relationship.
To make reproduction the pivot of married sexuality—especially the
dominant or sole pivot--puts what may be hard to accomplish as the ultimate
test of the success of a relationship.
Our more recent distaste for child bearing and rearing puts at the
center our own convenience and eliminates one of the purposes of sexuality—the
survival of the human species in our various racial, ethnic, and national
expressions.
7:5: Temporary sexual abstinence for the
purpose of “fasting and prayer” (critical texts mention “prayer” alone). Depending upon the degree of praying
being engaged in, it might or might not significantly diminish one’s sexual
interest. On the other hand, sustained
fasting would almost certainly do so. In
ancient traditional practice, the two often went together. Hence the reasonableness of the “fasting”
added in many Greek manuscripts,[13]
but rejected by most modern “critical” editions and translations.
The
concept of abstaining from sex even on such occasions has disturbed some. Theodore Mackin,
for example, suggests that “[a]mong the regrettable
lacunae in Paul’s letters is this one, the missing explanation how sexual
intimacy in marriage hinders the spouses’ prayer, and how their abstinence
helps it.”[14] He thinks that there might be a hint here of
a “residue” from Paul’s Jewish upbringing:
having sex with a woman made both ritually impure (citing Leviticus
Although some devoutedly religious still harbor that covert suspicion
that sexual expression—even in marriage—is somehow demeaning and lowering,
Paul’s emphatic demand that sexual manifestation continue on a regular basis
(verses 2-5) is incompatible with this scenario.
The physical lack of
sexual drive in the case of fasting or emotional lack of sexual drive in the
case of all one’s interests being poured into prayer alone,
might itself be (mis)interpreted by the spouse as
sexual rejection when it is not intended as such at all. Hence Paul’s comment was one that could calm
a potential trouble spot in a relationship, especially when accompanied with
the instruction that such periods be only temporary rather than permanent. This provides for the couple to reaffirm their
pre-existing physical bond once that interim of intense spiritual devotion is
completed.
The propriety of sexual abstinence during such a time was advocated by others as well. The Testament of Naphtali (VIII.8), for example, concurs, “For there is a season
[Page 29] for a man to embrace his wife, and a
season to abstain therefrom for his prayer.”[16] More common in later ancient Jewish tradition
you find individuals separating for sometimes prolonged periods of Torah study.[17]
Greco-Roman
opinion was divided on how closely correlated, time wise, sexual and religious
activity should be. In the Life of
Pythagoras, Theano is quoted as arguing that, “It
is holy for a woman, her having been connected with her husband, to perform
sacred rites on the same day; but . . . it is never holy, after she has been
connected with any other man.”[18]
In other contexts delay
was considered desirable. At the
Paul
insists upon two conditions for a period of sexual separation. The first is “consent” of the other: It can not be done arbitrarily by either
party. Paul is neither a male chauvinist
nor a militant feminist. He is, above
all else, a realist, attempting to fit spirituality into the practicalities and
needs of everyday life and human needs and psychology. Theory might say, “fast
and pray--after all it is for God’s glory.”
Love, affection, and pure respect for one’s spouse says, “remember you
have other commitments that should not be neglected either.”
The second is that it be
temporary, merely “for a time:”
Paul provides no arbitrary definition of duration. What would be proper and desirable for one
family might be grotesquely out of line for another. For comparative purposes, the Mishnah--which, unlike Paul, felt
compelled to give formal legal judgments for many things best left to
individual discretion--records rabbis allowing durations of a week to a month
for such periods of special devotion.[21]
7:6: What is the “concession” (ATP: “permission”) and what is the “commandment”
(ATP: “requirement”) under consideration? In light of his heavy emphasis upon the
typical need of a husband and wife for a sexual relationship (7:1-4), the
“concession” would most naturally be the permission to temporarily avoid
that liaison.[22] On the other hand it is not a requirement of
true spirituality that one engages in such periods of sexually abstinent prayer
(and fasting) at all;[23] hence,
it can’t be regarded as a “commandment” to practice either to this an extreme.
Labeling
the right of married couples to temporarily abstain from sexual relations as a
“concession” rather than a “command” served to reinforce his teaching that this
was permissive rather than obligatory. It also protected against the danger that
his words would be misinterpreted as meaning that the average believer could
not live a truly devout life except by abstaining from all marital sex.[24]
Others interpret the “concession” to be that of returning to one’s normal spousal relationship.[25] Taken this way, there is no “commandment” to return. That interpretation may well have made considerable sense in an age when sexuality was looked upon as
[Page 30] something bordering upon the unholy
and marriage a mere concession to human sin and weakness. Paul’s picture of married sexuality as a
positive good argues that, however much he personally preferred celibacy, he
wasn’t about to expect such of married couples at any point in the relationship.
Yet
a third way to interpret the text is that Paul considers the right to marry
itself to be a “concession” to human needs and weakness.[26] He does not give a “commandment” to anyone
that they marry; he only recognizes the right of all to marry. The fact that Paul immediately wishes, in
verse 8, “that all men were even as I myself” (i.e., single, celibate, and
abstinent; hence the ATP’s “remain single even as I”)
can be introduced as evidence that Paul has in mind recognizing the propriety
of marriage while considering it as a “concession” to our frailty.[27]
Although
Paul happily practiced celibacy, we must take care not to exaggerate its
importance since Paul had equally stressed that it was necessary for
some to marry. In such cases, for them
to do otherwise would have been folly.
For them to attempt celibacy when it was beyond their ability was to
commit an act of self-destruction instead of spiritual betterment. Both celibacy and marriage had
their place. It was simply a matter of
which was better for the specific individual.
7:6: Paul’s preference for celibacy: Preference, not a denigration of those who
chose marriage. Paul’s
preference is often mocked or looked upon with some degree of amusement as that
of a bachelor unable to comprehend the true blessings and joy of marriage.[28] This critique itself grows out of an
inability to comprehend the positive virtues of a celibate life; it reflects
not the inadequacies of the apostle’s world-view but that of the modern world
and its inability to imagine a fulfilled life independent of sexuality.
This
is not to deny that Paul’s own preference for celibacy represented a very
minority opinion, both then and in the following centuries among ethnic Jewish
religious leaders. Very, very few rabbis
opted for it.[29] Rabbi ben Azai was one of that small minority
and he explained his decision, “Why should I marry? I am in love with the Law. Let others see to the prolongation of the
human race.”[30] To him, the two were incompatible options; to
Paul marriage was merely inexpedient and he found nothing to condemn in the
fact that Cephas and the blood kin of Jesus were
married.
The
only religious movement of the era within Judaism that practiced celibacy was
the Essenes[31]
and probably a disproportionate amount of attention has been devoted to
them. Just because of the discovery of
the extremely important Dead Sea Scrolls at
Yet
the fact that celibacy was very much a minority opinion tells us that Paul was
not an individual who permitted popularity of a belief or practice to determine
his own decision. The twin roots of his
convictions were, first, truth as he saw it to be and, secondly, what was the
best means whereby he as an individual could live that truth. To him that route was celibacy, though he
clearly recognized that for many others that would not be the case.
However much marriage was the socially sanctioned ideal in both Jewish and Greek cultures, both sides would certainly have gone as far as to admit that there were
[Page 31] both advantages and disadvantages to
the institution. At least as far back as
the second century before Christ, Posidippus
described one of the various paradoxes involved, “You have a marriage; you will
not live without cares. You do not
marry; you will live a lonely life.”[32]
7:7-8: Was Paul ever married? The text requires that he was not at the
time of his apostolic ministry, but could he have been at some earlier
period? The view is certainly an ancient
one. Clement of
“Companion” translates the
Greek syzrgus and this could be a proper name
(as in the NRSV’s footnote, “loyal Syzrgus”).[33] Working from Clement’s
assumption that “true companion” referred to Paul’s spouse, some Victorian
interpreters took the text as a reference to her “companion” role to Paul
(i.e., as a description) rather than as a name.
