Studia Theologica 58 (2004), pp.

45±59

St Paul's Views on Sex According to 1

Corinthians 7:9 & 36-38

Reidulf K. Molvaer

1 Cor. 7:36±38, one of the most debated passages in NT, is here seen against the
background of problems arising for new converts from paganism. These verses
thus appear in new light. This also makes sense of verse 9. This interpretation
indicates that Paul discourages but does not disapprove of sex between
unmarried couples

The letters of Paul are not perfect re¯ections of his congregational

teaching and preaching. In 1 & 2 Thess., the Last Days and the Second
Coming feature prominently, because he had not explained this point
clearly during his short stay with them, although the fact of Christ's
return was very important to Paul. More surprising are some `omissions'
during his long stay in Corinth. It was basic in Greek philosophy that the
body was inferior to the mind and the seat of evil and error. When Paul
spoke in Athens, people sneered and scoffed when he mentioned the
resurrection of the dead (Acts 17:32). One could therefore expect that
Paul would emphasise this point in Corinth; but the detailed discussion
of this in 1 Cor. 15 indicates otherwise. No less surprising is it that Paul
had not clari®ed his views on sexual relations, as we see from ch. 7.
Corinth consisted of a hotchpotch of races,1 and the city was known for
its low morality, so much so that `to live like a Corinthian' meant to be
sexually lax, lascivious. If Paul had not dealt fully with this matter there
(although he repeatedly speaks out against promiscuity and sexual
laxity in his letters), it may be due to the embarrassment Christians
always (seem to) feel in talking openly and in detail about sex. Paul, who
is so sure of himself in most contexts (cf. 5:4f, 6:18, Gal. 1:8f), is careful
and modest in 1 Cor. 7 (`I say this as a concession, not as a command. I
wish¼', v. 6f; `To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)', v. 12; `Now about
virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one
who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy', v. 25; `In my judgment, ¼ and I
think that I too have the Spirit of God', v. 40). Paul is here discussing
questions no Christian had talked so fully about before (except vv. 10f &
DOI 10.1080/00393380410001369  2004 Taylor & Francis
46 Reidulf K. Molvaer

39a), and he is trying to de®ne the limits for acceptable Christian sexual
behaviour. His hesitation may be due to a fear that someone would
misuse his words to go further in Christian `freedom' than he would
allow (cf. 6: 12, `Everything is permissible for me', where he must be
quoting the Corinthians; but the idea behind this statement they may
have deduced from Paul's teaching about the freedom of a Christian, in
fact from his emphasis on `justi®cation by faith without works').
In this article, only his views on sexual relations, with or without
marriage, as they transpire from four verses in 1 Cor. 7, will be
discussed. Misrepresentations of Paul's teaching about sex may have
caused many to feel that they cannot `follow' Paul, and may therefore
have cooled in their allegiance to Christian faith and service. If my
interpretation of Paul is correct, his views may in fact have been too
`modern' to have been palatable to Christian churches for many
centuries.
Paul uses two methods in expounding a subject. In Rom. 12±15, both
are illustrated. In 12:1 ff, he shows that Christian ethics is based on God's
mercy. Then he writes in detail about Christian living. He gives
examples almost like a casuist; but in 13:10 he sums it all up: `love is
the ful®lment of the law.' In other words, if they had understood the
implication of those words, all his speci®c exhortations would have been
super¯uous.
In 1 Cor. 7 he uses the latter method. In the ®rst 16 verses of the
chapter, he gives his views on four speci®c situations, like a casuist.
Then, in eight verses in the middle of the chapter (17±24), he sets out the
principle behind his advice (so he is not a casuist). Then, in the next 16
verses (25±40), he goes over the same four problems as in vv. 1±16 again;
but whereas the former section is addressed to people who are or have
been married (which also applies to Paul himself, vv. 7a & 8b), he turns
his attention in vv. 25±40 to people who have not been married before.2
The principle guiding him is repeated three times in vv. 17±24: `each
one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to
[or: in] which God has called him' (v. 17); `Each one should remain in the
situation which he was in when God called him' (v. 20); and `each man,
as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to
[or: in]' (v. 24). This is not invented just to answer the queries of the
Corinthians: `This is the rule I lay down in all the churches' (v. 17b).3
Now we see from the 2  4 examples he discusses in vv. 1±16 and 25±
40 that for each `solution', there is an exception.4 It is likely that he
follows the same pattern in vv. 17±24, and that v. 21 is also an exception
to the `rule'. The translation of the New International Version, NIV (used
here unless otherwise stated), is thus probably correct: `Were you a slave
 St. Paul's Views on Sex 47

