The Christian's Posture Toward Marriage and Celibacy: 1 Corinthians 7

David E. Garland

In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul is reacting to specific difficulties and aberrant views concerning marriage that have evolved in Corinth. He is not attempting to offer a complete, systematic guide to marital ethics. The interpreter is at a disadvantage, however, in discovering what the specific difficulties and views were. We can listen in on only one side of the conversation and can only guess from Paul's responses what it was that prompted them. But this must be done in order to understand aright Paul's intentions and to translate them to inform our present experiences. Sexual Abstinence in Marriage (7:1-5) In 7:1, Paul begins to speak to the issues specifically raised by the Corinthians in their letter to him. The phrase per de (now concerning) appears again in 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; and 16:1,12 and introduces the topic to be discussed from their list of concerns where responses were either asked of Paul or statements were made which provoked his response. Realization of this is vital for understanding what Paul says, for it has been the dominant interpretation that he is offering a compendium of his views on marriage and sexuality in what follows. This opinion is reinforced by the punctuation of 7:1 found in most translations: "Now concerning what you wrote. It is good for a man not to touch a woman/'1 There is increasing agreement, however, that Paul is quoting a slogan from a Corinthian faction.2 If this is the case, verse 1 should then be punctuated: "Now concerning what you wrote, * It is good for a man not to touch a woman.' " This is the first item from the Corinthians' letter that Paul addresses, and it would seem more likely that Paul would provide them some clue as to what he was going to discuss than that he would immediately (and rather heavy-handedly) plow ahead by pronouncing ex cathedra his own views on the matter. In all the other cases where the phrase pen de occurs, the subject matter is specifically mentioned (7:25, the virgins; 8:1, food offered to idols; 12:1, the spiritual ones [or things ]; 16:1, the contribution for the saints; 16:12, Apollos" visit).3 Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 7:1 comprises a quotation from the Corinthians' letter which serves as a subject heading for the section. The NIV and TEV are quite off the mark when they render verse 1, "It is good for a man not to marry." This translation is a misguided attempt to bring verse 1 in line with what Paul says in verses 8-9.4 The verb to touch is a

351

euphemism for sexual intimacy,5 and man in this case should not be confined only to the bachelor. From what follows it becomes clear that the slogan was applied also to the married man, for everything in the context points to the fact that some Corinthians were advocating that married couples refrain from sexual intercourse. Paul's vigorous assertions that normal sexual relations within marriage are not optional but required (7:2-5) and that marriage is not a sin (7:89,36,38) can only mean that someone in Corinth was saying just the oppositesexual abstinence was being advocated even for married couples. This ascetic viewpoint was probably generated by the volatile combination of an overcharged, overrealized eschatology and a negative attitude toward the body that reasoned that sexual activity somehow sullied one's spiritual nature.7 It is apparent in reading between the lines of 1 Corinthians that some believed they were already living in the "kingdom come"8 (1 Cor. 4:8). Sayings of Jesus such as that in Luke 20:34-36 when filtered through a world-denying hermeneutic may have fueled their glorification of celibacy: The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. They not only were speaking the tongues of angels (13:1), but by renouncing marriage and conjugal relations, they were living like angels. They could even appeal to Paul's example as one who remained unmarried for spiritual reasons. Therefore, the church at Corinth had two approaches to human sexuality. There were those who claimed that all things were lawful (6:12; 10:23) and indulged in a new morality of sexual freedom (cf. 5:1-2), and there were those who claimed freedom from sexuality and attempted to become celibate.10 For the latter, the distinction between male and female had been overcome, or so they thought (Gal. 3:28; this is the heart of the problem in 11:2-16). Sexual abstinence was their way of stepping out of the world and stepping up to God. It was a badge of their exalted, spiritual state. Genesis 2:18 was therefore turned on its head. "It is not good that a man should be alone" became "It is good for a man not to touch a woman"even if he were married.11 Paul's response to the Corinthian sloganizing in verses 2-5 argues specifically against any attempts at asceticism within marriage.12 "Let each one have his own wife" (7:2) does not advise that everyone should marry. Celibacy is a valid option for some. The verb to have is another euphemism for sexual relations,18 and the use of the present imperative suggests that those addressed were already married and that they were already engaged in what they saw as the "good"the renunciation of coitus. For Paul marriage is to be a fully sexual relationship. His rejoinder is an attempt to reel in these exalted Christians from the spiritual stratosphere and reacquaint them with the
352

