5

The Apostle’s Advice

If all indications point toward Paul being a widower at the time of the composition of 1 Corinthians, one bit of advice that he offered to married couples is often overlooked. That is the concession about which he writes in 1 Corinthians 7:5–6a. Had he been married at the time of the letter’s composition, the allowed concession would not have permitted him to travel as he did without his wife.

“Do Not Deprive One Another Except for a Set Time”

With the possible exception of the words about bishops being married only once (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6), there is no New Testament passage referenced more often in the patristic literature and precanonical texts with regard to clerical celibacy and clerical continence than 1 Corinthians 7:5,1 “Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

The Argument a Minore ad Maius

As often as not, Paul’s words were introduced into the historical discussion on clerical celibacy and continence in the form of an argument a minore and maius. A good example of the phenomenon is the decretal “Dominus inter,” which reported on the Roman Synod of 385. The papal decretal has been preserved in a document, “Canones synodi Romanorum ad Gallos episcopos,” often cited as the tenth letter of Pope Siricius (384–99).2 The recent critical edition of the text attributes “Dominus inter” to Siricius’ predecessor in the see of Rome, Damasus, who was assisted in the composition of the document by Jerome, the biblical scholar.3 In part,4 the decretal stated:

For if it said to laymen, “Abstain from one another so as to be free for prayer” (1 Cor 7:5), and those clerics still serve the creature by begetting, then they may have the name of priests, but they cannot have the merit.5

Alluding to the scriptural text as it does, the Synod argued in a kind of a fortiori fashion. If even laymen were obliged to forgo sexual relations with their wives in order to pray, how much more were clerics similarly constrained! Were they to enjoy fruitful sex with their wives, they may be priests but they are not allowed to engage in priestly functions. “Continence,” says Heid, who bases himself on Clement of Alexandria and 1 Corinthians 7:5, “was necessary for prayer.”6

In his work on 1 Corinthians, Origen, the most influential of Clement’s students, expounded the view that sexual abstinence creates a climate conducive to prayer.7 Preaching on Numbers, he offered a more radical view on 1 Corinthians 7:5. The apostle tells married people, Origen explains, “‘Do not refuse yourselves to each other, unless through mutual agreement for a given occasion, so as to free yourselves for prayer, and then come together again,’ it is therefore certain that perpetual sacrifice is impossible for those who are subject to the obligations of marriage.”8 Elsewhere, alluding to 1 Corinthians 9:5, Origen opines that it is not wise to try to pray in a place where sexual relationships take place.9

In the West, the a fortiori argument drawn from 1 Corinthians 7:5 was clearly expressed in the decretal “Etsi tibi” that Innocent I sent to Victricius, the archbishop of Rouen on February 15, 404:

If Paul writing to the Corinthians, says: “Abstain from one another so as to be free for prayer” (1 Cor 7:5) and thus instructs the lay people, how much more shall the priests, whose constant duty it is to pray and to offer sacrifice, be obliged to abstain from this sort of intercourse.10

Within the space of a single generation, two ancient documents of Roman provenance—the decretals “Dominus inter” and “Etsi tibi”—cited what Paul wrote to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 7:5, “Abstain from one another so as to be free for prayer,” as a principal, if not perhaps the principal argument for clerical continence and ultimately for clerical celibacy.

Taken out of Context

Divided into our present chapters in the thirteenth century, the Bible was divided into verses in the sixteenth century.11 The words, “Abstain from one another so as to be free for prayer,” are part of a single sentence in Greek, as follows, “Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (1 Cor 7:5). Jerome’s Vulgate translation of the passage renders the verse in this fashion: Nolite fraudare invicem, nisi forte ex consensu ad tempus, ut vacetis orationi et iterum revertimini in idipsum, ne tentat vos satanas propter incontinentiam vestram.

In comparison with the use made of the text by Origen, much more adept in the interpretation of the Scriptures than were the Roman authorities,12 the decretals’ interpretation of the cited passage was faulty in many respects. First of all, the citation’s eleven words in the English translation—only seven words in the original Greek13 and five words in the Latin Vulgate—have been lifted from the single sentence to which they belong. They are no longer part of the sense unit to which the words taken from Paul’s text belong in his letter. They have been removed from the context in which Paul wrote them, with the result that their meaning has been skewed.

Moreover, both decretals state that the exhortation to “abstain from one another so as to be free for prayer” are words addressed to lay people. In a radical sense that is true. The Church of God at Corinth was comprised of God’s people (laos). Paul, however, does not use this terminology to describe the Corinthian congregation except in the appropriated use of Isaiah 28:8 in 1 Corinthians 14:21: “In the law it is written, ‘By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people [tō laō toutō]; yet even then they will not listen to me.”14

The language of the Roman documents implies that within the people of God a distinction is to be made between lay people and clerics. Otherwise, an a fortiori argument could not have been developed. Paul does not entertain any such distinction, neither in 1 Corinthians nor in any other letter of his extant correspondence. The introduction of the distinction into the interpretation of the text implies that any interpretation based on the distinction is necessarily anachronistic from an historical point of view. In 1 Corinthians 7:5, Paul was addressing married Corinthian believers, the majority of the adult members of the Church of God at Corinth, not a group of lay people as distinct from clergy.

Far more serious than the introduction of an anachronistic distinction into the use of Paul’s text is the grammatical violence wreaked on Paul’s words by taking them out of context. The principal verb in Paul’s sentence is “abstain” (apostereite).15 In Paul’s text the verb “abstain” is qualified by a negative, “not” (). Rather than “instructing” people to abstain from sexual intercourse, as “Etsi tibi” implies, Paul tells his addressees not to abstain from sexual intercourse. There was, however, an exception. Paul writes: “Do not deprive one another except [ei mēti an16] … to devote yourselves to prayer.” There is a vast difference between the decretals’ reading of Paul, “Deprive one another for the sake of prayer” and what Paul actually said, “Do not deprive one another except for the sake of prayer.”