As to her identity, they noted
Some argue that the
admonition of verse 8 (to “unmarried” and “widows”) can “only mean that Paul
had never married.”[35] Others argue this won’t fit the actual
wording. The unmarried male or female
was technically a parthenos (= virgin, a term
he uses in
One
of the strongest evidences for a once married apostle is found in Acts 26:10
where Paul confesses (with overtones of an obviously guilty conscience) that “I
shut up in prison [the Christians], having received authority from the chief
priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.” “Cast my vote” can be taken figuratively in
the sense that he approved, endorsed, applauded the
decision.[37] Alternatively (or supplementarily)
it could mean that in his anti-Christian fervor and persecution he manifested
support for those hostile attitudes and actions.[38]
Yet, if taken literally,
then it provides reasonably good evidence that he was a member of the
Sanhedrin, which was composed of “the chief priests” and other top
dignitaries: To be a member of that
institution required that one be married.[39] Hence, if Paul was a member, of necessity, he
was married at the time.
The
Sanhedrin usually considered to be under discussion is that of the Great
Sanhedrin in
Furthermore, even in regard to the Great Sanhedrin, our knowledge of their membership rules date back to decades after Paul. Hence some have cautioned that we must exercise great caution in reading the marriage requirement back to an earlier
[Page 32] period.[41] Although true as far as it goes, the societal
preference and expectation of marriage was so universal and comprehensive in
application,[42] it
would be surprising if a de facto (even if not de jure)
requirement did not already operate at that earlier date for both these local
and the “national” Sanhedrin as well.
The fact that marriage was
normative behavior in Jewish society—as already noted--has itself been
considered to be a major argument in behalf of the premise that Paul himself
had been such prior to his apostleship.
On the other hand, neither Jesus nor John the Baptist had been
married. Hence, however unexpected it
might be, such a choice was not without precedent.[43] Our society has a bias against celibacy but
the high divorce rate argues that, under the proper conditions, celibacy has
much to commend itself as well.[44] If (as some speculate), Paul had, indeed,
been married perhaps he had learned this from his own personal experiences and
difficulties as well.
Be that as it may, if she
were still alive and married to him at the time he wrote Corinthians, Paul’s
defense of his celibacy would have had to be restructured to explain why she
was not with him. If she had died at an
earlier date, it would have been natural for him to introduce that fact later
in the chapter as an encouragement for widowers not to remarry. Finally, if she had been divorced, his own
personal tragedy would have been an obvious example to introduce in the
discussion of that subject. In short,
under any reconstruction, it is hard to see how Paul could have written the
chapter the way he did if he was either married or had been married at any time
prior.
Paul
does not state how and where he learned of the prohibition against unlimited
divorce. Nothing in the terminology
suggests a claim to it having been revealed to him. It may have been part of the oral tradition
he heard from those who had witnessed Jesus’ ministry. More likely, it came from some written form
of Christ’s teaching or ministry that was already in circulation (cf. Luke
1:1-4).[45]
But
if Paul is dealing with a canonical source, which gospel does it come
from? Or does he cite the hypothetical
pre-Synoptic “Q-source” (whose existence is assumed and relied upon in so many
reconstructions of the “prehistory” of the gospels)?[46] Others, more wisely in our judgment, argue
that it is a lost cause: Paul is
providing a summary of Jesus’ teaching rather than making any effort to quote
it.[47]
Paul
does, however, deal with an aspect of the matter that the Synoptics
do not: what if a divorce has occurred
anyway? You can’t change history; what
has happened has happened. However there
would be a way to avoid further sin and he points that out to his readers: “remain unmarried or be reconciled” (
[Page 33] Some have argued that “a startling fact
appears: Paul—in the midst of quoting a
command of the Lord—applies it in such a way as flatly to contradict it! The Lord’s command is: no divorce. But Paul’s ruling is: let the woman divorce and remain single.”[48] Actually Paul says no such thing. He absolutely forbids a wife to “depart from
her husband” (
Others
have torn into the Pauline statement concerning Jesus’ actual teaching on the
grounds that “the historical Jesus cannot possibly have spoken the words that
Paul attributes to Him because He had said nothing about women initiating a
separation.”[49] First of all Paul doesn’t “quote” Jesus’
words so much as summarize its content.
Furthermore, if Jesus had prohibited all divorce by husbands would not
His words equally have ruled out a wife initiating the procedure if she lived
in a situation where that was legally permissible?
However much Paul may be
“adapting” the summation to Greco-Roman conditions—while remaining faithful to
the teaching’s original intent—it is not unreasonable to assume that unofficial
means existed even in the first century whereby a wife could act against a
spouse she considered merciless or otherwise repugnant. Later the practice was to let the wife
petition the rabbis and they could order the husband to grant a divorce,
thereby permitting the legal fiction that he had initiated it. Jesus’ hostility to divorce was hardly likely
to have excluded a repudiation of this “indirect” means of obtaining the same
result—one in which the wife took the initiative. Hence Paul’s words are faithful to the
intention of Jesus’ teaching if not its verbal formulation.[50]
Yet others have chosen to critique
Paul giving the divorced the option of singleness or returning to their original
spouse. This is done on the grounds that
the latter was antithetical to the Old Testament, which forbade such a return
to the original mate (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).[51] Actually the Deuteronomy text refers to a
woman who has been divorced and remarried (24:2) and who then
wishes to return to the original spouse because of either death or a second
divorce (24:3). Only in that case was a
remarriage to the first husband prohibited (24:4).[52] If Paul’s teaching was followed, that
situation which precluded a return to the first spouse would have been
avoided: either she would have remained
unmarried or already been reconciled. No
intervening marriage would have occurred.
7:12-13, 15: In contrast, Paul and “not the Lord” was delivering new instruction to deal with situations of divorce between believers and unbelievers.
One situation Jesus could not deal with during His earthly ministry was the marriage of believer and unbeliever:[53] He was living in a monotheistic society in which polytheists represented not only an alien religious ideology but also a foreign occupier. Although practical considerations argued for reasonable courtesy, only a Jew willing to be considered a reprobate was likely to join in marriage with a pagan. Such a person would have faced the social and ethnic opposition of his countrymen and hence there is
[Page 34] every reason to assume such “mixed”
marriages were very few and far between.[54] When the gospel message spread far and wide
and Gentiles began to enter the church in large numbers, spiritually “mixed
marriages” were the result when one spouse converted and the other did
not. What rules were their
marriages to be bound by?
Lacking
any direct teaching he can cite from “the Lord,” Paul provides his own. Neither the fact that it concerns a matter
not touched upon by Jesus nor the fact that the different cultural situation of
Greek world clearly required an authoritative teaching on the matter, caused
him to invent one and attribute it to Jesus.
The fact that he did not do so on a pressing question such as this
argues strongly that Christians of that generation did not feel it ethical to
invent new sayings of Jesus to meet new situations as they rose.[55]
The
fact that Paul presents his new teaching so clearly and without hedging, argues
he regarded himself as speaking under Divine guidance and that the intended
teaching was clear and unquestionable in intent. Contrast the hedging in his discussion on
celibacy, where there was no law that could properly be bound upon one and
all: 7:7-9,
The
general principle remains the same as in believer-only marriages: no divorce, stay with the unbeliever. But in mixed marriages, we meet with the
Pauline Exception to the permanency of such relationships, “if he is willing to
live with her, let her not divorce him” (
Others
argue that “bondage” should not be read as a reference to the marriage bond or
as a pun indirectly alluding to it.
Interpreted in the more literal sense many insist upon, it would mean,
you “are not in slavery in such cases.”
Paul’s point becomes that one should not feel a slave type “bondage” to remain
in the relationship against our mate’s desire.[56] They are “not ‘under bondage’ (dedoulotai, literally ‘enslaved’) to preserve
the union through legal maneuvers or by pursuing the unwilling partner all over
the
Few
issues are of more contention in religious literature than this one. Explanations for the “bondage” that attempt
to maintain that the marriage bond remains intact are legion. In opposition to this, some make the term a
direct assertion of a remarriage right (i.e., “bondage” must refer, in such a
context, to the marriage bond and its elimination). Others see an allusion to the marriage bond
and how that remaining in that bond would transform it into a
marital bondage: therefore, to
be free of the “bondage” is to be free of the “bond” as well. (Hence the ATP’s
rendering “not required to remain in the bond” to bring out the underlying
concept that the marital bond is being referred to in one of these two
manners.)