when you were called? Don't let it bother you±although if you can gain
your freedom, do so.' Those who see theology like one of the natural
sciences, with rules without exceptions, think that Paul wants a slave
who can gain his freedom to continue as a slave (with frequent sexual
abuse which that involved), as that would be consistent with his main
`rule' in this passage, vv. 17±24.5 But Paul argues rather like a social
scientist: for every rule there is at least one exception. That is the pattern
all through this chapter.
We shall ®rst look at v. 9 (I quote AV, as it is closer to the Greek
original than most modern versions): `If they cannot contain, let them
marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.' (`Cannot contain' means
either `cannot control themselves', as NIV translates it, or `are not
practising continence', as G.D. Fee translates it, pointing out that `do not
control themselves' is a more accurate translation than `cannot control
themselves'; i.e., they do have sexual relations.6)
There have been two main interpretations of what may be implied
here.
1. Most commentators think that `to burn' refers to `inner passion', not
so unlike 2 Cor. 11:29, `Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly
burn?' But the word there refers to `righteous anger', not to irresistible
sexual urges as 1 Cor. 7:9. Still, it is common to explain the word
`burn' (Greek: purousthai) as NIV: `to burn with passion', or `to be
a¯ame with passion' (Revised Standard Version, RSV), or NEB: `burn
with vain desire'.
2. A few think that `burn' refers to the last judgement, when sexual
transgressors will burn in hell. They refer to 6:9±10 (`Neither the
sexually immoral¼ will inherit the kingdom of God') and perhaps to
3:15, with less dire consequences (`If any man's work shall be burned,
he¼ shall be saved; yet so as through ®re.' AV). This interpretation of
7:9 seems forced. Paul would hardly use such a mild expression as
that it is `better' to marry than to burn in hell, or lose one's heavenly
reward.

It is primarily the parallel development of Paul's argument in the ®rst

16 and the last 16 verses in this chapter that throws doubt on these
interpretations. The thought of v. 9 has its counterpart in vv. 36±38. That
is one reason for seeing something more, or something else, in the word
`burn' than to `burn, be a¯ame or consumed with passion, desire or
sexual lust'. Another reason is the context and internal logic of the
sentence.
Paul has condemned `improper' behaviour, such as marrying or living
48 Reidulf K. Molvaer

(having a sexual relationship) with one's (widowed or divorced)

stepmother (5:1 ff), and going to prostitutes for sexual grati®cation
(6:15±20). Then only two acceptable options remain in his view: to marry
or to burn (v. 9). The ®rst, to marry, seems a straightforward proposition.
But the meaning of `to burn' may be more dif®cult to grasp. `To burn' is
not as good a solution as to marry (the `better' choice), he writes, but he
does not condemn it. We shall try to show what it means, but we shall
mention a few relevant points before proceeding with the discussion of
this verse.
First a few remarks about the word `better' (kreitton or kreisson in
Greek), which occurs in both the passages under discussion (vv. 9&38).
It occurs very frequently in Hebrews: the new covenant and the sacri®ce
of Christ are much `better' than the old covenant and the sacri®ce of
animals in OT times. (The word occurs 12 times in Hebrews, otherwise
six times in NT, three of them in 1 Cor., and in Phil. 1:23, 1 Pet. 3:17 and 2
Pet. 2:21.) It is clear that Paul in each case uses the word to compare
something `good' to something `better', and not something good to
something bad.7
So also in 1 Cor. 7:9&38. Even if one choice is `better' than the other,
the alternative is not bad but good, as he states in v. 38: `he who marries
the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.'
In vv. 9 & 36±38, we thus have two choices that both are good, and
none involves any sin, 7:36; the `better' choice may expose them to fewer
problems (`I want to spare you', v. 28), and it involves greater (i.e., total)
commitment.
We shall also say a few words about the verb used for `contain' or
`control themselves' (`If they cannot control themselves, they should
marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion', NIV version of
7:9; `with passion' is absent from the Greek text; and, as mentioned, `do
not' is a more precise translation than `cannot' contain themselves; thus
it could be translated: `if they are not living continently').
In Gal. 5:23, `self-control' (egkrateia) is mentioned as one of the fruits of
the Spirit. But here (1 Cor. 7:9) he writes about those who do not or
cannot control themselves (ouk egkrateuontai) as being Christians, and
who therefore have the Spirit.8 The same is true of those who lack self-
control (akrasia) in v. 5. In 6:12, he writes: `I will not be mastered by
anything.' Neither 6:12 nor Gal. 5:23 thus relates to total abstinence from
natural things, such as food and sex, as we see both from the
continuation (1 Cor. 6:13), where food and sex are mentioned, and from
7:9. Those who are `mastered' by a desire for food are in fact those who
go hungry, and those who are most strongly tempted to sexual
immorality are those who are deprived of sex without having the gift
 St. Paul's Views on Sex 49