The Christian's Posture Toward Marriage and Celibacy: 1 Corinthians 7

Review and Expositor

realities of earth. Many commentators have scored Paul for his seemingly constricted view of the purposes of marriage as simply a prophylactic against fornication, "a venereal safety valve,"14 "a necessary evil due to the weakness of theflesh,"16"lawful concubinage."16 It would indeed appear that his statement, "Because of fornications, let each one have his own wife," is "hardly a smashing blow in favor of marital bliss,"17 But all of this misses the point. Paul is not writing a theology of marriage or addressing the rationale for marriage; he is reacting to a specific situation. As Victor Paul Furnish has correctly seen, the topic is not marriage per se but sex and the Christian.18 The reason that only the sexual aspects of marriage are mentioned is because that was what was at issue. Paul's purpose is not to argue that people should marry in order to guard against outbreaks of immorality. He is opposing attempts to be celibate within marriage. The present imperative, me~ apostereite, "do not continue to deprive or rob one another [of conjugal rights]" (7:5), again suggests that this was what was happening. Paul recognizes that withdrawing from regular conjugal relations simply invites the temptation to have one's sexual needs satisfied illicitly. Corinth provided abundant opportunities for this, and the church was already plagued with incidents oporneia.1 In the previous chapter Paul apprised them of the fact that God had not called them out of a bodily existence (6:17-20); here, he reminds them that they were still subject to bouts with sexual temptations and lapses of self-control. The sex instinct is a powerful drive and Satan a powerful adversary (7:5). Therefore, Paul cautions them not to overstrain the flesh no matter how willing the spirit might be. He argues that sexual intercourse in marriage is not only a spiritually permissible option but also an obligation.20 A married person owes his or her spouse something physical. Here the mutuality of the marriage relationship is underscored in a way quite untypical in the Greco-Roman world: the wife has as much authority over her husband's body as he has over hers (7:4).21 Paul, however, does allow for a withdrawal from conjugal relations, but only on certain conditions. (1) It must be by mutual consent. One spouse may not selfishly disregard the other's physical needs to pursue some private spirit ual discipline, no matter how lofty that goal may be. Religious devotion is not to be used as a pretext for withholding sex from one's partner. (2) It must be for a season of prayer.22 It is not that Paul believes one is better able to pray when abstaining from sexual activity, as if it caused some kind of spiritual pollution; rather, he recognizes that there may be times when one is so overwhelmed by spiritual concern that retreat in prayer is expedient. Surely Paul would agree with 1 Peter 3:7 that one's prayers are hindered by mistreatment of a spouse, not sexual activity with a spouse. (3) It must be for a limited time. The couple is not to attempt to set any endurance records. 353