In regard to both, the meaning of “bondage” and the broader issue it leads to, some note that since Paul conspicuously does not repeat the admonition to remain single or be reconciled, by that omission he tacitly accepts the right of remarriage. Indeed, “Paul would have been bound in conscience to repeat this command if he had thought
[Page 35] that in this second case to remarry
was either impossible or forbidden or both.”[58]
Others argue that there
was no need to mention it again since he had already ruled out such in regard
to the marriage of Christians in the preceding verses. Since Paul conspicuously emphasizes that he
is dealing with marriage to non-Chrstians and
since the entire line of commentary he provides on the subject is so thoroughly
different, this line of reasoning seems extremely dubious. Such a dramatically different set of
circumstances required any prohibition to be spelled out rather than merely
assumed lest one’s readers be left under an erroneous impression.
Yet others, very
creatively, argue that they should not feel a slavish need to follow his advice
to remain in the marriage even if the partner is willing. In other words, the dictates of good judgment
and love for self and children might require that the individual reject the
policy Paul had advocated.[59]
In a
far different approach, other interpreters take the text to mean that the
believer only now has the right to now break the marriage bond or, alternately,
accept that it has been broken.[60] That most naturally carries with it an
implicit acceptance of the validity of any remarriage.[61] Many, however, concede the propriety of the
divorce but insist that it comes at a price, the loss of any right to remarry.[62] That, it should be noted, is without
precedent in either testament: the
legitimacy of one implied the right of the other (as in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, for
example).
Others
tell us it is only a grudging willingness to permit the separation and nothing
more.[63] In the real world, when one’s partner has
decided to leave, it is no longer a matter of “let[ting]”
them go[64]--they
have already decided on that already--but of how we are to respond to their leaving. Paul is concerned with the latter and not the
former. To speak of being at “liberty”
in such a context invariably suggests the right to exercise that liberty
through remarriage. On the other hand,
Paul makes no explicit remark directly asserting such a right and this has led
many to deny that he had any remarriage right in his mind in the language he
utilizes.[65]
This same reasoning is not applied, however, to the primary Old Testament passage on divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4. There the remarriage right of the put away party is directly asserted and there is absolutely no mention of any sort of the right of the initiator of the divorce to remarry. Yet one would be hard pressed to find any interpreter anywhere who has every denied that the man who had initiated the divorce possessed such a right.
Finally, the question
arises of why Paul needed to address these matters at all. It seems inherently likely that at least some
of the Christians who were converted lacked spouses that joined them in the new
faith. So the problem would certainly
have arisen at an early date and quite likely while the apostle was still among
them.
Hence
it has been suggested that Paul would have had to deal with it at least in
passing. On the other hand, the
unbeliever likely considered the new allegiance a passing fancy and that the
spouse would soon lose interest and return to the traditional gods. Given the passage of time and the refusal to
do this, the issue could have become contentious and explosive to a degree that
it had never been earlier.[66]
This scenario is certainly a reasonable one, as far as it goes. After Paul left the city, one would anticipate further additions to the faith and further cases of mixed-faith marriages. The natural question then would be whether Paul had meant the earlier
[Page 36] teaching to be fixed and definitive or whether it had applied only in the immediate few cases. In addition, the factionalism within the church could have left even the early converts wondering whether Paul’s teaching on the subject should continue to be accepted. Hence Paul had to lay out in clear-cut fashion that his teaching remained the same and needed to be accepted as authoritative.
Some argue that the implicit view here is of the family as a unit: the good of one prospers all, just as the evil of one negatively impacts all. Introduced as evidence is the case of Achan’s thievery in Joshua 7, which led not only to his own death but that of his entire family as well.[68] The case is certainly a good example of the phenomena of how one family member’s behavior can have a disastrous “fall out” on the lives of all the others.
On the other hand, why shouldn’t the negative impact of the rejecter of Yahweh’s will result in the spiritual destruction of the Christian just as Achan’s thievery resulted in the physical destruction of his kin? Hence this interpretive approach is as easily adapted to the required breakup of the marriage as to its preservation. More would seemingly have to be in Paul’s mind, if this aspect was present at all.
The language
is that of ceremonial purity: “unclean”
as versus “clean” (such as in foods).[69] Hence the terms “sanctified” and “holy”
should be interpreted most directly in such terms rather than salvational ones.
(Although Paul encouraged the hope that the latter would ultimately
become true as well: verse 16). They have, so to speak, been set apart for
God’s service—the root concept of the two terms—by their marital relationship
with a believer.[70] They are, for example, fulfilling a holy and
honorable calling by their marriage.
As applied to children,[71]
if the marital relationship were inherently unethical and immoral, then a child
was “unclean” and lacked “true” legitimacy even if one’s husband were the
father. Paul repudiates applying such
concepts to the family; such offspring were to be counted as “holy” and the
relationship to the husband as one “sanctified” by God. The relationships are legitimate, honorable,
recognized by God. Hence one can not
rightly permit the faith/disbelief divide to destroy that which, in itself,
would be proper and respectable.
It is intriguing that in
verse 14 he presents an argument in reverse:
because the children are holy, therefore the relationship
with the husband must be as well.
Otherwise “holy” children could not have been produced at all.[72] It is speculative, but not far fetched, that
there were those who conceded the holiness of the children but not the marriage
and Paul is turning their double standard against them.
The real world consequences
of viewing children as “holy.”
[Page 37] to little reason for most women to
regard marriage as anything more than a terrible burden they had to carry.
In
such a context, children were hardly likely to be viewed in a positive light by
most people most of the time. They were
simply another obligation to be borne.
Add in abortion and the killing of infants and the maintenance of the
population level was seriously compromised.
Indeed, since female children were more likely to be abandoned to die
after birth than male, even the available supply of women to be wives was
seriously endangered. Estimates for the
proportion of males to females: 131 to
100 (
Societal
inclination was reinforced by catastrophe.
In the second century under Marcus Aurelius there was a fifteen year
epidemic (quite possibly the first western appearance of smallpox). This gutted the empire: likely between a quarter and a third of the
population died.[77] Even if we lower this to a more modest 5-10%,
the social and psychological devastation are self-evident.
In 251 another widespread
plague hit—this time measles is the suspected villain.[78] Based on contemporary accounts, 5,000 a day
died in
In
light of this declining population, the Romans turning to the “barbarians”
outside the Empire makes considerable sense:
they assured manpower for the legions and a population to fill empty
land. Hence when Marcus Aurelius in the
second century actively recruited such individuals and gave them land, he was
not so much beginning to surrender the Empire to outside negative influences as
desperately seeking a way to maintain the Empire by obtaining badly
needed manpower.[80] (A twentieth century analogy would be Germany
encouraging Turks to immigrate to provide factory labor in the 1960s and 1970s
only to discover that the importation of workers created long term social
tensions that had the potential for dramatically changing the very nature of
the German republic.)
The
Pauline insistence upon children being holy—even when one of the parents was a
nonbeliever—introduced an important new dynamic: Children were now a desirable result of
marriage rather than something to be avoided.
This
represented a dramatic reversal in at least three areas:
1. Birth control. Although “having children” was certainly not
the same as having “an unlimited number of children,” it reversed where the
emphasis lay.[81] No longer would the bias be against having
children but in its favor.
2. Abortion.[82] Economics might motivate such: poverty or, at the other end of the
socio-economic totem pole, the desire not to split the family wealth among
multiple male inheritors. Women’s
minimal rights situation meant that it could just as easily be the husband demanding
the abortion as the wife desiring it.[83] The motivations for aborting would still
exist for a Christian but the recognition that the new child should be regarded
as “holy” would present a major psychological impediment to following that
course.
[Page 38] 3.
Infanticide. Unwanted babies
were either abandoned (though they might be fortunate enough that someone
wanting a child would discover the infant before it died) or outright
drowned. Even the historian Tacitus could dismiss that the Jewish belief that it was “a
deadly sin to kill an unwanted child” as an example of the “sinister and
revolting” beliefs of the Jews.[84] Believing a child was “holy” inevitably
carried the idea of keeping them alive.
And since Paul speaks in
terms of “children”—with no gender specification—those who embraced his
teaching as the ethical norm would inevitably attempt to preserve the lives of
their female children rather than regard them as disposable nuisances. As time went by and the Christian population
increased, this would mean that an ever growing number of non-Christians,
if they wished to marry at all, would have to consider marrying a
believer. In turn, that would at least
increase the number of males with a vested interest in not interfering with the
Christian movement and even provide large scale fodder for conversion and the
raising of a new generation of children pre-disposed by training and
environment toward the faith.
In short, Paul’s teaching
on the “holiness” of children to us may seem like only an abstract theological
issue. But once one grants the validity
of his position, it represents nothing short of a call for a revolutionary
change in the dominant attitude toward marriage, childbearing, and the
desirability of having children.