of abstinence (v. 2). But neither the desire for food nor for sex should
`master' us and be out of control (v. 13). They should be satis®ed in
acceptable ways so as not to `master' us.
It is worth noting that in the ®rst verses of this chapter, Paul talks
about only two categories of people: those who have the gift of
abstinence and those who do not. Later, he mentions a third group:
those who want to marry and do not have the gift of abstinence, but still
can control themselves enough to abstain from sex, at least until they
marry, but whom Paul tries to dissuade from marrying (vv. 25±35).
Paul gives two reasons why he thinks it is better not to marry: `the
present crisis' (v. 26) and `that the time is short' (v. 29). The whole
passage, vv. 29±31, stresses his eschatological expectations, which may
be the main reason why he seems rather negative to marriage. He lived
in permanent expectation of the speedy return of Christ, as did the
whole ®rst generation of Christians. Marriage would in his view distract
people from turning their minds fully towards this event, the parousia.
It should also be mentioned that from the 4th century, when the
Church was favoured in the Roman Empire, a watered-down version of
Christianity and a way of life only slightly touched by it became
common. Then the ideals among those who wanted a stricter way of life,
more in line with what they thought was the original Christian ethic,
gradually absorbed more and more Stoic, Neoplatonist, and perhaps
Gnostic ideas. The result was that an ethic partly contrary to what God
had permitted in man's `state of innocence' (before the Fall) gained
ground among them: Gen. 1&2 says that (1) God thought that it was not
good for man to be alone; (2) He permitted man to eat of all the trees in
the garden (except one, which we do not have access to, nor do we know
what it is); and (3) He wanted man to have sex and multiply. Not least
after Athanasius wrote the Life of Antony the hermit, the ideals among
Christians gradually became the opposite of what God had permitted
and `ordered' in Paradise: the `best' Christians should separate
themselves from society as far as possible (preferably as hermits or
monks), live as frugally as they could (in poverty, prayer and fasting),
and abstain totally from sex. Also Augustine shared such views, and
they were passed on by him to the whole of Christendom.9 The ®rst two
of these points were largely `corrected' with the Reformation, and partly
also the third (celibacy was not regarded as morally surperior to
marriage by the Reformers). But the biblical, or Pauline, view of sex still
remains to be clari®ed.
In 1 Cor. 7: 9 it is, then, the word `burn' which is the crux. Do the
common interpretations of it do justice to the word in its context?
Probably not.
50 Reidulf K. Molvaer

If the meaning is `to burn with passion' or `to be a¯ame with sexual
desire', etc., Paul would in fact be saying: if you cannot control
yourselves and abstain from having sex and if you do not marry, you
must control yourselves and abstain from having sex, even if you cannot
control yourselves and abstain from having sex. In other words: if you
cannot abstain from sex and do not marry, you must still abstain from
sex, even if that will give you such pain that it can be compared to being
a¯ame or burning. In short: if you cannot control yourselves, you must
control yourselves; if you cannot abstain from sex, you must still abstain
from sex.
This does not make sense and cannot be Paul's meaning. He gives
Christians who `cannot control themselves' two `good' choices: to marry
or to burn.10
What does he mean then by `to burn'? Since this is said about people
who `cannot control themselves', who cannot or do not abstain from
having sex and who choose not to marry, he must refer to a sexual
relationship11 that excludes both marriage and relations that defy
socially accepted norms (5:1) and non-committal sex with prostitutes,
however much that is sex between `consenting adults', as the saying
goes among those who defend casual sex (6:15±18).
Is there another alternative? In ancient Greece (as in much of the
world, then and now), people did distinguish between three kinds of
sexual relationship: 1. marriage, 2. fornication (casual, non-committal
sex or prostitution), and 3. a love-relationship (partnership based on
mutual love) without the formal ties involved in a marriage contract.12 It
becomes even clearer when we shall discuss vv. 36±38 that it is this last
(third) kind of relationship Paul has in mind in v. 9.
This interpretation goes against the view prevailing in the churches
today, which is that sex belongs exclusively to marrige, and that sex
before and after marriage (i.e., apart from marriage) is sinful. That sex
outside marriage for married people (adultery) is prohibited in Christian
ethics we see from many other passages in OT & NT.13 But in 1 Cor.
7:9&36-38, Paul permits sex between partners committed to each other,
even if they are unmarried and have not promised each other
marriage.14
Paul addresses `the unmarried and the widows' in the passage we
have just discussed (cf. v. 8, where `unmarried' most likely refers to
widowers; the word means something like `ex-married', i.e., previously
married, rather than `unmarried' in the sense of `one who has never been
married', as in v. 11, where the same word, agamos in Greek, is used15). In
vv. 36±38 he turns his attention to people who are not married and who
have not been married before.
 St. Paul's Views on Sex 51