Remarriage for Widowers and Widows (7:6-9) "I say this by way of concession" presents the interpreter with the problem of deciding to what does the this refer and what is the concession that Paul is making. Many commentators have reasoned that Paul is making a concession to the Corinthian ascetic position by permitting a married couple not to cohabit for a period of spiritual retreat: it is not something commendable, but merely a concession. It is my opinion, however, that the this refers to what follows23 and the concession is not a point grudgingly yielded. Furnish contended that the word suggnimie does not connote something "reluctantly, bitterly acknowledged" but reflects "an allowance made empathetically, out of concern, with constructive good will."24 Verse 6 should therefore begin a new paragraph, continuing through verse 9, that is addressed to a specific group, the agamoi (usually translated unmarried) and the cKrai (widows). It is not directed to everyone. The word agamoi when translated unmarried connotes to the English ear those who have never married. But in Greek it can mean "de-married."26 In 7:11 it is used to describe the wife separated by her husband; she is to remain demarried. In 7:34 it is used in distinction to theparthenosf the virgin or the never married. The fact that the masculine form chros (widower) never occurs in the LXX or New Testament and that agamos was used in secular Greek for widower26 lends weight to the argument that Paul was referring to widowers in 7:8. This would mean that it would balance the mention of widows and that throughout verses 1-16 Paul is addressing those who are or have been married. The topic of the never before married is taken up in 7:25ff. Paul's wish is that all (that is, widowers and widows) could be as he is, unencumbered by a spouse (7:7).27 But out of consideration for the psychological and spiritual well-being of his charges and with the realization that celibacy is a charisma from God (7:7), Paul does not command that they should refrain from marriage (cf. 7:39-40). The Corinthians had been talking in terms of the "good" (7:1). Paul flatly rejects the idea that it is good for married persons to make a shift to celibacy, but it may be the case that it is good for a widowed spouse to remain celibate. This is not, however, a mandate to be imposed on all. If they are not exercising control (implying that some were not),28 Paul argues that it is better (kreitton, the comparative of kalos) to marry than to burn with frustrated desire.29 Paul is sympathetic to the predicament of those who have had physical desires awakened in marriage and are suddenly deprived of their fulfillment by the loss of a spouse.30 They should not sentence themselves to misery in an attempt to attain a perceived spiritual ideal when they do not possess the gift (7:7). Furnish is correct; marriage is not "just a poor Second best,' but the best" for the one who does not have the gift of celibacy 31 Divorce in Christian Marriages and "Mixed" Marriages Paul's fervent repudiation of divorce in 7:10-11, buttressed by an uncustomary appeal to a specific teaching of the Lord, makes it likely that he is reacting against an endorsement of divorce by some at Corinth. The slogan 354

The Christian's Posture Toward Marriage and Celibacy: 1 Corinthians 7

Review and Expositor

voiced in 7:1 would again be at the root of the problem. The celibate life was considered so laudable that husbands, rather than abstaining from conjugal relations, divorced their wives, either to remove temptation or because the wives objected to the revised terms of the relationship. The Corinthians may have been aware of and used some pro-celibacy saying of Jesus (Mt. 19:10-12). Had they known Luke 18:29-30, for example, it would have provided a spiritual license for "leaving one's wife" to pursue a greater reward. I have assumed that the problem in verses 10-11 resided in the husband's desire to divorce the wife. The majority of translations of 7:10-1 la suggest otherwise, that wives too were wishing to separate: "The wife should not separate [choristhenai] from her husband but if she does [separate] let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband" (RSV; see AV, NEB, TEV, NASB, NIV). In 7:11b the husband is only forbidden to divorce (aphiein). The distinction does not reflect a Jewish milieu where divorce was the prerogative of the husband alone. The same verb for divorce (aphiein) is used with the wife as subject in 7:13! Jerome Murphy-O'Connor has cogently argued that Paul was referring to a specific situation (as in 5:1; 6:1) where the wife was put away against her will by her husband.32 The verbe in 7:10,11a are aorist passives and may be translated, "A wife should not be separated from her husband."38 Paul protests: first of all, she should not accept separation. If this is forced upon her, then she should not remarry but pursue reconciliation with her husband. The husband, on the other hand, is simply forbidden to divorce. The charge to remain unmarried is omitted because the husband's reason for divorcing precludes remarriage. For Paul the whole matter is easily settled by the plain and uncompromising word of the Lord forbidding divorceno exceptions, not even to pursue the supposedly higher calling of celibacy. But as it turns out there are exceptions to the rule. Paul relaxes the prohibition against divorce when it comes to a situation not envisioned by Jesus' command, the case of the Christian yoked to an unbeliever.34 In this situation divorce is never to be sought by the Christian but may be accepted when the unbelieving spouse, who does not accept the authority of Christ, insists on dissolving the marriage. Mixed marriages had apparently also become a matter for concern among some of the Corinthians. They may have wondered whether marriage to a pagan defiled them as well as Christ in some way: Was this similar to joining a member of Christ to that of a prostitute (6:15)? Views such as those in 2 Corinthians 6:147:1 ("Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity?") may have led some to conclude that divorce in such cases was a Christian duty. Paul reassures them that Christians are not defiled by their marriage to a non-Christian. In fact, the unbeliever is sanctified (hagiazein) by the believing spouse (7:14). This is not an argument for "sanctification by proxy" but an