That sexual abstinence is a departure from the norm is already implied by the verb that the apostle uses to speak about it. “Abstain” (apostereite) is a verb with negative connotations.17 It generally means to rob, despoil, or defraud. It suggests depriving another or withholding from another person what is their due. The Greek word appears in the Greek text of an important piece of Jewish marriage regulation, Exodus 21:10, “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish [ouch aposterēsei18] the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.” Abstinence within marriage is depriving one’s spouse of what is her or his due.19

Paul qualifies the use of the exception as a concession, not a command as the appearance of the unqualified imperative “abstain” in the decretals’ citation of the verse implies. The apostle writes, “This I say by way of concession, not of command” (touto de legō kata syngnōmēn ou katʾ epitagēn20), in verse 6. The decretals’ and subsequent legislative use of 1 Corinthians 7:5 consistently fail to take note of the concessive and exceptional nature of Paul’s words about sexual abstinence for the sake of prayer.

A fourth fault in the decretals’ use of the Pauline phrase is their omission of two of the conditions that the apostle imposes on the use of his concession—namely, “by agreement” (ek symphōnou) and “for a set time” (pros kairon21). The pair of decretals that we have cited omits both of these conditions. The condition of the requisite mutual agreement of the spouses is nonetheless sometimes found in later texts.

Some Considerations

In order to understand what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 7:5, it is necessary to look more closely at Paul’s response to the problematic sexual asceticism succinctly described in the slogan, “It is well for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Cor 7:1). Paul begins with a matter-of-fact recognition of the power of human sexuality. He speaks of the power of the sexual drive in the language of his times, writing, “because of cases of sexual immorality” (dia de tas porneias).22 These are the first words that Paul uses in his response to the challenge of radical sexual asceticism. His words are a call to “get real.” In dealing with human sexuality it is necessary to recognize the powerful reality of sex. Chrys Caragounis, a Greek New Testament scholar, using Tobit 8:7 as an argument, says that porneia can be used metonymically of the sexual urge or the desire for sex and translates 1 Corinthians 7:2 as “on account of the sexual urges, let each man have his own wife.”23

Throughout his letter, Paul appeals to the community of believers at Corinth to live as God’s holy people.24 Doing so includes an ethical dimension. The members of God’s holy people must relate to one another as befits their situation as people called to be holy. Their relationships include their sexual relationships. Paul was astounded that evidence of sexual immorality (porneia), of a kind that even nonbelievers, pagans, would not tolerate was found within the Church of God at Corinth, a community that was called to be holy. The apostle was shocked that the community tolerated a form of sexual immorality, adultery and incest25—a kind of sexual immorality that not even nonbelievers would abide (1 Cor 5:1–8). Citing the Scriptures,26 Paul urged the congregation to expel the person engaged in that kind of sexually immoral conduct.

In the apostle’s view of the Church and in his understanding of anthropology, there was simply no place for sexual immorality within God’s holy people. Turning his attention to what we would today call the human person, Paul wrote, “The body [sōma27] is not meant for fornication [porneia] but for the Lord” (1 Cor 6:13). Sexual immorality and the Lord are incompatible with one another. In no uncertain terms, the apostle to the Corinthians told the community at Corinth to flee from sexual immorality (pheugete tēn porneia, 1 Cor 6:18), a challenge that he had addressed to the believers at Thessalonica in the very first of his extant letters (1 Thess 4:3). Avoidance of sexual immorality was Paul’s rule with regard to human sexuality.

To those who advocated sexual abstinence, Paul responded with a reminder that sexual immorality exists, the kind of sexual immorality that they were to avoid if they were to live as God’s holy people. How to do that was then the issue. Avoiding marriage, as the slogan “it is well for a man not to touch a woman” suggests, would not only create the danger of immorality existing within the community but also fly in the face of Roman mores and the Julian law. Paul “wants,” as Thurston suggests,28 “to diminish the risks of sexual immorality within the community and to reduce the chance of criticism from without.”

Throughout the letter Paul is concerned with social disruption in the community. Irresponsible avoidance of marriage and sexual abstinence could not but lead to further disruption within the community. Given the importance of heirs in both Greco-Roman society and Jewish tradition, it is remarkable that Paul does not introduce children into his rejoinder to the slogan until, well into his argument, he discusses the children of a mixed-marriage (1 Cor 7:14).

Paul categorically rejects celibacy as a way to avoid sexual immorality. To avoid sexual immorality, says Paul, “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor 7:2). His instruction echoes what he had said to the people of Thessalonica in 1 Thessalonians 4:4.29 What he has to say is deeply rooted within the Jewish tradition.30 Not only do the creation stories announce the God-given mandate to procreate (Gen 1:28), they also proclaim that men and women are meant for each other in marriage (2:20–28). Paul’s view that marriage helps to avoid sexual immorality echoes ideas expressed in such Jewish literature as Tobit 4:12 and T. Levi 9:9–10.31

Sex within Marriage

Paul’s view on marriage continues to reflect the insights of his Jewish tradition as he continues with, “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband” (1 Cor 7:3). Paul continues with an argument in support of this statement—namely, that “the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (1 Cor 7:4). For Paul, marriage is not platonic. It is a relationship that is expressed in frequent sexual intercourse by the spouses. Paul’s views in this regard are consistent with his Jewish understanding of marriage. The Jewish Annotated New Testament correctly observes: “Jewish tradition mandates a certain frequency of sexual intercourse according to a man’s profession; it also discusses limited periods of voluntary abstinence.”32 In support of this observation, its author, Shira Lander, cites m. Ketub. 5:6 and t. Ned. 5:6.33 Reporting on a dispute between the disciples of Hillel and those of Shammai, the Mishnah says:

If a man vowed to have no intercourse with his wife, the School of Shammai say; [She may consent] for two weeks. And the School of Hillel say: For one week [only]. Disciples [of the Sages] may continue absent for thirty days against the will [of their wives] while they occupy themselves in the study of the Law; and laborers for one week. (m. Ketub. 5:6)

Not only does this passage of the Mishnah speak about the length of a time that a couple may refrain from sexual intercourse but it also introduces the idea that the wife must consent to whatever ideas her husband might have about avoiding sexual intercourse for a while. Commenting on this Mishnaic passage and referencing Exodus 21:10, “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife,” the Babylonian Talmud says:

The times for conjugal duty prescribed in the Torah are: for men of independence, every day; for laborers, twice a week; for ass-driver, once a week; for camel-drivers, once in thirty days; for sailors, once in six months. These are the rulings of Rabbi Eliezer. (b. Ketub. 61b)

The Bavli reflects the common Jewish tradition, found in Paul as well, that sexual intercourse is a normal part of marriage. Only serious reasons are allowed to interrupt an active conjugal life. Thus, men of leisure are expected to participate in the conjugal embrace every day and workers every two days. Some occupations require a man’s physical absence from his wife but Eliezer ruled that these periods should be limited. The man who took goods from the village to the central market was permitted a week’s absence. Required to travel greater distances, camel-drivers were allowed a month’s absence and sea-farers a half a year.

The Talmud also commented on the Mishnah’s special provision for those engaged in the study of the Law. Asking, “For how long [may they go away] with the permission [of their wives]?” the Bavli responds “For as long as they desire” (b. Ketub. 61b). This vague answer was far from practical. So the Talmud immediately asks another question, “What should be the usual periods?” The rabbinic authorities, Rab and Rabbi Johanan, offered different responses to the question:

Rab said: One month at the college and one month at home; for it is said in the Scriptures, in any matter of the courses which came in and went out month by month throughout all the months of the year. Rabbi Johanan, however, said: One month at the college and two months at home; for it is said in the Scriptures, A month they were in Lebanon and two months at home. (b. Ketub. 62a)

Rab based himself on the “month after month” of 1 Chronicles 27:1 while Johanan cited Solomon’s allowing workers a home leave of two months after a month’s work in Lebanon as a precedent (1 Kgs 8:14).

The rabbinic texts were composed after Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. They are, however, indicative of an ongoing concern within Judaism that husbands not be separated from their wives for an undue period of time. That a discussion of the matter is attested as going back to the time of the disciples of Hillel and Shammai suggests that the concern was present among Jews in Paul’s day. Hillel and Shammai preceded Paul in the study of the Torah. Luke tells us that Paul was a student in the School of Hillel, specifically, that he studied under Rabbi Gamaliel, the student and grandson of Hillel.34

The apostle’s instruction, allowing, by way of exception, married couples to forgo sexual intercourse on the conditions of mutual agreement and for a set time, belongs to the aforementioned Jewish tradition, attested from the time of the schools of the great rabbis Hillel and Shammai until the time of the Babylonian Talmud, roughly half a millennium. Paul’s statement that sexual abstinence is acceptable for the sake of prayer (hina scholasēte tē proseuchē) also belongs to that tradition.

Jewish tradition also admits the possibility of sexual abstinence for the sake of prayer.35 A classic expression of this tradition is found in the Testament of Naftali: “There is a time for having intercourse with one’s wife (kairos gar synousias gynaikos autou), and a time to abstain for the purpose of prayer (kairos enkrateias eis proseuchēn autou)” (T. Naf. 8:8). This text dates to the second century BCE, antedating Paul by some two hundred years or so. Echoing Ecclesiastes 3:5b, “a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing,” the Testament of Naftali text indicates that there is a time for sexual abstinence (enkrateia) for the sake of prayer, a thought that resonates well with the apostle’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:5.

In sum, the three conditions for sexual abstinence that Paul sets down in 1 Corinthians 7:5 bear witness to his Jewish tradition. Of the three, the temporary nature of sexual abstinence is the one that merits Paul’s greatest concern. To indicate that the period of sexual abstinence should be limited, the apostle uses a classic adverbial expression, pros kairon,36 “for a set time.” The expression connotes a period of time, not a long period of time but rather a short or limited period of time.37 The phrase appears in the Latin Vulgate as ad tempus, a phrase taken over in the contemporary legal lexicon with the meaning of temporary.

Come Together Again

Paul notes that the period of sexual abstinence has a terminus ad quem, a time of closure. Unlike the ancient rabbis, Paul does not specify the length of time during which spouses may forgo sexual union but he clearly says that the couple who refrain from sex for the sake of prayer should come together again. In fact, the mutually agreed and limited period of time during which a couple abstains from sexual intercourse has a clear purpose: “to devote yourselves [scholasēte] to prayer and then come together again [palin epi to auto ēte].”

The two verbs in the purpose clause, scholasēte (“devote”) and ēte (“be” [together] are in the subjunctive. They are correlative with one another. Unfortunately modern English translations of the Greek text introduce a punctuation mark38 before Paul’s correlating kai, “and,” leading the unsuspecting reader to think that Paul links “come together” with “separate.” In fact, he does not do so. Paul links “devote” and “come together.” Coming together so as not to be tempted by Satan is linked with devotion to prayer. Paul says that couples may refrain from sexual intercourse for the sake of prayer and returning to one another.