Those who have never been married, Paul refers to as `virgins', and
these he addresses in the whole second main section in this chapter (vv.
25±40; the last two verses must be a `warning' to those who choose to
marry: they cannot opt out of the marriage as long as the spouse lives).
The word `virgin' had a wider meaning than it has today, referring to
any young unmarried woman, whether she was `technically' a virgin or
not. If it also comprises young unmarried men need not occupy us
here.16
Several interpretations have been given of vv. 36±38. It is in fact one of
the most controversial passages in NT, re¯ected in various translations
and discussed in detail by commentators. Disagreements concern the
subjects of the verbs in v. 36, the meaning of `virgin' and of the Greek
word huperakmos, and the implication of the verbs used for `to marry'.
There have been three main interpretations of the passage.
1. Some think that `he' in verse 36 is a father, stepfather or guardian who
has a girl of marriageable age. She is then thought to be the subject of
huperakmos, and the second phrase should read: `if she is getting on in
years', `if she is fully mature', `if she has passed the bloom of youth'.
The situation is thought to be that the man responsible for her may
feel he is `acting improperly' in restraining or forbidding her
marriage. Paul would then be commending one who can use his
authority over her to do that; it is not `improper' (v. 37); but he should
not feel guilty if he permits her to marry (v. 38). In this interpretation,
`is huperakmos' has an unstated female subject, which does not apply
to any of the other verbs in v. 36. Paul would be encouraging a man to
refuse to let a girl marry, v. 37, contrary to vv. 2, 7 & 9.
2. Others think that the subject (tis, `he') is the ®ance of the girl. This is
more logical, as there is only one stated subject (tis) in v. 36 (hos in v.
37 and ho in v. 38). Huperakmos could then refer to the man, and mean
`if his passions, instincts, are too strong (for him)', or perhaps `if he is
fully mature'. Paul would thus be commending a person who is
engaged to a girl but refrains from marrying her, and he would think
well of a person who can do as he wants in this respect (presumably
without regard to the wishes of the girl). He is not `acting improperly'
towards her, although he does no wrong if he marries her either. This
is also dif®cult to harmonise with vv. 2, 7 & 9. And why should he
remain engaged to a girl if he does not intend to marry her?
3. A more recent interpretation is that the passage may refer to a
`spiritual marriage', where husband and wife live together without
having sexual relations. This makes it hard to explain huperakmos and
the following phrase, `and it has to be'. It would also contradict Paul's
52 Reidulf K. Molvaer

advice in v. 5 (and since the decision seems in vv. 36±38 to lie

exclusively with the man, it would contradict vv. 2±4 as well). The
custom of `spiritual marriage' is not known from the history of the
Church until the end of the 2nd century, which makes such an ascetic
advice from Paul unlikely.

There is another way of interpreting vv. 36±38 which differs from those
mentioned so far, and which makes good sense of both the words, the
grammer and the context.
In v. 36, Paul may be addressing the situation of unmarried people
(not necessarily engaged) who had a sexual relationship prior to their
conversion, and now wonder whether they can continue this relation-
ship (cf. v. 20: `Each one should remain in the situation which he was in
when God called him'), or if they have to desist from sex. V. 36 could be
translated: `If someone thinks that he is behaving improperly towards
his virgin, and his sexual feelings are beyond his control and it has to be,
let him do as he wishes; he does not sin; let them marry.'
The sense may be easier to grasp if we have the situation in Corinth of
old in mind. Sex was a free and easy matter, and this `free' attitude also
in¯uenced many church members, 5:2&6. Many couples who had been
lovers were certainly among those who joined the local church. It is not
hard to understand this passage if it is the problem posed for such
couples that Paul addresses in 7:36±38: can they be together as before, or
must they stop having sex? His answer would then mean: they can go on
as before if need be, it is no sin; but it is better if they can desist (until
they are married), vv. 37&38b, which can be translated: `But he who
stands ®rm in his heart, and who does not have this need but has power
over his own will and has decided in his own heart to keep her as a
virgin, does well¼ He who does not marry does better' than the one
marrying. This Paul may be saying because he wants to `spare' them (v.
28), probably of possible consequences of sex between unmarried
partners; but clearly, he does not want the couple to interrupt their
relationship in other respects, even if they stop having sex, or to break
the tie between them; this must be the implication of v. 27: `Do you have
ties to a woman? Do not seek to be untied. Are you without ties to a
woman? Do not seek (to be tied to) a woman' (literal transl.). The word
translated `woman' can equally mean `wife', but as Paul dedicates this
section, vv. 25±40, to the situation of the unmarried, it is probable that he
has those primarily in mind, although he can of course be thinking of
those who are married as well, in which case the ®rst part would mean
that married couples should not seek a divorce; but that meaning is
 St. Paul's Views on Sex 53