355

argument against divorce!35 Holiness is not something that can be transferred to another like an infectious disease. Paul is talking about the holiness of marriage. It is a divine institution where the two become one flesh; when the unbelieving partner wishes to continue the marriage, he or she is living within God's holy intention for marriage. Furnish laid out the basis of Paul's argument in 7:14 more clearly with the following syllogisms: Holy children are produced by holy marriages. Mixed marriages produce holy children. Mixed marriages are therefore holy marriages. Holy marriages should be maintained (7:10-11). Mixed marriages are holy marriages. Mixed marriages should be maintained (7:12-13).3e In other words, the church did not think of expelling children who were the product of mixed marriages, so neither should it encourage the break-up of those marriages. But mixed marriages are not something that should be maintained at all costs, for God has called Christians for peace (that is, harmony, cf. Rom. 12:18). On the one hand, they are not to create strife by divorcing on religious grounds; on the other, they are not to cling stubbornly to a marriage which the unbelieving spouse intends to dissolve. The Christian in this case is not bound (7:15), that is, to the marriage bond, the prohibition of divorce (cf. 7:39; Rom. 7:2). This leads to the question whether verse 16 refers to verse 14 or verse 15. If it refers to verse 14, Paul is encouraging the Christian spouse to persevere in the marriage as an evangelistic opportunity: "Wife, how do you know that you will not save your husband" (NEB, TEV, JB). But when the linguistic evidence is carefully weighed,37 it seems that Paul is more pessimistic about the prospects of converting the spouse, and verse 16 should be understood as referring to verse 15. Paul wants to dissuade the believer from trying to salvage a marriage to an unbeliever in the fond hope of eventually saving the unbelieving spouse: "Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband" (RSV, NAB, NASB, NIV). Theological UnderpinningGod's Calling (7:17-24) Verses 17-24 seem to be a misaimed intrusion in a discussion devoted predominantly to marriage (7:1-16, 25-40) with their emphasis on the equal status of the circumcised/uncircumcised and the slave/free before God. Many commentators have conjectured that Paul intended to squelch the unrest of overeager slaves who wanted to carry their new-found freedom in Christ into the secular world. But there is no evidence that the status of slaves was of great concern in the church at Corinth (the fprmula peri de is absent; cf. 7:1, 25), and Scott Bartchy's extensive study of slavery in the first century has shown that there was no social discontent among slaves at Corinth in this period.38 Paul, therefore, is not intent on keeping slaves in their proper places. The intention of 356