On
the other hand one is going too far in saying that “the only reason” Paul
desires to see the marriage preserved is the possibility of conversion.[85] Paul had already stressed the legitimacy of
the marriage: how both were “sanctified”
(set apart) for each other even before conversion (
The words can be interpreted in two different ways: the minimalist interpretation is that you might convert your spouse; the maximalist that you likely will. The former might be called the “pessmistic” scenario (i.e., a reason to accept the reality of the divorce since converting the mate is somewhere between only a possible outcome and an outright unrealistic prospect). The latter might be labeled the “optimistic” scenario (i.e., to remain in the marriage if you possibly can because the conversion is a very real possibility).[86]
Paul’s realism in this
chapter in recognizing that the course for one person might not be the best for
another, argues that the ambiguity as to conversion is intentional: the person must judge the prospects by his or
her own specific situation rather than by an absolute rule. But that would not necessarily be an
encouragement to divorce even in the “pessimistic” reading because Paul’s
underlining argument is clearly: save
the marriage if you can. Hence one would
act to do so even though one recognized that the chance of changing
religion seemed minimum. Realism rules, but hope stays alive.
Others interpret “save” in reference not to eternal destiny at all but in relationship
[Page 39] to the survival of the marriage. By determinedly and constructively remaining
in the relationship, the mate’s hostility may be diluted and the threat to the
marriage removed that was posed by polytheistic hostility to the new faith.[87] Both thoughts could have been in Paul’s mind,
though, if this were the case, it is hard to avoid the feeling that the salvational use of the term was primary.
Since one might feel the desire or even moral
obligation to free one’s bondsmen and women under certain circumstances, methods
of doing so were well established.[92] One could not compel an owner to grant
freedom, though one might attempt to encourage him to do so; one could only react
to the offer. (An owner was hardly
likely to free someone who had no interest in it!)
What then does Paul mean in regard to their response when he encourages slaves, “if you can be made free, rather use it”? Our modern abhorrence of slavery automatically inclines us to take “use it” as equivalent of “use it to become free.” Many take the text very differently, that one was to remain as a slave. Indeed, this interpretation is at least as old as Chrysostom.[93]
There was a time when I mocked this approach for who would not want to be free? On the other hand Paul was interested in preserving stability “because of the present distress” (7:26, discussed below) and one can imagine circumstances when there was more protection in being the slave of a rich owner--and thereby at least partially protected by his own self-interest--than in being free and enjoying no protection from such “distress.” In slavery one had at least the proverbial roof over the head and food to drink; as a freedman he might have nothing.[94]
Furthermore, Paul advises the never married to remain single and the widowed to stay unmarried. Hence it would be fully consistent with these assertions for Paul to recommend that the slave remain a slave. Indeed, throughout the entire chapter the emphasis is on remaining in one’s current earthly situation or status--whatever it may be.[95]
On
the other hand, Paul is amazingly terse in making his remark. Is it because he recognized that while the
principle would apply here, human nature’s search for freedom would make the
desire for stable social relationships unusually difficult to apply? Be that as it may, Paul emphasized that
change was not inherently sinful--ill-advised, even unwise, but not sinful (cf.
Furthermore, as Robertson and Plummer observe, Paul “says, ‘Rather make use of it.’ Make use of what? Surely . . . the possibility of becoming free. This was the last thing mentioned; and ‘make use of’ suits a new condition better than the old condition of slavery.”[96] F. F. Bruce opts for the choose freedom interpretation “partly because it is
[Page 40]
supported by the tense (aorist) of the imperative ‘use’ (Greek, chresai), which implies not the continuing of an
established attitude but the response to a new turn of events, and partly
because this interpretation is more in line with the principle of verse 23,
‘become not bondservants of men.’ ”[97] Elisabeth S. Fiorenza
similarly utilizes verse 23’s condemnation of becoming slaves to others as indicating
that Paul encouraged slaves to seek their freedom if opportunity came their
way.[98]
The
weight of the evidence causes me to continue to believe (though not as
emphatically as in the past) that Paul is embracing the selection of freedom
when it becomes available.[99] Whether one selects this interpretation or
the one rejecting the freedom option will play a role in how one renders the
verse into English. The pro-freedom
interpreter is likely to leave a clear indication suggesting a positive decision,
while the pro-status quo interpreter is likely to prefer a reading that is
vaguer and leaves the issue uncertain or unclear.[100] (We opt for a clear-cut affirmative response
in the ATP, “But if you can gain your freedom, take advantage of the opportunity.”)
Of
course, it may be that Paul intentionally left his language ambiguous,[101]
thereby preserving the maximum freedom of interpretation and action by the
reader. Such would certainly be
appropriate if (as in most of the subjects covered in the chapter), Paul is “strongly recommending” rather than “demanding” a
given course of action. Yet in those
other cases, Paul made his preference clear even when disowning them as an
absolute essential. Hence one would
expect in the matter of slavery for his counsel to be clear-cut, even if hedged
with the admission that another course might well be proper in a given person’s
circumstances.
It
is often assumed that Paul’s moral code grew out of the conviction that Jesus
would be soon returning. One such
scholar asserts, “In view of the short time left before the Day of the Lord,
all Christians have better things to preoccupy them than such worldly matters
as changing their marital status.”[102] Another speaks of how Paul’s convictions on
these matters grew out of the belief that this was “the final generation of world
history.”[103] If so, we must, at the minimum, re-evaluate
the continued appropriateness of the teaching found in the chapter and,
perhaps, modify or even reject segments of it.[104]
This approach faces the immediate difficulty of determining how and where the teachings would have been altered or modified if a longer survival of the cosmos had been contemplated by the apostle. If he believed these forms of behavior were appropriate, desirable, and even essential to “prepare for the return,” would that not be true even if the return date were actually further away than he expected? To speak in terms of human weakness and limitations requiring modifications in a longer-term context overlooks the fact that this epistle bears brutal witness that such weaknesses and limitations were already present in abundance even during Paul’s ministry--and yet he
[Page 41] saw no need to modify his instruction.
Unfortunately
for the “interim” interpretation Paul directly asserts a reason for such status
quo living and it is very different: he
calls it “the present distress” (see discussion of the meaning below: this can hardly be cover language for the Parousia itself since the return is pictured as a time of
joy for Christians rather than discomfort.
Events preceding it might or might not be disconcerting but the return
itself, emphatically a cause for jubilation).[105] Even if one limits the language to the coming
judgment on
The problem of adversity
and its familial impact interlocks with another reason as well: what will most further
the individual’s spirituality. For Paul
it was celibacy, for others he says it would be marriage. Likewise widows were advised to remain
unmarried, but there was no sin if they chose to marry. This has nothing to do with the return of
Jesus but with the emotional and character development of the individual and
the specific means utilized to accomplish it.
Paul
was candid enough to recognize and write in this chapter that what would be
best theoretically (celibacy) might be a stumbling block in a different
person--someone with different psychological and physical needs. It is an insight applicable to any age. As is that of the
desirability of holding to the same marital or non-marital status quo in a
temporary period of instability, unrest, and danger. It is summed up in the one word “prudence.”
Although
the imminent Parousia scenario is often asserted
without any effort at textual support--as if an inevitable and absolutely
certain “given” in interpreting the chapter--various scholars do attempt to
enhance the appeal of the reconstruction by the introduction of specific
verses. Even when this is done, these
are usually introduced in passing and with minimum elaboration because the
interpretation is considered so secure as to be beyond challenge. For example it is common to find it argued
that a belief in the “imminent end of the world” is taught in
An
attempt is made to avoid this problem by referring the expression to the period
of distress that precedes the return in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.[107] Even assuming that the analysis of those
parallel accounts require this (and, in my judgment, the distress references
make far more contextual sense as referring to the fall of Jerusalem and events
in Palestine and nowhere else), there is nothing in 1 Corinthians 7 to suggest
that this distress is the same one.
Are we to believe that a period of calamity could not occur to early
Christians without them feeling it had to be the one (allegedly)
preceding the second coming? Were they
so limited in their realism that, by the date of Paul’s epistle, they did not
know of Christians in one place or another who had gone through rough periods
because of their faith or world conditions in general?