Is Paul suggesting, as some modern rabbis do, that temporary sexual abstinence for religious reasons enhances the quality of the sexual relationship? Paul does not answer the question, although it would be interesting to know the answer that he might offer. What he does say is that a return to an active sexual life after a short span of temporary continence for the sake of prayer is necessary “so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (hina mē peirazē hymas ho satanas dia tēn akrasian hymōn). Paul consistently portrays Satan as the enemy of God and God’s holy people.39 Those who subject themselves to prolonged sexual abstinence are liable to fall victim to Satan’s clutches and thus imperil the holiness of the community. With his reference to Satan, the tempter, Paul returns to the theme of his primary maxim on sexual morality—namely, that members of the believing community are to avoid sexual immorality.

Within this context, Paul can abide sexual continence within marriage but only if three conditions are fulfilled: (1) that the abstinence be mutually agreed on by husband and wife; (2) that it be limited to a relatively short period of time; and (3) that its purpose be prayer.40 Paul’s insistence on the mutual agreement of the spouses is consistent not only with the general Jewish tradition that a wife has a recognized right to have sexual intercourse with her husband and that her consent is required should there be a period of temporal abstinence but also with the mutuality of the marital relationship that Paul repeatedly emphasizes in 1 Corinthians 7:2–3. Of the three conditions, Paul lays the most stress on the limited time period during which sexual abstinence may be tolerated.

Despite what Paul clearly wrote, Heid comments: “Occasional marital continence ‘for the sake of prayer’ was from the very beginning an undisputed practice in both the East and West, based on the clear instruction of Paul (1 Cor 7:5).41 This is not to be understood as a few days but rather in terms of weeks and months that accompanied prolonged fasting.”42

A lengthy period of sexual abstinence accompanied by prolonged fasting may have been the practice of Eastern and Western churches but such a practice ought not to be considered to have been based on 1 Corinthians 7:5. First of all, the reference to fasting (nēsteia kai tē is a post-apostolic interpolation into Paul’s text.43 It is found in a “correction” of the ancient Codex Sinaiticus, most of the second-millennium Greek manuscripts and the Renaissance’s Textus Receptus.44 Introduced into the text in the interest of asceticism, the reference to prayer and fasting is another instance of the orthodox corruption of Sacred Scripture,45 in this case, a modification of the scriptural text in the light of the orthopraxis of a later period of time.

Secondly, and significantly, there is no way that Paul’s “for a set time,” his pros kairon and the Vulgate’s ad tempus can be construed as a reference to a lengthy period of time, one lasting several weeks and even months or a lifetime. Such an interpretation of the text is simply contra mentem apostoli.

“Let Even Those Who Have Wives Be as Though They Had None”

What was Paul’s mentality? It has already been noted that everything that Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7 is colored by his apocalyptic worldview and his eschatological expectation of an imminent Parousia. It is necessary to return to that apocalyptic worldview because, as he addresses himself to those contemplating marriage—and, it would seem, marriage in the relatively near future—Paul writes, “Let even those who have wives be though they had none” (1 Cor 7:29c).46

Pope Leo I cited these words when he wrote to Anastasius, the bishop of Thessaloniki, toward the middle of the fifth century. He wrote, “Indeed, if those who do not belong to the order of clerics are free to enjoy conjugal relations and to beget children, we must, in order to manifest [what is] the purity of a perfect continence, not permit carnal relations even to subdeacons: ‘so that those who have [a wife] be as if they did not have one’ and those who do not have one remain single.”47 A few years later, the first canon of the First Council of Tours (461) cited 1 Corinthians 7:29c in much the same fashion, to wit, “If the faithful are advised to observe chastity, according to the doctrine of the Apostle, ‘so that these who have a wife be as if they did not have one,’ how much more the priests and deacons, attached to the service of the divine altar, must practice it.”48 The a fortiori use of Paul’s words in these two passages receives explicit expression in the canonical text’s “how much more.”

Without reference to the source of the words, “Let even those who have wives be though they had none,” and not exploiting them as the premise of an a fortiori argument, Aurelius of Carthage cited 1 Corinthians 7:29b in the twenty-fifth canon formulated in the African Synod of 419:

As we have dealt with certain clerics, especially lectors, as regards continence with their wives, I would add, very dear brothers, what was confirmed in many synods, that the subdeacons who touch the sacred mysteries and also the deacons, priests and bishops, in conformity with the ordinances concerning them, will abstain from their wives “as if they did not have one”: if they do not do so, they will be rejected from any ecclesiastical function.49

What did Paul intend when he wrote “Let even those who have wives be though they had none” to the members of the believing community at Corinth some four centuries before Leo wrote to Athanasius and Tours and four centuries before the leaders of the African churches50 legislated as they did? Paul clearly states that he wants his addressees to understand the eschatological situation in which they were living:

I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (1 Cor 7:29–31)

A Literary Inclusion

Although there are no linguistic links between verses 29b and 31c, the similarity of thought between Paul’s two expressions is sufficient to qualify the passage (1 Cor 7:29–31) as a discreet unity constituted by a literary inclusion and highlighted by a formal introduction.

The encompassing phrases speak of the coordinates of human existence, time and space. Each of these realities is designated by a term that, as it were, humanizes them. Time (kairos, v. 29b) is a time for opportunity, a time for decision, a critical time. This time is limited; that the eschaton is impinging changes the character and quality of the shortened time in which the Corinthians are living.51 This world (tou kosmou toutou, v. 31a) is the ordered and inhabited world. Using a classic phrase,52 Paul writes specifically of this world in its present form,53 the world as his contemporaries knew and experienced it. The world as the Corinthians knew it was passing away. To cite Thiselton, “the external structures of this world are slipping away.”54 The two verb forms “has grown short” (synestalmenos estin) and “is passing away” (paragei) indicate that the process has begun. The end-times have already begun to dawn but they are not yet, hence the time is indeed critical; decisions need to be made and soon.55 There is no time to waste.