rather out of context, and he has dealt with that question in the ®rst part
of the chapter, vv. 10 ff.
As noted, there has been much discussion of who the subject of the
singular verbs is: is `he' (tis) the ®ance or the father (or stepfather or
guardian) of the girl?17 None seems to have thought of a lover or
`boyfriend'. Since there is only one stated personal subject (tis) for the
verbs in the singular, the whole of verse 36 most likely refers to the same
person.18 If it had referred to anyone else than the one who was together
with the girl, Paul would be very inconsistent and contradict most
strikingly what he has been saying i v. 9, where he recommends
marriage for those who cannot control themselves, and whom Paul
clearly has in mind also here, as `he' (tis) is opposed to the one who can
control himself in v. 37.19 Should he then now advise a father or
guardian to withhold his consent to a marriage, against the will of (any
of) the partner(s) involved? The person referred to in v. 36 is contrasted
to the one mentioned in v. 37; the latter verse talks of one who `has
control over his own will', whereas v. 36 talks of one who is in a different
situation (one who does not have control over his own will in the matter
of sex), and who therefore is in the same situation as those mentioned in
v. 9 (those who `burn'): both verses talk of persons who cannot control
themselves, who cannot abstain from sex.
The fact that Paul uses two verbs, or two forms of one verb, for `to
marry' has given rise to much debate. Classical Greek had only one of
these verbs, gamein, whereas NT also has gamizein. The latter ending
would conform to a classical distinction that would make the ®rst form
mean `to marry' and the second form, if it had existed then, to mean `to
give in marriage' or, in a passive sense, `to be married'. But in NT times,
the distinction between these two endings had largely vanished.20
Practically all interpreters today agree that the two forms of the verb
used (in vv. 36 & 38 respectively) have the same meaning.21 But since
Paul shifts from one form to another, it is likely that he intends a special
meaning with the word(s) and therefore hesitates about which form is
most suitable. Since he has used forms of the verb gamein in the ordinary
sense, `to marry', several times earlier in the chapter, it is also likely that
he changes the form of the verb because he now uses it with a new,
special meaning. The most probable explanation is that he uses the verb
in a meaning that is attested already in the oldest Greek literature (by
Homer)22 and later, and which is the normal meaning today. In modern
Greek, the noun gamos means `wedding, marriage (transaction)', and the
verb (gamoà in the dictionaries) means `to have sexual intercourse'.23 It is
probable that this is the meaning Paul gives to the verb(s) here, and that
he uses it (or them) as a euphemism for `having sex'. How could he
54 Reidulf K. Molvaer

otherwise say in v. 38 that it is `better' not to `marry' (`he who marries the
virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better')
when he has said the very opposite in v. 9 (`it is better to marry')? In both
cases he writes about people who cannot control their sexual urges.
It is also very signi®cant that Paul uses the form gamizoÃn in v. 38
(positively and negatively). This is a continuous form of the verb, which
implies that the `act' of `marrying' is lasting, repeated, continuous or
permanent. A wedding cannot be continuous in this sense (and the verb
`marry' is not used of marriage as a continuous state, only about the
event of contracting marriage); but a sexual relationship can be
continuous, lasting, repetitive, and permanent. It must be this latter
situation Paul has in mind when he uses this continuous (or progressive)
form of the verb. That ®ts also the context; actually, it is the only
meaning that ®ts the context.
With the situation in Corinth in mind, it is not so hard to see what vv.
36±38 mean. A couple of lovers have been converted, and they are in a
quandary: can they continue as lovers (and take v. 20 seriously), or do
they have to stop having sex? The young man may be under pressure
from the ascetic section of the church, which urges him to choose the
latter course; but he ®nds this hard to accept and comply with, and he
probably has the support of others in the church, the `liberal' party, cf.
5:2&6. Paul has set a limit to the `liberals' in chs. 5 & 6, but here (7:36±38)
he accepts their view, as he did in v. 9. If `it has to be' (as most likely the
words in v. 36 should be translated), and the man cannot control himself
(which is obviously implied, as he is contrasted to the one who can
control himself in v. 37), then he should not feel guilty about his
relationship to `his' girl (`his' implies more than a casual relationship), or
think that he is `behaving improperly', v. 36; he should go on as before.
But if he is able to abstain until he is married, he should do so, v. 37. In v.
38 Paul calls this the `better' way. To have sex before marriage is thus not
in itself condemned, it is no sin (`there is nothing wrong in it', NEB), no
more than sex between true lovers who have been married before, but
not to each other, v. 9. But abstinence is `better', v. 38.
This is not double morality, accepting two seemingly contrary ways of
acting, calling one `better' than the other; but the fully committed
relationship is less ®lled with problems, and Paul may be recommend-
ing marriage to `spare' them troubles that may arise for unmarried
lovers (they may for example have children together). Even more
important: true love calls for total commitment, which is a greater
`virtue' than grati®cation without such commitment; that is why it is
`better'.
It is signi®cant that Paul recommends people to take the step all out
 St. Paul's Views on Sex 55