The Christian's Posture Toward Marriage and Celibacy: 1 Corinthians 7

Review and Expositor

these verses lies elsewhere. Verses 17-24 provide the theological principles which inform Paul's answers to the questions raised in verses 1-16 and 25-40" A similar chiastic pattern aba, where 6 seems to interrupt the sequence of argument but in fact sheds theological light on what is being discussed, is to be found in chapters 8-11 and 12-14: 8:1-13 (food offered to idols); 9:1-10:13 (freedom in Christ); 10:14-11:1 (food offered to idols); 12:1-31 (spiritual gifts); 13:1-13 (love); 14:1-40 (spiritual gifts and tongues). The common feature relating verses 17-24 to the rest of chapter 7 is the insistence that a change from the status in which one was called will not enhance one's relationship with God.40 If one were married, the Corinthians thought it was best to be celibate (7:1-5) or divorced (7:10-11); if in a mixed marriage, it was best to be divorced (7:12-16). Paul is not advocating a "stay the course" policy as if the status quo were something holywidowed spouses could remarry (7:9,39), Christians could accept divorce imposed on them by an unbelieving partner (7:15), the unmarried could get married (7:36), and slaves could obtain freedom (although Paul advised against it, 7:21).41 The point which verses 17-24 clarify is that one's worldly status has no effect on one's relationship to God.42 Human circumstances are incidental to salvation; one's Jewishness or lack thereof and one's socio-economic status are something religiously insignificant. In Paul's words, circumcision is nothing, uncircumcision is nothing (7:19). A slave is Christ's freedman, and a freedman is Christ's slave (7:22). These things are neither hindrances nor advantages for living the Christian life. Paul could have easily added: marriage is nothing, celibacy is nothing. Neither commends us to God. Since all human categories have become null and void in Christ, any attempt to change one's status in order to enhance one's standing with God is to ascribe to it more importance than it merits. But, more seriously, it is to repudiate God's calling which made irrelevant social, racial, physical, and religious status (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26; 12:13). Conzelmann astutely commented: The call comes to me just as I am; I do not first have to create by some achievement the presupposition for my attaining to salvation. That is the concretization of the sola gratia, "by grace alone." And grace embraces the world and holds me fast in my worldliness. No change of status brought about by myself can further my salvation.48 As I have argued, the celibacy movement at Corinth was designed to improve one's spiritual status. It was another form of "circumcision," salvation through achievement. As Paul opposed the Galatians who sought circumcision to perfect their salvation (Gal. 3:3), so he opposes those who attempt to renounce their sexuality to reach a higher spiritual plateau. For Paul the distinction that counts before God is not between the married and the celibate but between the one who keeps the commands of God (7:19b) and the one who does not, who is guilty of porneicu He concludes, do not be slaves of men, dependent on the value
357

of judgments 44 of enthusiasts who argue, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." Marriage and the Unmarried (7:25-38) In 7:25 Paul takes up the new topic concerning "the virgins." Parthenos may be used to refer to betrothed girls (Mt. 1:18, 23; Lk. 1:27; cf. 2 Cor. 11:2) but may also be used to refer to men (Rev. 14:4). Paul is therefore addressing the question of marriage for the never before married (as distinct from the agamos, 7:34). He insists that marriage is no sin (7:28, 36), from which we have inferred that some at Corinth had claimed that it was. Marriage was discouraged by them on the grounds that sexual union contaminated the Christian's life in the Spirit (7:1). Paul would discourage marriage too, but his reasons are poles apart from those of the Corinthian ascetics. (1) Marriage is inadvisable because of the eschatological urgency of the hour (7:29-31). Paul believed that one would have distress enough in the last days without also having the burdens of marriage responsibilities.45 (2) Marriage brings trouble in the flesh (7:28). It is not a romantic haven from the problems of the world. Here Paul would perhaps share the sardonic attitude of the rabbi who said: A young man is like a colt that whinnies, he paces up and down, he grooms himself with care: this is because he is looking for a wife. But once married, he resembles an ass, quite loaded down with burdens.46 (3) Marriage with its responsibilities divides a person's heart at a time when singleness of purpose is most needed (7:32-35). Preoccupation with the things of this world will mean a lack of preparedness for the world to come. (4) The form of this world with its institutions is passing off the stage. It is a lame duck, marriage included, and those who are married must realize that in the new world their relationship wl be transformed (7:29, 31). A notorious crux presents itself in 7:36-38.47 The three basic interpretations are represented in major translations: (1) Paul is giving advice to a Christian father about whether or not to allow marriage for his virgin daughter who is not getting any younger ( JB, NASB); (2) he is instructing couples who are living in a "spiritual" marriage (without sexual relations) that they may consummate their marriage if the male's sexual drive becomes too much for him to bear (Moffatt, NEB); (3) he is addressing Christians who are engaged to marry. It is fine if they follow through on their plans; it is better (because of the reasons in 7:25-35) if they do not (HSV, TEV, NIV). In my opinion the last view is correct; it fits the preceding context and what follows in verses 39-40, where widows are told that they are free to marry if they choose but in Paul's opinion would be happier remaining as they are.48 In a setting where sexual asceticism was acclaimed as a good, it could have easily become a matter of moral struggle for those who had proposed marriage whether or not to proceed. Paul is advising the one who has strong sexual urges to marry (rather than burn as in 7:9). But if his desire is under control and it would not wrong the finance, he would do better to remain 358