The short pericope has two additional features that merit consideration. The four-word introduction, “I mean, brothers and sisters” (touto de phēmi, adelphoi), not only breaks the flow of Paul’s thought but does so with a certain amount of formality. Paul often indicates some change of thought by appealing directly, calling on his addressees as “brothers and sisters” (adelphoi). The formula of direct address indicates that what Paul has to say has relevance for the entire community, not just for those contemplating marriage, even though what he has to say is embedded within that section of chapter 7, the fifth section as Paul divides the question, that gives his response to the query of the Corinthians’ letter insofar as it pertains to the not-yet-married who expect to marry and are expected to marry.

A Declaration and an Explanation

Paul’s “I mean” (phēmi) does not mean that Paul needs to clarify something that he has just said. Rather it means something like “I affirm” or “I want to make this point.” The verb is one that Paul rarely uses. The touto “this,” which serves as the direct object of the verb in verse 29a, looks forward to what is to come. Thus, Thiselton translates the four-word introduction as “I affirm this point,”56 somewhat less Victorian than Robertson and Plummer’s “This I do declare.”57 The apostle clearly wants his readers to understand what he is about to say to them. His words almost have the character of a formal declaration, whose significance is not to be overlooked if the readers are really to understand what Paul is writing, what they have just heard read to them.

The Greek phrase touto de phēmi, adelphoi, translated as “I mean, brothers and sisters” that Paul uses as an introduction to 1 Corinthians 7:29b-31a appears only one other time in Paul’s extant correspondence—namely, in 1 Corinthians 15:50, where the phrase serves a function similar to that of its use in 1 Corinthians 7:29b. The words begin a new pericope and underscore the importance of the principle that is about to be enunciated. Paul writes: “What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (1 Cor 15:50). Exegesis of this passage lies beyond the scope of the present study but it surely is more than a curiosity to note that Paul uses these formal introductory words to introduce an eschatological statement in both instances. Moreover, each of Paul’s statements of principle are introduced into a fairly long passage in which Paul responds to a question/objection coming from the Corinthians and that in each instance he divides the question in responding.

A second feature of Paul’s construction that warrants further consideration is his use of the postpositive gar to introduce the final seven words (in Greek) of the short pericope: “For the present form of this world is passing away” (paragei gar to schēma tou kosmou toutou, 1 Corinthians 7:31b). These words constitute the second element in his ring construction. They hearken back to 7:28b, and with it constitute 7:28b-31b as a literary unit. Both statements refer to the coordinates of human existence and are in the indicative. With his use of the positive and explanatory gar, Paul states that the actual situation—read, that of the dawning eschaton—in which they live is the reason why his addressees should heed the exhortation(s) in the subjunctive mood that is placed within the encompassing end pieces of the ring construction. It is the eschatological condition of the Corinthians that should motivate them to heed Paul’s counsel. Should this situation not be real, then the exhortation is virtually meaningless for it has lost its raison d’être.

The context in which Paul writes, “Let even those who have wives be as though they had none,” is so very important if the apostolic exhortation is to be understood. This phrase is the first of five parallel statements:

v. 29 b: from now on [to loipon],

let [hina]

even those who have wives be as though they had none

[kai hoi echontes gynaikas hōs mē echontes ōsin],

v. 30 a: and those who mourn as though they were not mourning

[kai hoi klaiontes hōs mē klaiontes],

v. 30 b: and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing

[kai hoi chairontes hōs mē chairontes],

v. 30c: and those who buy as though they had no possessions

[kai hoi agorazontes hōs mē katechontes],

v. 31a: and those who deal with the world as though they had no

dealings with it

[kai hoi chrōmenoi ton kosmon hōs mē katachrōmenoi].

The context within which these five exhortations are enclosed indicates that they are counsel for the penultimate times. The penultimate times have already begun with the death and resurrection of Jesus but the eschaton is not yet fulfilled. Hence, I use the language of penultimate times, language that speaks of the already but not yet of Christian existence. The reality that the five bits of advice are counsel for the penultimate times is suggested not only by the framework within which they are located but also by the initial “from now on” (to loipon), which introduces and pertains to the entire series.

The initial “let” (hina) likewise pertains to the entire series. In this case, “let” followed by a verb in the subjunctive possesses the rhetorical force of an imperative even if it could be argued that the thrust of Paul’s remarks is hortatory or permissive rather than mandatory.58 The subjunctive is reflected in the “be” (ōsin59) of Paul’s first bit of advice. As “from now on” so “let be” (hina ōsin) pertains to all five exhortations. The verb, found in the first exhortation, is to be supplied in the other four. Otherwise the parallelism among the five exhortations is readily apparent. In the first three exhortations, the negated participle is identical to the affirmative participle. In the fifth exhortation the negated participle is a compound form of the affirmative principle. The fourth exhortation is a relatively minor exception to the otherwise strict pattern of Paul’s exhortations. In this fourth exhortation “having” is negated, while “buying” is affirmed.

At first glance Paul’s exhortations resonate with advice given by Stoic and Cynic moralists. For the philosophic moralists it was important that a person distance himself or herself from the world in order to gain internal sovereignty, full control over the self, in order to live in freedom and harmony with the universal Logos. Given the material similarity between Paul’s exhortations and theirs, the apostle’s hortatory remarks are at home within the Hellenistic world and could be understood by his largely Gentile audience. But the apostle has a reason for speaking as he does that is different from that of the contemporous moralists. He made that quite clear to the Corinthians in his opening remarks. For him the matter of principle is that the appointed time has grown short not that people should subject themselves to the Logos.