and marry in both these cases, without, however, condemning the less
committed relationship. When he so strongly stresses that a marriage
cannot be dissolved (except in special circumstances) after both these
passages (vv. 10f&39f), some may react as the disciples of Christ: `If this
is the situation between a husband and a wife, it is better not to marry'
(Mt. 19:10). So there must be a special reason or reasons why Paul so
strongly recommends binding, insoluble marriage, rather than a lovers'
union. One reason is precisely that the latter is not so binding as
marriage; it is less committed, it can end, be dissolved, although this is
against his advice in v. 20. But it may also have other reasons: it causes
heartache and may give a feeling of betrayal. However, by stressing the
binding nature of marriage as a reason why it is better than a lovers'
union, he does indirectly admit that the latter may be ended without
marriage. Some couples may after a time as lovers ®nd that they are not
suited for each other, and thus break off the relationship, which may be
preferable to lifelong marriage of partners who later ®nd out that they
do not ®t together.
A lovers' union based on romantic love may end with the death of the
emotions, whereas marriage should persist regardless of changing
feelings of a romantic nature. That is why Paul recommends marriage as
`better' than a union based on feelings only (although marriage should
of course also start and be associated with `feelings' of love).24 It may,
however, be worth noting that Paul does not talk explicitly about
(mutual) love in this connection (except for what is implied in the word
`burn' in v. 9), but about sexual need and how this may legitimately be
satis®ed without sinning. For a lovers' union to be legitimate according
to Paul's argument in chs. 5±7, it must of course be understood in the
same way by both partners. If one who is seeking marriage is exploited
by one who only wants sex, it is likely that Paul would count this as
fornication and something close to prostitution, which he has already
condemned.
A pious conclusion: It may well have bene®ted women and children
in the past that this interpretation has been `concealed' for so long. But
today many Christians practise sex before marriage without the `risks'
involved earlier (diseases and pregnancies). The traditional teaching
about this matter may give such feelings of guilt that it `cools' the zeal of
the faith of many because they think that they cannot be `genuine' or
`fully committed' Christians if they are unable to check their sexual
impulses.25 Some may even turn their backs on Christianity altogether
because of presumed demands which they are unable to conform to.
People who feel guilty about impulses that are so strong that they are
unable to check them, may also be more likely than others to give in to
56 Reidulf K. Molvaer

temptations to secret or non-committal sex in casual affairs.26 It is better

to try to establish loving relationships involving sex than to surrender to
momentary urges that mean nothing beyond the act itself. Some ®nd out
about their own feelings, and whether they are ready for marriage, in
loving unions that do not last.27 The ultimate aim (not only for
Christians) should, however, be to ®nd `true love' that leads to a lasting,
binding relationship in lifelong marriage.

Reidulf K. Molvaer
BygdoÈyveien 27B
N-0287 Oslo
Norway

Notes
1. Corinth was destroyed by Romans in 146 BC and rebuilt by them 100 years later. The
®rst inhabitants of `new' Corinth were freed slaves from Rome, but soon people from
east and west ¯ocked there, bringing a variety of beliefs and attitudes with them,
making them prone to form factions (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11f and 1 Clement, c. AD 96). They
came from Hellenized areas, and Greek attitudes predominated, with the addition of
eastern mystery cults, etc. Probably Epicureans and Stoics, whom Paul met in Athens
(Acts 17:18), were the most in¯uential also in Corinth. Most church members there were
former pagans, and they had brought Hellenistic views and attitudes into the church.
The con¯ict between `libertines' and `ascetics' is re¯ected in the letters to them; so also
in 1 Cor. 7.
2. In ch. 7, Paul addresses questions raised by the Corinthians (v. 1a), but he deals with
them so systematically that it is likely that he has made his own outline. He must also be
building on ®rsthand knowledge from his long stay with them. Vv. 17±24 put it all in
proper perspective.
3. People were more strongly attatched to a position (e.g., of employment) once chosen in
those days than today. It is probably correct to add: one should not normally change
one's position in life just because one becomes a Christian, but if one would change
one's position anyway, the fact that one is a Christian should not bind or force one to
pursue an unsuitable or unwanted course at all costs. Paul and the other apostles did
change their positions in life when they became Christians.
4. The four pairs are: 1. Celibacy is preferable, BUT marriage is no sin (1f&7 and 25±31). 2.
Married people should satisfy or `please' each other so as to forestall temptation to
fornication, BUT mutually agreed shorter separations are acceptable, and the
unmarried are freer to please the Lord, rather than the spouse, `in undivided devotion'
(3±6 and 32±35). 3. The unmarried who cannot control themselves should marry, BUT
to `burn' is also acceptable (8f and 36±38: see the comments below on these passages). 4.
The married should not divorce, BUT if they do so, they should stay unmarried;
however, a believing spouse cannot hinder a non-believer from leaving the marriage,
and may then be free to marry again; this is the so-called `Pauline privilege', not
accepted as a correct interpretation by all (10±16 and 39f).
5. Those who favour this view, translate the last words of the verse accordingly. This
 St. Paul's Views on Sex 57