The Christian's Posture Toward Marriage and Celibacy: 1 Corinthians 7

Review and Expositor

single in order to be devoted to the Lord. Conclusions In interpreting 1 Corinthians 7 one must be ever mindful that Paul is dealing with specific problems in a specific situation. What he says cannot be heedlessly translated into a universal legal code. But some general conclusions are warranted. 1. Paul shows an awareness and respect for the complexities of life which compel flexibility. The Corinthians, on the other hand, were doctrinaire; they tended to lord over the "weaker" brethren with their simplistic, "spiritual" solutions to life. Paul gives authoritative advice but he is not authoritarian. He makes "concessions" (7:6). He gives charge but makes it clear that it is not he but the Lord (7:10). He then turns around and relativizes the very same command of Lord when faced with a different situation (7:12-16). In 7:25 he has no command of the Lord so he offers his own opinion, "I think" (7:26). At the conclusion of the chapter he says, " I think I too have the Spirit of God on these matters" (7:40). Paul was flexible; experience and expediency were often his guides; his conclusions were open to debate. He did not take from the individual the right to decide for him or herselfhe would not "throw a noose on them" (7:35). There is room for a variety of stances on how to live in obedience to God's call. 2. As for marriage, Paul does not believe it is an obstacle to the spiritual life, nor is it the lesser of two evils as some interpretations of 7:2 imply. One need not make appeal outside of 1 Corinthians to see that marriage is normative for him (see 11:7-9). In 9:5 he does not begrudge the apostles their right to be accompanied by a wife; he too could exercise that right and it would make him no less an apostle. Paul does not emphasize the more spiritual aspects of marriage, such as love and commitment, because that was not what was at issue. He is arguing against some in Corinth that marriage is to be a fully sexual relationship. He recognizes that the sexual drive is a powerful force, but it is not an evil force and has meaningful expression in marriage, although only in marriage. Celibacy, on the other hand, is not a means of attaining a higher spiritual status. In his opinion, the celibate life is less anxious (7:32), more ordered (7:35), and happier (7:40); but that is his opinion. It is nevertheless only for those who show evidence of the gift for celibacy and who intend to devote themselves to God. 3. Paul emphasizes mutuality in marriage. Everything said of the husband is said of the wife (7:2-5, 12-13, 32-34). Paul recognizes that the wife has sexual needs and has the same authority over her husband's body as he has over hers. This does not mean that one can make demands of the other, but that each one relinquishes to the spouse a claim to his or her own body. In contrast to Jewish tradition where only men would withdraw to pray, Paul recognizes that both husband and wife might wish to withdraw for prayer (7:5). He affirms that 359