Others appeal to
[Page 42] brethren, the time is short, so that
from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, those
who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not
rejoice those who buy as though they did not possess, and those who use this
world as not misusing it” (7:29-31a).
Since
Paul has already conditioned his teaching upon it being a period of “distress,”
it would be appropriate to interpret this language in accordance with that
image: facing the Corinthians was a
period of uncertainty and instability in which people would face possibly
revolutionary changes in their earthly status and well being. Some would lose wives; some who owned
property would be denied its possession.
On the other hand there were those currently suffering who would cease
to “weep.” Uncertainty was the only
certainty. To change one’s current earth
status in such a situation was a risky endeavor and to be undertaken only with
the greatest caution.
The
closing words of
Evidence
from later in the book is also appealed to.
The moral-historical lessons Paul cites in chapter 10 were recorded, he
tells us, “as examples” and warnings “for our admonition upon whom the ends of
the ages have come.” The last words are
interpreted as equivalent to “last days”, i.e., as an indication that the world
is soon to come to an end.[111] By citing these ancient examples, however,
Paul is stressing the continuity of certain fundamental moral and
ethical standards through all ages.
How then could Paul be introducing teaching in chapter 7 solely or
primarily because the Parousia was soon coming when
he so firmly believed that basic behavioral requirements were still the
same?
Whatever
Paul believed about the imminence of the Parousia--and
in what sense--should be considered in the analysis of the individual texts
that mention the subject. Introducing
the theme into 1 Corinthians 7, however, is without justification from anything
the apostle has to say. Therefore we
conclude that his convictions on the matter did not affect the counsel he was
providing.
Likewise the word “distress” can carry that specific connotation, but it can also bear the less intense significations of “necessity” and “pressure.”[114] Hence, it can carry a minimal meaning of a period of great tension and as severe an implication as one of overt personal danger.[115] Neither would represent an auspicious occasion for marriage or any
[Page 43] other dramatic change in one’s
relationships.
The belief that Paul has
in mind “the imminent Parousia” (i.e., Christ’s
return) is a common view.[116] Since it was discussed previously, we need
refer to it here only as it directly affects the present question before moving
on to other interpretive options. Paul tears into them
repeatedly not because they are about “to have the book thrown at them”
by their ultimate judge—and endure the “distress” that grows out of Divine
condemnation--but because the behavior he criticizes is inherently wrong. He would not, of course, have denied that
there would be repercussions in that final judgment but that is not the pillar
of his argument and any reference to it is (very) inferential at best.
Furthermore, the
“distress” that is assumed to be under discussion is normally not the distress
that comes after the divine settling of accounts (i.e. for the wicked =
eternal punishment), but the “distress” (in the common interpretation of
Matthew 24 and its parallels) that comes before the Parousia. When presented to Christians, the central
image of the Parousia, however, is normally a
positive one that will not fit well into this context: that event would be viewed as blessed relief
from distress rather than being distress itself or being so irrevocably
tied into it as being inseparable.
What then might Paul be concerned about?
There
is nothing in 1 Corinthians indicating that there was a currently
hostile environment against the Christian community—certainly not anything
particularly significant or threatening.
Would they have dared to so freely resort to the civil law courts if
there were (chapter 6)? Likewise the
reference to strangers visiting in the assembly (
Anti-Christian
persecution[118] would
be one obvious form of distress that would encourage maintaining the status quo
in life and that would strongly challenge the wisdom of entering marriage. It is a situation that one can not control and
there can be few things more heart-wrenching than to see pain and anguish--even
death--inflicted upon someone we love and not be able to stop it. It would similarly be gut-wrenching than to
know that one must remain faithful to one’s religious commitment when one’s
spouse has repudiated it and is encouraging you to do so as well.
Paul
may not have anything nearly this dramatic in mind. Rather it may be something much more mundane,
yet still very difficult to handle.
Being a (proportionately) small group of dissenters living in a huge
city created an on-going sense of pressure and unease even when the outward
forms of normalcy were continued.[119] To the extent that Christian monotheism would
be tolerated because of that granted to Jewish monotheism, believers could
expect being looked down upon because of that Jewish connection. To the extent they were viewed as a clearly
separate community, the greater the danger of overt action because they lacked
similar explicit protections. This
created a sense of living on the edge of a volcano that could explode when and
if it pleased.
In
such an environment the very act of surviving was a faith-based act of
defiance
[Page 44] against a world that could
come down upon it at any moment. It was
to live in a constant atmosphere of real or potential “distress” against which
there was no protection except a robust faith in God. Paul appears to have felt this way even
before he had first preached in
He
conspicuously does not claim that any had died for the faith, that any had been imprisoned, that any had been
physically endangered. This silence
would be startling if such had occurred.
Hence Paul is revealing the underlying tension that always existed for
Christian monotheists in the
Depending upon what
chronology one ultimately adopts for the apostle Paul’s life, First Corinthians
was written sometime between 51 and 57, with the prevalent time frame being
56-57 (see the discussion of dating in chapter 1). One
major area of repeated distress for the Corinthian population as a whole,
during the decade Paul wrote, involved the very real danger of food
shortages. As Brian S. Rosner observes,[120]
Extant
evidence for grain shortages in the East during the forties and fifties
includes the testimony of Eusebius, Pliny, Suetonius
and several strands of non-literary evidence.
Tiberius Claudius Dinippus was three times
curator of the grain supply in
The primary reason it is
tempting to interpret Paul in these terms lies in the fact that we know the
threat existed not just through the region but in
In times of scarcity the
desire to find a scapegoat is highly tempting.
As a monotheistic “deviant” group, Christians could easily have roused
the public eye for “bringing” the calamity upon the community. On the other hand, the apostle words his
warning in broad enough terminology that it aptly covers both this situation
and any other catastrophe that might come their way. Whether Paul had such a period of food shortages
in mind or not, he clearly saw “the hand writing on the wall:” the signs were clear that bad times
were coming upon their city that would be a far cry from their current
tranquil situation.
But there were other potential sources of disruption as well,
especially as we move into the next decade, the 60s. When Nero committed suicide in June 68
(knowing
[Page 45] overthrow and
execution were inevitable), he was a mere thirty-one years old. In 54 he became ruler and in 59 ordered the
murder of his mother. In 60 the Icini in
The major earthquake that leveled
In a desperate effort to transfer public anger, he began a major series
of executions of Christians, blaming them for having started the fire. The scale of the executions, their barbarity,
and the emperor’s brazen insistence upon moving forward on his massive palace
did little to remove the underlying suspicion as to who really caused the
fire.
In 66, the first great Jewish Revolt began that would last until 70
A.D. Since at least 64, Nero’s artistic
aspirations had grown ever greater. He
planned a tour of
Part of this time he spent in
On the other hand, would any Corinthian (or Grecian) Christian with any
rationale political sense at all have not been “holding his breath” during
Nero’s extended stay? He could do good,
yes, but his behavior was also that of a youthful “loose canon,” arrogant,
self-centered, and determined not to take responsibility. He had proven his willingness to gut the
Christian community in
“Distress” might not actually be occurring—but his very presence
made it a constant thundercloud over the life of every Christian so long as he
remained in
[Page 46]
7:36-38: Is a father/daughter or the future wife/husband under consideration? The idea of “virginity” does not come easily to the modern western world. It is uncomfortable with it. Yet there are more virgins than individuals who would like to admit to being such . . . and even more older ones who would never want the label to be applied to them--in our strangely distorted society it would sound too much like a smear, as if the woman had somehow “failed” in life. In the first century, respect for virginity was far more widespread. There were plenty of males seeking to remove the condition, but it was accepted as a reality of life that the male might begrudge but would still respect it.
Our text presents us with a major interpretive problem: Is Paul discussing the treatment of one’s daughter or the woman a man has postponed marrying? (In passing it should not be missed that there is no sexual double standard: Paul is assuming that the would-be spouse--if such is under consideration--will be living the same restrained life expected of a future wife.)
The fiancée-betrothed scenario:[126] If this is the subject matter, then the two
individuals are beyond the age when the marriage would have been expected to
occur. In Greek culture of this era, a
woman married young. Typically it would
be before she turned sixteen. In
contrast men married relatively late, around thirty years of age.[127] (For specifics see the final section of this
entry, below.)