seems to be the sense of the Authorized Version (AV): `if thou mayest be made free, use
it rather.' The Italian translation of 1974 is more explicit: `¼ anche se puoi diventare
libero, pro®tta piuttosto della tua condizione!' The New Revised Standard Version goes
further: `Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now
more than ever.' Most modern translations take the same view as NIV, the New English
Bible (NEB): `if a chance of liberty should come, take it', and the Good News Bible
(GNB): `if you do have a chance to become a free man, use it.'
6. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991, pp.
286 & 289.
7. Not even 1 Cor. 11:17 is an exception, where Paul writes that they `come together not for
the better, but for the worse' (AV). The comparison is not between the beginning and
the end of the meeting, but to how they were when they entered.
8. See M. Hill's article, `Paul's Concept of `Enkrateia' ', in Reformed Theological Review, Vol.
36 (1977).
9. Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Catholic Church and
Sexuality, Garden City, New York: Doubleday 1990; Henry Chadwick, The Early Church,
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967, ch. 12 (`The Ascetic Movement').
10. From verse 7b we see that sexual abstinence requires a special `gift'; but those who
`cannot control themselves' also have a `gift': `each man has his own gift from God; one
has this gift, another has that' (i.e., from God), which may imply that those who have a
strong sexual urge have it as a gift; it is part of God's creation. But some think that it
refers to `some other compensating gift or gifts', not mentioned in this verse; cf. Charles
K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, London: A&C Black, 1976, pp. 158f. That
Paul mentions only strong sexual urges as good reasons for marrying in v. 9 has
puzzled many. Cf. K.C. Russel's article, `The Embarrassing Verse in First Corinthians',
The Bible Today, Vol. 18 (1980), pp. 338-41.
11. Cf. LXX translation of Sirak 23:16b (v. 17b in LXX): `The soul heated like a burning ®re
(pur) will not be quenched until it is consumed' (RSV). The continuation makes it clear
that this concerns sexual relations.
12. The Greeks often combined all these three kinds of relationship. In the speech Against
Neaera (1386), attributed to Demosthenes, the common Greek view and attitude are
expressed like this: `We keep mistresses for pleasure; we keep prostitutes for the day-
to-day needs of the body; we keep wives to bear our legitimate children and to be the
faithful guardians of our homes.' In Greece, as elsewhere, it was not uncommon for
people who were not married to be lovers; it must be this situation that meets us in 1
Cor. 7:9&36-38. William Barclay writes in considerable detail about Jewish, Greek and
Roman attitudes to sex and marriage in The Plain Man's Guide to Ethics, London: Collins,
1980, pp. 61-93.
13. Ex. 20:14, `You shall not commit adultery.' Adultery is violation of the marriage vow;
fornication is `casual sex' of any kind. Churches have used the words without de®ning
them precisely (e.g., Mt. 5:28) in order to maintain their own views on sex.
14. Probably all commentators dispute this interpretation. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First
Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and Carlisle: The Paternoster Press,
2000, pp. 516-9 & 593±602 discusses practically all known interpretations of these verses
in great detail.
15. `¼ several items favor the suggestion that agamos should be translated `widower': First,
since being `widowed' in antiquity created special problems for women, most cultures
had a word for widows; however, they did not always have a word for the male
counterpart. Greek has such a word, but it appears seldom to have been used, and
never in the koine period, in which agamos served in its place. Second, since throughout
58 Reidulf K. Molvaer