Apocalyptic Judaism often used the language of the inversion of normal human relationships to speak about the age to come.60 Paul’s “as though not” (hōs mē) is language found in apocalyptic Judaism.61 The apostle’s eschatological perspective is the real context of his exhortations and he has made clear to the Corinthians that it is from that perspective that he writes. Not only has he expressed that as a matter of principle in v. 29a-b but he has also stated that the dawning eschaton is the reason why the Corinthians should live in accord with his exhortations.62

The eschaton is characterized by an “eschatological reversal.” The eschatological reversal is part of the Christian legacy. The core of the beatitudes enjoys every claim to originate in the teaching of Jesus himself. The beatitudes in both their Matthean and Lukan versions (Luke 6:20–23; Matt 5:1–12), as well as the Lukan woes (Luke 6:24–26), proclaim that things will be different when the kingdom of God arrives in its fullness. The Magnificat, echoing Hannah’s prayer and celebrating the fulfillment of Israel’s eschatological hope, proclaims: “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:52–53).

The coming eschaton lays claim upon those who already participate in it by reason of their baptismal participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. Hence Paul can exhort the Corinthians to act as he did. That the first of his exhortations pertains to marriage is understandable. Not only is the entire seventh chapter of his letter devoted to marriage but there was also a long-standing Christian tradition about marriage being absent in the age to come. The Lukan Jesus is accordingly described as having said, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Luke 20:34–35).

In the triple tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ logion63 (Luke 20:34–35) is the conclusion to a controversy between Jesus and a group of Sadducees about a future resurrection.64 The Sadducees had cited the Jewish practice of levirate marriage65 as an argument against any future resurrection. Jesus’ words are his punch line retort to the then argument of the Sadducees. I have cited Jesus’ words in their Lukan version since of the three accounts of the words Luke’s version of the saying most resembles the eschatological construct envisioned by Paul in the series of antitheses.

Despite the contextual pertinence of the first antithesis, the five parallel exhortations in 1 Corinthians 7:29b-31a should be taken as a package.66 They represent ideal modes of behavior but none of the imperatives are to be taken literally. Wimbush suggests that the five-fold relativizing argument points to “accepting involvement in, the structures of the world, with the proviso that concern for ‘the things of the Lord’ take priority.”67 Wimbush’s observation seems to be spot on.

As far as marriage is concerned, were those who had wives to act as if they were not married, Paul would seem to have concurred with the slogan “It is well for a man not to touch a woman”—the very issue that had warranted such a lengthy and well-reasoned response on his part. Moreover, in verses 3 and 4 of this chapter, the apostle had affirmed married couples’ obligations to have sexual intercourse with their spouses. In addition, in both verse 9 and verse 36, Paul affirms the propriety of marriage for unmarried people who would find it difficult to keep their sexual drive under control if they were not to be married. In verses 10–11 and 12–16, Paul urges that married couples remain united rather than separate from one another. The last situation is that of a widow who chooses to remarry after the death of her spouse. The only condition that Paul lays down for her is that she remarry “in the Lord” (monon en kyriō, 1 Cor 7:39), not that she enter into a platonic relationship with her spouse. Immediately afterward, the apostle confirms the importance and accuracy of his response with a final, “And I think that I too have the Spirit of God” (dokō de kagō pneuma theou echein, 1 Cor 7:40).

Were Paul to suggest in 1 Corinthians 7:29b that husbands and wives treat one another as if their marriage were nonexistent, he would have given the lie to so many things that he had written in this chapter, whose leitmotif is “remain in the condition in which you were called”68—not to mention the entire letter. “It is fundamental,” says Thiselton, “that Paul is not now advocating a moral asceticism of a kind which he had questioned rather than promoted from 7:2 to 7:28.”69

Paul’s affirmation that the dawning eschaton carries an eschatological challenge to believers in the five areas of their lives mentioned in 7:29b-31a must take into account that the eschaton is not fully upon himself and his readers. The eschatological challenge of the eschaton, hyperbolically expressed in 7:29b-31a, does not mean that Paul’s addressees must leave the world (as they would have to do were they not to have an active marriage), never mourn with those who are mourning, never rejoice with those who are rejoicing, never obtain provisions to eat and drink, and treat the world as if it did not exist. Attempting to escape the real world would be at odds with what Paul had written in 1 Corinthians 5:10b, when Paul explicitly rejects leaving this world as a way to deal with the problematic aspects of life, as did those Essenes who withdrew from the dwelling of sinful men and women and went to the desert in order to prepare the way of the Lord.70 Apropos Paul’s thought in this regard, there is some similarity between himself and Philo who wrote in regard to created realities, “Whatever should happen, we could never escape or hide ourselves from those, even among things created, that are essential elements of creation … a man must needs have all these round him, for no one shall ever be able to escape out of the world [ou gar exō ge tis tou kosmou pheugein dynēsetai]” (Allegorical Interpretation 3.5).71

This reflection can conclude anecdotally. Had Paul intended that his words be taken literally, he would never be able to say, as he did later in this letter, “I rejoice [chairō] at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus” (1 Cor 16:17). Nor would he have been able to write “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep” (chairein meta chaironōn laiein meta klaiontōn, Rom 12:15). And if Christians should act as if they had no possessions, why was Paul so concerned about providing aid for the poor saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1–4) and why did he apparently dispatch Phoebe to gather the things that he needed for his intended visit to Spain (Rom 16:1–2)?