the Christian wife can have the same sanctifying influence on her unbelieving husband as the Christian husband has on his unbelieving wife. Finally, Paul acknowledges that marriage is a mutual commitment whereby each spouse is anxious to please the other.
So the HSV, NEB. Other Corinthian slogans can be found in 6:12; 8:1,4; 10:23; and possibly in 1:12; 2:14; 8:8; 11:2; 14:34-35; and 15:12. For a summary of the research, see John C. Hurd, Jr., The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965), pp. 61-74,154-69. 3 Cf. 1 Thess. 4:9; 5:1; 2 Cor. 9:1 (peri gar). 4 See Hurd, Origin of 1 Corinthians, pp. 161-63; and Gordon D. Fee, "1 Corinthians 7:1 in the NIV," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 23 (1980), 307-14, for a thorough critique. 6 Gen. 20:4, 6; Prov. 6:29. e See Anthony C. Thiselton, "Realized Eschatology at Corinth," New Testament Studies, 24 (1978), 510-26. 7 An attitude reflected, for example, in Rev. 14:4; 2 Esd. 6:32. 8 The phrase is Walter J. Bartling's in "Sexuality, Marriage and Divorce in 1 Corinthians 6:127:16: A Practical Exercise in Hermeneutics," Concordia Theological Monthly, 39 (1968), 35. 9 A "touch not" philosophy is to be found in Col. 2:20-23, and those who "forbid marriage" are mentioned in 1 Tim. 4:3. 10 S. Scott Bartchy, First-Century Slavery and 1 Corinthians 7:21, SBL Dissertation Series, no. 11 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1973), p. 132. 11 For an excellent hypothetical summary of the Corinthian position, see Hurd, Origin of 1 Corinthians, p. 168. 12 If he did agree with the statement in 7:1b, it was with a strong caveat, "yes... but," as in 6:1213 and 8:1-4. 18 IntheLXX, seeExod. 2:l;Deut. 28:30; 1 Chron. 11:21; 1 Esdr. 9:12,18; Tob. 3:8; Isa. 13:16. In the NT, see Mk. 6:18; 12:33 (par. Mt. 22:28; Lk. 20:33); Jn. 4:18; 1 Cor. 5:1; and possibly 7:29. 14 William E. Phipps, "Is Paul's Attitude Toward Sexual Relations Contained in 1 Cor. 7:1?" New Testament Studies, 28 (1982), 129. 16 Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther I-II, rev. Werner Georg Kummel, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1949), p. 29. 16 Franz Leenhardt, Le marriage chrtien (Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1946), p. 22. 17 David R. Cartlidge, "I Corinthians 7 as a Foundation for a Christian Sex Ethic," The Journal of Religion, 55 (1975), 224. 18 Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul (Nashville; Abingdon Press, 1979), p. 33. Cf. also John Ruef, Paul's First Letter to Corinth, Westminster Pelican Commentaries (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), p. 53; and Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "The Divorced Woman in 1 Cor. 7:10-11," Journal of Biblical Literature, 100 (1981), 603. 19 Cf. 1 Cor. 5:1; 6:12-20; 18:8; 2 Cor. 12:21. 20 Paul does not go as far as M. Ketub. 5:6 which prescribes the minimal number of times to have intercourse, depending on one's occupation, to fulfill the duty of marriage (Exod. 21:10). 21 Cf. Cartlidge, "1 Corinthians 7 as a Foundation," p. 231, n. 51. 22 This probably reflects Paul's Jewish tradition; cf. T. Napth. 8:8; Jub. 1:8; M. Ketub. 5:6; Yoma 8:1. 23 So also William F. Orr, "Paul's Treatment of Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7," Pittsburgh Perspective, 8 (1967), 12. (1) Verses 2-5 contain four imperatives; how could Paul then say that they were not commands? (2) In 7:25-26, with parallel vocabulary (epitag, gno~me~, halos, houfs), the houWs clearly refers to what follows. (3) If the textual variant in v. 7, gar, is correct, then v. 6 would clearly refer forward to v. 7.
2 1