Several
phrases seem to point in the direction of a suitor and his would-be wife. To
this commentator at least, the phrase “thinks he is behaving improperly
(ATP: acting improperly) toward his
virgin” (
Likewise
the description of the one who declines to marry as one “who stands steadfast
(ATP: firm) in his heart” and one who
has “no necessity, but has power (ATP:
full control) over his own will” (
The father-daughter scenario (or, if the father is dead, guardian-daughter scenario):[128] In verse 38, the father seems in mind: it is “he who gives her in marriage” and his not needing to do so is viewed as the better option. But can this be true of the preceding verses as well?
In a non-sexual sense one can see how a parent might feel that he is “behaving improperly toward” his daughter since she has “past the flower of youth” and has not yet married (verse 36). After all, seeking and finding an appropriate spouse was a societal obligation of the parents. On the other hand, the future spouse could also feel uncomfortable over a prolonged postponement of the marriage as well: The “flower of youth” (ATP: “her normal marriageable age”) was passing her by. The chance of having children was, accordingly, dropping. Besides, having made the betrothal did not one have a moral commitment to carry it out? Such could easily produce guilt feelings.
It is harder to deal with a father-daughter situation when dealing with the words, “having no necessity, but has power over his own will” (verse 37).[129] Of course, a betrothal was considered a binding commitment. Hence, if the other side insisted, the father might, indeed be faced with the “necessity” of going along with it. In such a case
[Page 47] he would have lost “power over his own will” due to the commitment made long before. Even so this seems a needless interpretive “reach.”
The
offspring is described as a “virgin” rather than as a “daughter” and it has
been argued that this would be an unexpected usage if a father-daughter
situation is under discussion.[130] On the other hand, a father expected and
demanded that his daughter be a virgin and as she got older the continuation of
that status could present a real concern to him. The fact that the woman is older
(“past the flower of youth,”
What we have, most likely, is a discussion in which both situations are involved. Verses 36 and 37 discuss it from the standpoint of the would-be husband, while verse 38 discusses the involvement of the father.
That
a father is concerned with his daughter’s marriage (and choice of suitor) is
still common in our age when children have effective independence at an
incredibly early age. It is, however, an
ancient anxiety as well. Sirach 41:9 refers to how, “A daughter is a treasure that
keeps her father wakeful, and worry over her drives away rest: lest she pass her prime unmarried, or when
she is married, lest she be disliked” (cf. verses 10-14, NAB).
(In
the ATP we have, as such translations as the NRSV, glossed over the difficulty
created by the more literalistic renderings that walk in the steps of the
KJV. In favor of the latter, however, is
that it perpetuates the ambiguity in the original—perhaps even intentionally
present in the original so it could cover the maximum number of
situations. Against utilizing the
rendering is that very ambiguity, i.e., what in the world does the text
mean? Surely he has in mind something
specific!)
There are two additional popular explanations that deserve attention before we pass on to other matters.
The non-sexual “marriage” scenario. Archibald M. Hunter argues that the apostle is discussing “spiritual marriages” and then explains, “This was the curious custom whereby a man and woman lived together as brother and sister and not as man and wife.”[132] In such cases, the relationship would never be consummated.[133] Historical evidence of such a practice first appears in the latter part of the second century.[134] Barring very strong evidence in its behalf (which does not exist), it is wisest to conclude that those who project this theory to mid-first century are guilty of an anachronism.[135]
Perhaps
the strongest evidence in favor of “spiritual marriages” in
In this reconstruction, a traditionally married couple has transformed the marriage into something very different (where the non-sexual relationship was pre-eminent and the sexual non-existent)—either by mutual agreement from the time of their marriage or, more likely, by such an agreement after having lived in a “normal” marriage for a period of time.[137] This was not due to physical inability or disease but out of a misguided definition of true spirituality. Even if we read the text in this manner, it would also put Paul firmly on record against it. He would hardly be likely to be reversing this stance at the end of the chapter.
In
addition, in
[Page 48] officially married to each other: “let them marry,” Paul commands (
Indeed,
Irenaeus later noted how easily it provided a pretext
to disguise a male’s own unscrupulous intentions. Referring to the Valentians
in particular, he speaks of how some, “pretend to live in all modesty with
[women] as with sisters, [but] have in course of time been revealed in their
true colors, when the sister has been found with child by her pretended
brother.”[138] The nature of the sexual drive, of course,
would have made this a serious danger even if the relationship were entered
into with honorable intentions.
Although more mundane and down to earth, the theory of a levirate marriage situation is extraordinarily unlikely as well. In this situation, the nearest kinsman was to marry the widow so that the dead kinsman’s family name and lineage could be perpetuated (Deuteronomy 25:5-1).
Making this interpretation fit the text poses major difficulties. In 7:36 the woman is called a “virgin” (NKJV; NAB), a very literal translation which the NRSV concedes in a footnote is the actual word utilized though the translators substitute “fiancée,” since they believe that is who is under discussion. The GW prefers “virgin daughter” (which the NKJV provides as a footnote alternative).
“Virgin”
is not the equivalent of “widow.”[139] Furthermore, there is not the slightest
indication that the death of anyone has occurred. Nor would one expect the question of levirate
marriage to be of major concern in an overwhelmingly Gentile city such as
The real life repercussions if a
husband/wife late marriage is under consideration.
Romans
usually married very young girls. Dio Cassius spoke of how, “Girls are considered . . . to
have reached marriageable age on completion of their twelfth year.”[140] This was Roman law itself; however there was
no punishment decreed by it, which meant it represented more the preference
rather than the obligation.[141] Legal commentaries took two views of
marriages under twelve: one was that it
should be considered a kind of “engagement” period until the proper legal age
was reached; another view was that she became the “legitimate” wife when she
turned twelve.[142] Hence it is no great surprise that the well
known Octavia married when eleven; Agrippina at 12; Tacitus’ wife was 13.[143]
Paul
was clearly more receptive to what we would call an “older” marrying age than
an earlier one. Indeed, our text
stresses explicitly only the older marrying age of the female. Did Paul’s advise the general adoption of a
more mature marital age as the standard?
Obviously the surviving data does not go back this far. The inscriptional data
[Page 49] from
the early Roman centuries for which marrying age and religion of the woman
could be determined, however, yields these results: Those marrying under age 13, 20% of pagans
(7% Christians), 13-14 years of age, 24% vs. 13%; 15-17, 19% versus 32%, 18 or
older, 37% vs. 48%.[144] In short, females married older than
non-believers as Paul preferred in 1 Corinthians 7. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that
Paul’s admonition had a far broader “fall out” than merely dealing with the
contemporary situation; he created a mind frame on the subject that
significantly moved the female marrying age to one where both partners were
more physically and psychologically prepared for the responsibilities they were
to undertake.
But
there is a limitation: it must be
“only in the Lord” (
If
this was the intent, it certainly had Old Testament precedent on its
behalf. Although Jews did
sporadically marry Gentiles (as the book of Ruth shows), this was uncommon. Ezra went so far as to break up such
marriages (Ezra 9:1-4; cf. Nehemiah
If the remarriage right
was limited to fellow believers, the inherent logical foundation for the
prohibition would seemingly exclude the believer from (at least normally)
marrying a non-Christian in the first marriage as well.[148] Paul himself, in
If it be argued that Paul
is only intending to approve of existing (rather than future) marriages
in
Hence if the legitimacy of
marriage with unbelievers concerns him, surely it would be spelled out in the
current context: Would he not have
written something along the line of, “Although it is honorable and proper to be
married to a non-believer if it happened before one’s own conversion, one
should never enter into such a relationship afterwards. Therefore, the widowed should marry only in
the Lord.”
[Page 50] Yet
such language is conspicuously avoided in both contexts. If it actually exists in
regard to the second marriage that leaves us in some perplexity about why the
restriction would be imposed in such a situation.
Of
course a first marriage is normally at a younger age, when one’s passions and
desires are more likely to rule than one’s intellect. The typical marital time for women was in the
range of twelve to fifteen years of age[149]
(cf. the analysis in the last entry), meaning that widows in the church were
not necessarily beyond what we today consider middle age. Theoretically, at least, when one has been
married a number of years one should have learned a sufficient number of the demerits
of such relationships to recognize that celibacy does have some major
advantages after all. And if one is
to remarry, marrying a fellow believer with the same convictions on faith and
practice is going to make life far more comfortable than dealing with someone
to whom it is all a new and strange phenomena.