“Paul’s eschatological perspective is such that he recognizes that the Corinthians must face the everyday realities of life. He nonetheless urges them to take some distance from these realities.”72 As Robertson and Plummer said a century ago, the Corinthians must learn “how to sit loose to all earthly ties.”73 Their lives must foreshadow the coming eschaton and anticipate the Parousia of the Lord Jesus Christ.74 In Fitzmyer’s words, “What in Stoic thinking was an aloof reaction to the world of human existence has now been cast in terms of another world dominated by the Christ-event, with a destiny that is different.”75

Married people must continue to live like married people, but they must allow the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which will be fully manifest at the Parousia, to dominate the married life that they live.

1 According to the scriptural indices found in their respective works, Roger Gryson’s Origines (Les Origines du célibat ecclésiastique du premier au septième siècle, Recherches et syntheses, Section d’histoire 2 [Gembloux: Duculot, 1970]) cites the use of the verse on eighteen pages of his book while Stefan Heid’s Celibacy in the Early Church: The Beginning of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000) treats the verse on fourteen pages of his historical study.

2 Cf. PL 13, 1181–1194.

3 Cf.. Yves-Marie Duval, La décrétale Ad Gallos Episcopos: son texte et son auteur, VCSup 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2005).

4 Although it is not the oldest of the Roman decretals, “Dominus inter” is the oldest decretal whose text has been preserved in its entirety, thanks to Siricius’ letter to Himerius. The decretal, which prohibited clerical cohabitation, is the oldest Roman decree on clerical continence. It was said that Siricius left his wife and children when he was elected bishop of Rome.

5 Cf. Siricius, Epist. 10, 7 (PL 13, 1186; cf. Duval, Ad Gallos Episcopos, 95).

6 See Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church, 67; Clement, Miscellanies 3.12.79.1; 3.18.107.5 (GCS Clem. Alex. 2, p. 231, lines 16–21; p. 264, lines 5–9).

7 See Origen, Frg., 34, in Claude Jenkins, “Origen on I Corinthians. III,” JTS 9 (1908): 501–2.

8 Cf. Origen, Hom. 23.3 in Num. (GCS Orig 7, p. 215, lines 11–16; SCh 441–42). Cf. Christian Cochini, Priestly Celibacy, 155–58; Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church, 101–3.

9 Cf. De oratione 31.4 (PG 11, 553).

10 Epist 2.9.12 ad Victricium (PL 20, 475c–477a).

11 The division of the New Testament into its customary verses first appears in a diglot 1550 edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek by Robert Estienne (1503–59), generally known as “Stephanus.”

12 Arguably Rome’s introduction to the Eastern understanding of the Scriptures began with the Roman Synod of 382 to which Pope Damasus I (366–84) had invited Jerome, the noted biblical scholar, as a kind of peritus. That synod issued the first canon of the books of the Bible in the West. The 385 synod took place after Damasus had died. Siricius was elected pope in December 384. The fact that Siricius was complicit in the expulsion of Jerome from Rome is an indication of the bad blood that existed between the bishop of Rome and the biblical scholar.

13 In some Greek manuscripts, most of which came from Christianity’s second millennium, the phrase contains an additional three words so that the text reads “to devote yourselves to fasting and (nēsteia kai tē) prayer.” See below, p. 151. John Chrysostom was familiar with the longer form of the text but his interpretive comments are based on the shorter form found in N-A28.

14 Cf. 1 Cor 10:7 with its citation of Exod 32:6 and 2 Cor 6:16 with a quotation of Lev 26:12.

15 The rules of Latin syntax are such that “abstain” is no longer the principal verb. In the Vulgate “do not” (nolite) is the principal verb; abstain is an infinitive (fraudare).

16 The Greek particle an intensives the exceptive ei mēti. The intensifying particle is absent from 46 and a few other ancient manuscripts. In Latin, the exceptive particles (cf. BDF 346) are rendered as nisi forte, “except perhaps.”

17 Cf. LSJ and BAGD, s.v. “aposterō“; MM 650; Mal 3:5; Sir 4:1; 34:21–22; Mark 10:19; 1 Tim 6:5. EDNT 1:142 offers “rob, steal” as the principal meanings of the verb.

18 Pietersma and Wright’s New English Translation of the Septuagint (New York: Oxford, 2007) renders the expression as “he shall not withhold.” In this edition Larry J. Perkins was responsible for the translation of Exodus.

19 Cf. 1 Cor 7:3.

20 Hoc autem dico secundum indulgentiam, non secundum imperium in the Vulgate.

21 In the Vulgate’s Latin, the respective prepositional phrases are ex consensu and ad tempus.

22 The Greek porneia, often translated as fornication, is a comprehensive term that applies to any form of sexual immorality. Porneia is the single vice that appears most often on the New Testament’s vice lists. Cf. Raymond F. Collins, Sexual Ethics and the New Testament: Behavior and Belief (Companions to the New Testament. New York: Crossroad, 2000), 80–88, 96–98.

23 His emphasis. Cf. Chrys C. Caragounis, “‘Fornication’ and ‘Concession?’” in Bieringer, Corinthian Correspondence, 550–51.

24 Cf. 1 Cor 1:2.

25 Cf. 1 Cor 5:1c.

26 Deut 17:7 in 1 Cor 5:13. Cf. John Paul Heil, The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians, Studies in Biblical Literature (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 89–101.

27 In Paul’s anthropology the “body” (s¯ma) encompasses more than the merely physical aspects of the human being. It may be the most comprehensive term in Paul’s holistic anthropology, approximating what we might call the human person. Paul, of course, was not familiar with the insights into the human person provided by psychology and the behavioral sciences developed within the past hundred or so years.

28 Bonnie Bowman Thurston, Women in the New Testament: Questions and Commentary, Companions to the New Testament (New York: Crossroad, 1998), 42.