the entire passage Paul deals with husbands and wives in mutuality (12 times in all), it
would seem to ®t naturally into the total argument to see that pattern here as well. After
all, if agamos refers to all the unmarried, then why add widows? Third, this word
appears again in v. 11 for a woman separated from her husband, and in v. 34 in contrast
to the `virgin' (one who was never married before), indicating that in his regular usage
it denotes not the `unmarried' in general, but the `demarried,' those formerly but not
now married. On balance, `widower' seems to be the best understanding of the word
here. That would also help to explain the presence of these verses in this context, where
all of the cases in vv. 1±16 deal with those presently or formerly married, while vv. 25±
38 take up the issue of the never-before married.' G. D. Fee, op. cit., pp. 287f.
16. The context makes it likely that he uses the word to comprise both sexes in v. 25, but
probably only young women in v. 28, and certainly so in vv. 36±38.
17. Cf. Claude J. Peifer, The First and Second Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Collegeville,
Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1960, p. 30: `There is no agreement as to what this
section refers to or how it should be translated. It has been proposed that it treats of a
father and his virgin daughter; a guardian or master and his female ward or slave; a
man living chastely in a spiritual marriage with a virgin; or a man who had entered a
®ctitious marriage with a Christian girl to protect her virtue.' The author adds: `We may
accept as probable the interpretation which holds that the passage treats of a man
betrothed to a virgin before his conversion.'
18. This is important also for the proper understanding of the word huperakmos. The
various views are discussed in Barrett, op. cit., pages 182-4, Leon Morris, The First Epistle
of Paul to the Corinthians, London: The Tyndale Press, 1960, pp. 120-2, and Thiselton, op.
cit., pp. 594-8. In case a change of subject (from `he' to `she') were correct, it could be a
denunciation of sex with minors (and the continuation could then read: `and thus [i.e.,
sexually mature] she must (or: ought to) be)'; but the Greek text does not warrant such a
change of subject. As the stated subject does not change, the translation of, e.g., RSV,
NEB or GNB must be accepted: `if his passions are strong, and it has to be' (RSV), `if ¼
his instincts are too strong for him' (NEB), or `if his passions are too strong' (GNB).
Huperakmos has also been translated `excessively virile' and `over-sexed'.
19. Those who think that `he' in v. 36 is not the girl's `man' but a father or guardian, see in v.
37 a commendation of one who can and does arbitrarily use his authority over her. If
this means that he can disregard her wish, it would contradict v. 9.
20. `There is suf®cient evidence that the classical distinction betwenn -eoà and -izoà verbs had
broken down in the koineà period.' Fee, op. cit., p. 354; cf. J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan,
The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, London: Hodder & Stouton, 1930, p. 121. John
Ruef, Paul's First Letter to Corinth, Harmondsworth: Penguin, p. 68: `The Greek word
gamizein, which normally means `give in marriage', could in this later period of
language have taken on the meaning `marry'. There are analogous cases of other Greek
words with the causative ending izein which took on the other root meaning.' Cf. F.
Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, transl. & ed. by R. W. Funk, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961, §101,
p. 51.
21. Hans Lietzmann, in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, TuÈbingen: Mohr, 1907, may have
been (one of) the ®rst to point this out, but today almost all dictionaries of the Greek NT
accept this as axiomatic.
22. C. Berg, Grñsk-Dansk Ordbog, Kùbenhavn: Gyldendal, 1950, on gameoÃ. In addition to the
more common meaning `to marry' in Classical Greek, he mentions also the
(euphemistic?) meaning `to have sexual intercourse without or outside of marriage'
(`Om Samleie udenfor ágteskab'), with reference to The Odyssey.
 St. Paul's Views on Sex 59

23. Even the smallest dictionaries show this; it is the ordinary meaning of the verb in Greek
today. In fact, it has gone so far in this direction that gamo to is modern Greek for `the f-
word' in English. See A. Fiada, The Greeks, London: Oval Books, 2000, p. 42. (Cf. p. 37:
`Modern Greek ¼ has retained unchanged more than 80% of its original vocabulary.')
24. It is not certain that Paul would consider a marriage contracted in traditional ways,
even without mutual love (which did happen), as invalid, since he accepts marriages
contracted in `pagan' ways as valid; cf. his argument in 7:12±16.
25. Some may interpret this exposition as accommodation to the times. It should rather be a
challenge to rethink what is distinctive and essential in Christian ethics. Cf., e.g., D.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press,
1959-60, and several reprints. The common view on sex held by the churches can be
compared to a stone in a pair of shoes that ®t perfectly.
26. Even Jesuits, favourable to celibacy, see the danger in this. In an annotated edition of Le
Lettere di Paulo, Milano: Piemme, 1990, p. 39, they write in the introduction to 1
Corinthians: `Per esaltare meglio la vita dello spirito, disprezzano facilmente cioÁ che
spetta al corpo; ma poi diventano schiavi piuÁ facilmente.'
27. The views on sex before formal marriage have not always been as they are today in the
churches. Great changes took place at the end of the Middle Ages and in the 16th
century. Before that, greater `freedom' existed among Christians. Cf. Diarmaid
MacCulloch, Reformation, London: Allen Lane, 2004, ch. 16, esp. pp. 634f.