Finally,
it should be noted that in Romans 7:3 Paul discusses how that if a woman is a
widow “she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.” Another “man,” not a
Christian in particular.[150] It is, of course possible, that that issue is
sufficiently distant from his main subject of concern that it goes unmentioned
as an unuseful diversion. Yet it is exactly the wording one
would expect if one did not interpret 1 Corinthians 7 as requiring such a
limitation in remarriage.
Another
approach is to make this a time-limited one: It was a Christian only requirement because
they lived in a time of “distress” that necessitated making their conduct
extremely cautious (1 Corinthians
One
last approach needs consideration. One
could argue that the intended interpretation is along the lines of “she must
remember her Christian commitment if she enters into another marriage.”[152] Alternate ways of coming to the same basic
conclusion is to take only in the Lord as equivalent to “in the fear of the
Lord” or “in a Christian way.”[153] Yet another individual cites the use of “in
the Lord” in Ephesians 6:1 and Colossians 3:18 to mean “obeying God’s will . .
. Therefore Paul is telling the
Corinthians that when a spouse dies, they are free to marry whomever they
choose, according to the laws that God has given.”[154] They are to “only” marry those whom it would
be acceptable to God to marry. (For
example, would God, for example, be all that thrilled about the desire to marry
a drunk, heavy drug user, or abuser in the hope to “help them get better” or
would He consider it ill advised or delusional?)
[Page 51] whose spouses have died he again calls
it his “judgment” and reinforces its reliability by the self-depreciating
remark, “I think I also have the Spirit of God” (
Does
Paul mean to imply that in regard to these subjects he lacked the inspiration
he claimed in
Even
this, however, does not necessarily have to be the case. As one reads the words “I think I also have
the Spirit of God” (
Notes
[1]
Yarbrough, n. 17, pp. 94-95, quotes Aristotle’s Politics 1335 b 40 as
evidence.
[2] For
example, Blomberg, 132; Getty, 1113; Hargreaves,
78; Kugelman, 263; Graydon
F. Snyder, 91; Vanderwaal, 18; Donald J. Selby, Introduction
to the New Testament: “The Word Became
Flesh” (New York: Macmillan, 1971), 360.
[3] Grollenberg,
114.
[4] Mackin, Marriage, 55. In a later and longer work entitled The
Marital Sacrament.
Marriage in the Catholic Church (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press,
1989), 65-66, Mackin argues similarly but later notes
that in verse 7 Paul embraces celibacy (66) but does not deal with how this
would affect the interpretation of verse 1.
When he gets to verse 8 (67) he concedes that this might be an
indication of a pro-celibacy stance in verse 1 but argues that Paul is only
expressing a relative preference rather than an absolute one.
[5] Schreiner, 419.
[6] Ibid.
[7] J. CarolLaney, “Paul and
the Permanence of Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7.”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Volume 25, Issue
3, September 1982), 284; at:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/
[8] Roetzel, Paul, Fifth Edition,
14. Roetzel
seems to give this the highest priority in Paul’s motives; I would hesitate to
go that far, but it might well be the motive that the Corinthians would
understand the easiest.
[10] Ibid.
[12] Schreiner, 51.
[13] Bruce, Corinthians,
67.
[14] Mackin, Marital Sacrament, 67.
[15] Ibid.
[16] As
quoted by Bruce, Corinthians, 67, and Orr and Walther, 206.
[17] For
examples and quotations, see J. Massingberd Ford, Trilogy,
47-52. Fitzmyer, Corinthians,
281, notes this as a characteristic of the later stage of rabbinic tradition.
[18] As
quoted by Yarbrough, 100.
[19] As
quoted by Boring, Berger, and Colpe, 408.
[20] As
quoted by Yarbrough, n. 32, p. 100.
[21] Bruce, Corinthians,
67.
[22] Ibid.; Hargreaves, 82; Hering, 50; Lenski, 280; Talbert,
39; and James M. Efird, Marriage and Divorce: What the Bible Says (Nashville,
Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1985), 73.
[23] Ruef, 55.
[24] Byrne, 21.
[25] Weiss, Commentary,
188-189.
[26]
Bratcher, Guide, 58, and Moffatt, 76-77.
[27] Kugelman, 263.
[28] For example, Hunter, 110.
[29] Selby, 359.
[30] As
quoted by Barclay, 77.
[33] Polhill, 42.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Kugelman, 263.
[36] See the
discussion of the significance of the use of agamos
in Snyder, 95, where he argues that the term agamos
“hardly ever means a person never married.”
[37] Raymond Bryan Brown, 329, and Harris, 94.
[38] Cf. Howard,
63.
[39] Raymond
Bryan Brown, 329. Both the date of the
married rule and whether the relevant Talmudic text (Sanhedrin 36b) has
been correctly interpreted have been questioned. See Robertson and Plummer, 138.
[40]
[41] Charles
R. Swindoll, Practical Helps for a Hurting
Church: A Study of 1 Corinthians
6:12-11:34 (Fullerton, California:
Insights for Living, 1988), 10.
[42] Makin, Marital
Sacrament, 66. For rabbinic
texts stressing the need for marriage, see the quotations and discussions in J.
Massingberd Ford, Trilogy, 43-46. The male was expected to marry by around age
eighteen though a delay of two years or so was considered understandable in
special cases if scriptural study were the reason (43-44).
[43] For a
concise evaluation of these arguments, see Charles R. Swindoll,
9-10.
[44] Ibid., 25.
[45] On the
source of Paul’s knowledge of the teaching, see Mare, 229.
[46] For a
discussion of the possibilities, see Collins, 33-33.
[47] Ibid., 33.
[48] David
L. Dungan, The
Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul:
The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971),
82. He repeats the same assertion on
page 93. He promises (n. 1, p. 93) to
explain why this happens on pages 132f.
When one looks there, however, one finds the assertion that Paul has
given “a quick, short-hand excerpt of it plus application” (133). But if it is a valid application how
can one genuinely speak in such absolutist terms of a “contradiction?”
[Page 58]
[49] Ludemann, 199.
[50] Nor is
it unreasonable speculation to suspect that at some point Jesus dealt with
whether women had a right to divorce their husbands, by this stratagem or some
other. After all, He had a large number of
female disciples and this would have been a matter of concern to at least some
of them.
[51] Makin, Marital
Sacrament, 68.
[52] Boyer,
n. 4, p. 79.
[53] Kugelman, 263, and Donald W. Shaner,
A Christian View of Divorce According to the
New Testament (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1969), 63.
[54] Ellis,
69-70, concedes that Paul seems to be teaching that what “Jesus actually said .
. . pertained only to Christian-Christian marriages (verse 12a). This, of course, is very doubtful.” For the reasons stated in the text the
opposite is the case: Marrying a
non-monotheist was so far beyond the pale of religio-societal
acceptance that it would be extraordinary for the issue to arise.
[55] Cf.
Coffman, 162-163.
[56]
Barrett, Corinthians, 166.
[57] Laney, 286.
[58] Mackin, Marriage, 61.
[59] Baumert, 61.
[60] Henshaw, 238;
Mare, 230; and Riggs, 149-150; and Ruef, 55. For an analysis of several approaches to the
meaning of “not under bondage,” see McGuiggan,
104-109.
[61] Bruce, Answers, 92; Coffman, 104; Lenski,
295; Orr and Walther, 214.
[62] Raymond Bryan Brown, 331; Lipscomb and Shepherd, 102; Gleason L.
Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1982), 399.
[63] Cf.
Heard, 190, and Kugelman, 264.
[66] Mare, 230.
[67] For a
concise summary of various interpretations, see Collins, 48-50.
[68] Thrall,
53-54.
[69] Kugelman, 263.
[70]
Collins, 50-51.
[71] As to
the age of the children Paul has in mind, see Ibid.,
51-53.
[72] Ibid., 51.
[73] Stark, Christianity, 116.
[74] Ibid., 117.
[75] Ibid., 97.
[76] Ibid.
[77] Ibid., 73. Estimates have run from an improbable low of
1% to an equally unlikely maximum of 50%.
Contemporary accounts points toward a major death rate at the
minimum. See the discussion in Ibid., 76.
[78] Ibid., 73.
[79] Ibid., 76-77.
[80] Ibid., 116.
[81] For a concise summary of ancient methods of birth
control see Ibid., 121-122.
[82] For a concise summary of ancient methods, see Ibid., 119-120.
[83] Ibid., 120-121.
[84] Histories, 5.5, as quoted by Ibid., 118.