360

The Christian's Posture Toward Marriage and Celibacy: 1 Corinthians 7

Review and Expositor

Furnish, Moral Teachings, p. 36. Cf. H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 1660. For the argument that Paul is following a legal distinction in Jewish jurisprudence, allowing a course of action because of the majority's inability to fulfill the strictest interpretation of the law, cf. David Daube, "Concessions to Sinfulness in Jewish Law," Journal of Jewish Studies, 10 (1959), 1-13; and Peter Richardson, " say, not the Lord': Personal Opinion, Apostolic Authority and the Development of Christian Halakah," Tyndale Bulle tin, 31 (1980), 76. 25 Orr, "Paul's Treatment," pp. 12-13; also in William F. Orr and James A. Walther, 1 Corinthians, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1976), p. 210. 88 Liddell, Scott, Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, p. 5. 27 For the debate on whether or not Paul was married, see Joachim Jeremas, "War Paulus Witwer?" Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 25 (1926), 310-12, who emphasized the rabbinic obligations of scholars to marry. In the same journal see the objections of Erich Fascher, "Zur Witwerschaft des Paulus und der Auslegung von 1 Cor. 7," 28 (1929), 62-69; and the response of Jeremas, "Nochmals: War Paulus Witwer?" 28 (1929), 321-23. 28 The Greek does not read, "if they are not able to," as many translations imply. 29 Some Latin fathers and Reformation exegetes have argued that Paul is referring to the final judgment, "to burn in Hell," since nothing in the Greek says that they burn "with anything." The argument has been recently revived by Michael L. Barr, "To marry or to Burn: Purousthai in 1 Cor. 7:9," Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 36 (1974), 193-202. Against this, see Friedrich Lang, "Pyr. . .," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Friedrich, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), VI, 948-50. 80 Orr, 1 Corinthians, pp. 210-11. 81 Furnish, Moral Teaching, p. 39. 82 Murphy-O'Connor, "Divorced Woman in 1 Cor. 7:10-11," pp. 602-03. 88 Ibid., p. 601; abo Orr, 1 Corinthians, p. 211; and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence," Theological Studies, 37 (1976), 200. 84 The person would have become a Christian after having been already married. It would have been unthinkable for a Christian to marry a pagan; cf. 7:39. 86 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, 111.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), p. 671; cf. also Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, trans. James W. Leiten, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 122. 88 Furnish, Moral Teaching, pp. 44-45. 87 See Sakae Kubo, "1 Corinthians VII. 16; Optimistic or Pessimistic?" New Testament Studies, 24 (1978), 539-44. 88 Bartchy, First-Century Slavery. 89 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 114. 40 Murphy-O'Connor, 1 Corinthians, New Testament Message (Wilmington, DeL: Michael Glazier, 1979), p. 67. 41 Bartchy, First-Century Slavery, p. 153. The meaning of the phrase maUon chrsai is much debated, but it seems that Paul is advising slaves to make good use of their present status and not to pursue the opportunity for freedom (so NEB). See J. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, No. 4 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), pp. 189-92, for the arguments. 48 Ibid., pp. 138-40. 48 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 126. 44 Rudolf Bultmann, Primitive Chrisitanity, trans R. H. Fuller (New York: World Publishing Co., 1956), p. 185. 48 According to Jewish apocalyptic, mothers would have an especially difficult time in the last days, cf. Mt. 24:19; 1 Enoch. 99:4; 2 Apoc. Bar. 10:13-16. "Midr.Qoh. 1:2. 47 For a summary of research, see Werner Georg Kummel, "Verlobung und Heirat bei Paulus (1 Cor. 7:36-38)," Neutestamentliche Studien fr Rudolf Bultmann (Berlin: Alfred Tbpelmann, 1954),

84

361

pp. 275-95. 48 The strength of the first view is that gamiz in 7:38 usually means "give in marriage." But against it are these points: (1) the extraordinary language ("under no compulsion," "possessing sufficient will-power") to describe the decision of a father to give his daughter in marriage; (2) the abrupt change to the plural subject in v. 36, "let them marry," rather than "let her marry"; (3) the fact thatparthenos is a most unusual term for daughter when it means virgin in 7:25, 28,34; (4) the meaning "past marriageable age" for huperakmos would make the whole question of her marriage seem rather pointless; (5) the fact that gameo has lost its causative force and can be intransitive. Against the second view is the fact that: (1) there is no evidence of "spiritual marriages" in the firstcentury church; the institution of virgines subintroductae was a later development; (2) Paul would never have approved of a "spiritual marriage" if our interpretation of 7:2-5 is correct.

362

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.