29 Cf. JANT at 1 Thess 4:4 and Raymond F. Collins, “The Unity of Paul’s Paraenesis in 1 Thess. 4.3–8: 1 Cor. 7.1–7, A Significant Parallel,” NTS 29 (1983): 420–29.

30 For a Jewish view on 1 Cor 7:1–7, cf. JANT, 297.

31 This approach to marriage led to a traditional Roman Catholic view that remedium concupiscentiae is one of the ends of marriage. Urged excessively, the idea leads to an extremely negative view of the human relationship that is marriage.

32 Cf. JANT at 1 Cor 7:3.

33 See also the discussion in Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, SP 7, 2nd ed. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2006), 256–57.

34 Cf. Acts 22:3.

35 Cf. Exod 19:15; Philo, Moses 2, 68–69; Sifre Num. on Num 12:1 [99]; Exod. Rab. 19; 46:3; ‘Abot de Rabbi Nathan 9.39; Tanh. 8.8; b. Pesah. 87b; b. Sabb. 87a. See also 1QSa 1:25–26 which mandates three days of abstinence in preparation for the eschatological holy war.

36 Cf. Sophocles, Ajax 38; Trachiniae 59; etc.

37 Cf. BDF 239 (4). See also Luke 8:13.

38 A semicolon in the KJV; a comma in NJB, REB, NAB, and NRSV; a period in the NIV. The Vulgate’s revertimini is an imperative form of the deponent verb revertor.

39 Cf. Rom 16:20; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; 1 Thess 2:18. Cf. 1 Tim 1:20. See further T. J. Wray and Gregory Mobley, The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 129–36; Raymond F. Collins, Second Corinthians, Paideia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 58–60.

40 See Collins, First Corinthians, 257.

41 For this statement, Heid references Cholij in Clerical Celibacy, 144–47.

42 Heid, Clerical Celibacy, 322.

43 Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1994), 488.

44 The sixteenth-century Textus Receptus was based on a handful of second-millennium manuscripts. Cf. Raymond F. Collins, Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday / London: SCM, 1983), 105–6.

45 See above, p. 91, n. 106.

46 Meier notes that there are three passages in the New Testament that deal with the voluntary renunciation of marriage—Matthew 19:12; 1 Corinthians 7:7–8; and 1 Corinthians 7:25–30, adding Revelation 14:4 as a fourth possibility. Cf. Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, 344. Revelation 14:4 is not treated in my study since it has not been regularly used in the discussion of clerical celibacy and clerical continence.

47 Epist. ad Anastasium Thessalonicensem episcopum, 4 (PL 54, 672b–73a).

48 CC 148, 43–144.

49 Cf. CC 149, 133–34.

50 Augustine of Hippo was among the 240 African bishops present at the synod.

51 Cf. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 344.

52 “The form of this world” (to schēma tou kosmou); cf. Euripides, Bacchanals, 882; Philostratus, Life of Appolonius 8.7; etc.

53 Cf. BAGD, s.v. “schēma“; Wolfgang Pöhlmann, EDNT 3:138, s.v. “schēma.

54 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 585.

55 With reference to the earlier studies of Wimbush and Caird, Thiselton makes an important distinction between a theology of eschatological imminence and a chronology of eschatological imminence, a theological stance and a temporal estimate. Cf. Thiselton, First Corinthians, 578; G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980), 269–71; Vincent L. Wimbush, Paul, the Worldly Ascetic: Response to the Lord According to 1 Corinthians 7 (Macon, GA: Mercer, 1987), 23–48.

56 Thiselton, First Corinthians, 579. Neither Thiselton nor the NRSV translate the Greek de, a weak connective linking the declaration with what Paul has written thus far.

57 Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, ICC, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914), 154.

58 Cf. BDF 387 (3).

59 The third-person-plural present subjunctive of the verb “to be” (eimi).

60 Cf. 2 Bar. 10:13–15; m. Soṭah 9:15.

61 Cf. 4 Ezra 16:42–45; etc.

62 Roetzel draws attention to the link between Paul’s eschatological expectations and holiness in Paul, 37–38.

63 Cf. Mark 12:24; Matt 22:30; (Luke 20:34–35).

64 Cf. Mark 12:18–27; Matt 22:23–33; Luke 20:27–40.

65 Cf. Deut 25:5. Since it is likely that levirate marriage was not practiced at the time, the Sadducees’ argument was clearly hypothetical.

66 Wimbush suggests that the verses represent an apocalyptic-influenced unit of pre-Pauline material. Cf. Wimbush, Paul, the Worldly Ascetic, 47.

67 Wimbush, Paul, the Worldly Ascetic, 96. Observing that Wimbush has concluded rightly, Joseph A. Fitzmyer endorses his interpretation of the exhortations. Cf. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, AYB 32 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 317.

68 Cf. 1 Cor 7:17, 20, 24.

69 Thiselton, First Corinthians, 578.

70 Cf. 1QS 8:13–14. The passage cites Isaiah 40:3 as a scriptural warrant for their escape into the desert.

71 The quotation is from Philo, vol. 1, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Loeb Classical Library 226 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929).

72 Collins, First Corinthians, 291.

73 Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, 156.

74 Ciampa and Rosner’s paraphrase of the fourth and fifth exhortation well captures their meaning even it loses something of Paul’s lexical play. They write: “Those who buy something [ought to live] as if it were not theirs to keep…. Those who use the things of the world [ought to live] as if not engrossed in them.” Cf. Ciampa and Rosner, First Corinthians, 347. The Common English Bible renders the fifth exhortation in this fashion: “Those who use the world should be like people who aren’t preoccupied with it.”

75 Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 317.