[Page 60] [86] For a
discussion of the two approaches, see Barrett, Corinthians, 67. Collins, 60-62, and Moffatt,
84, adopt the optimistic reading.
Harris, 97, and Ruef, 58, adopt the
pessimistic reading.
[87] Orr and Walther, 214.
[88] Murphy-O’Connor, Message, 71.
[89] Witherington, Conflict, 183.
[90] Ibid. For a concise
summary of Roman slavery in general and in
[91] Murphy-O’Connor, Message, 71.
[92] On
methods of granting freedom and the ex-slave’s legal status when freed, see
Brad R. Braxton, The Tyranny of
Resolution: 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 (
[93] For
potential advantages of remaining a slave see Bruce, Corinthians, 72,
and Coffman, 107-108.
[94]
Frederick C. Grant, 83. For the remarks
of the ex-slave and then successful playwright Epictetus
on how freedom may be longed for and, once obtained, be far less attractive
than anticipated, see the quotation in Moffatt, 87.
[95] Those
who embrace the remain in slavery interpretation include Ronald A. Knox, 146; Kugelman, 264; Lambrecht, “1 Corinthians,” 1614; Lipscomb and Shepherd,
106; MacEvilly, 191; and Perkins, Ministering,
36
[96] Robertson and Plummer, 147.
[97] Bruce, Answers,
92.
[98] Fiorenza, 221.
[99] Those
who adopt the freedom interpretation include Blomberg,
146, and n. 3, p. 146; Raymond Bryan Brown, 333; Ewert,
72; Gromacki, Called, 93-94; Kistemaker, Exposition, 232; McGarvey
and Pendleton, 82; and Talbert, 42. Lenski, 303, makes the interesting argument that if earlier
in the same chapter a deserted believer is “not under bondage” to remain
married to the deserter, why should a slave be demanded to stay in a parallel
bondage? For a detailed discussion of
whether Paul is endorsing continued voluntary enslavement or encouraging the
freedom option, see Horrell, 162-166
[100] For
the propriety of translating the text so as to indicate that the slave had the
right to choose freedom, see Mare, 233.
[Page 61]
[101] Brad
R. Braxton, 1.
[102] John Carmody, Denise L. Carmody, and Gregory A. Robbins, Exploring the New
Testament (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1986), 41.
Newman, Meaning, 218, cites verses 17-31, as proof that Paul’s
teaching grew out of the belief that “the last days approached” but pegs the
assertion to no specific verse, word, or phrase.
Other
asserters that the teaching of the chapter grew out of this concern include
Raymond Bryan Brown, 328; Snyder, 468; Thrall, 51; Samuel Sandmell,
A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1956), 85; Ernest
F. Scott, The Literature of the New Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), 136.
[103] Selby, 360.
[104] Fisk, 42.
[105] B. Ward Powers, What Is the ‘Present Crisis’ or
‘Impending Distress’ at
[106] Kugelman, 262. Similar views are held by MacGorman,
123; Lyons, 1005; Perrin, 103; and Price, 802.
[107] Kugelman,
264-265; and Thrall, 58. Of the
reference to “distress” in Luke
[108]
Quoting these words as proof are Raymond Bryan Brown, 333; Frederick C. Grant,
83-84; Kugelman, 262; Lambrecht,
“1 Corinthians,” 1612, 1614; Murphy-O’Connor, Message, 72; Pregeant, 360; Price, 802.
Presumably this is what Lyons, 1005; MacGorman,
123; and Ramsay, 128, have in mind when they refer to the verse without quoting
it.
[109] Raymond Bryan Brown, 333; Byrne, 23; Lambrecht,
“1 Corinthians,” 1614-1615; MacGorman, 123;
Murphy-O’Connor, Message, 72; Price, 802.
[110] Hargreaves, 94-95, thinks Paul specifically has in mind
customs related to marriage and slavery.
I read it as more comprehensive and psychologically if not physically
threatening.
[111] Kugelman, 262.
[114] Orr
and Walther, 124, argue that “distress” seems the least appropriate
rendering.
[115]
[116] For
examples, see Efird, 76, and Fitzmyer,
Sketch, 105.
[117] See
Furnish, “Pauline Views,” 114, for some of the indications of friendly
relations with outsiders.
[118] Vanderwaal, 20. Lenski, 313,
emphasizes that whether or not a persecution was currently under way it could
occur at any moment, unexpectedly and without warning. Zerr, 14, takes the
approach that they knew that the Romans had acted against other illegal
religions and therefore that their own turn as target would come.
[119]
Thinking along these general lines are Grosheide,
175, and Talbert, 47.
[120] Rosner, Paul, 162.
[121] Thiselton, 4,
852.
[122] Ibid., 852.
[123] It
received major publicity in recent years when it was reopened for tourist
visits and, in 2010, when a large piece of the ceiling and the grassy plain
above it collapsed due to heavy rains.
Associated Press, “Nero’s Golden Palace Crumbling in
[124] Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, editors, Roman Civlization:
Selected Readings (Volume 2):
The Empire, Third Edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), 313.
[125] Ibid.
[126] Among
those who hold to this interpretation (which might equally well be called the
“engagement scenario”) are Blomberg, 153; Bruce, Answers,
92; Countryman, 210-211; Gromacki, Called, 98;
Lambrecht, “1 Corinthians,” 1615; Lyons, 1005; Mare,
236-237; Orr and Walther, 233; and Polhill, 241.
[127] Murphy-O’Connor, Doubleday, 66.
[128] Among those who hold this interpretation are Grosheide, 182; Hughes, 269; Lipscomb and Shepherd, 113; McGarvey and Pendleton, 84; McGuiggan, 118; Parry, 81; and
[Page 63] Robertson and Plummer, 158.
Boyer, 82-83, has a concise but especially effective defense of this
approach. See Hering,
62-63 for a critique of the interpretation.
[129] Thrall, 60.
[130] Ibid.;
and Orr and Walther, 233;
[131] For an
extended argument that the expression actually means having reached the age of
sexual maturity (rather than being in danger of passing it), see Winter,
[132] Hunter, 107.
[133] Heard, 190. Others
who hold this “spiritual marriage” interpretation include Bassler,
325; Conzelmann, 135;
Freed, 271; Moffatt, 98; Murphy-O’Connor, Message,
75; Neil, 458; and Roetzel, Paul, 86. Max Thurian, Marriage
and Celibacy, translated from the French by Norma Emerton
([N.p.]: SCM Press, Ltd., 1959), 74-77, prefers to
call it “spiritual betrothal.”
[134]
Raymond Bryan Brown, 333. The propriety
of citing Vision 11 of the Shepherd of Hermas as
earlier second century evidence for the practice is challenged by Ellingworth and Hatton.
They note (n. 5, p. 176) that the participants in such a relationship
are described in Vision 13 “as ‘holy spirits,’ and in Vision 15 they are given
the names of “virtues.”
[135] Kugelman, 266.
[136] Mare, 228.
[137] Those
who believe this was the situation include Hargreaves,
82, and Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Message, 71-72. For a detailed defense of the approach see Hering, 63-64.
[138] Quoted by Stark, Cities, 151.
[139]
Raymond Bryan Brown, 335.
[140] Roman History, as quoted by Stark, Christianity,
105.
[141] Ibid., 105-106.
[142] Ibid., 106.
[143] Ibid., 105.
[144] Ibid., 106-107.
[146] As quoted by Judith L. Kovacs, editor and translator,
1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early
Christian Commentators (
[147] As quoted by Brian S. Rosner,
“Deuteronomy in 1 and 2 Corinthians,” in Deuteronomy in the New Testament,
edited by Maarten J. J. Menken
and Steve Moyise, Volume 358 of the Library of New
Testament Studies (New York: T.
& T. Clark, [n.d.]), 128.
[148]
Lipscomb and Shepherd, 114-116.
[149] Fiorenza, 225.
[150] Brent Kercheville, “In 1 Corinthians
[151] A slightly different way of making the point used by Ibid.
[152]
Raymond Bryan Brown, 335.
[153] Lenski, 331, presents these as possibilities but, seemingly
unwillingly, implies that they are not the probable intent.
[154] Kercheville, “ ‘Only in the Lord.’ ”
[155] Cf. Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Inegrative Theology: Historical, Biblical, Systematic, Apologetic, Practial, 3 volumes in 1 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996) 144.