article21

§16 General Remarks on Marriage (1 Cor. 7:1–7)

The seventh chapter of Paul’s letter to Corinth is a complex and challenging series of related observations and directions that have often lost or puzzled later readers of the epistle. Paul’s statements in these verses are more often misunderstood than grasped and appreciated for what they say. The commentary that follows will focus on smaller segments of the writing in an effort to elucidate and explicate Paul’s thinking and teachings.

Verse 1 states the Corinthians’ position.

Verse 2 states Paul’s objection or reservations.

Verse 3 declares Paul’s own position.

Verses 4–7 explicates Paul’s point.

At the outset, one must recognize that Paul is taking up the letter sent to him from Corinth with its variety of inquiries. In replying to the Corinthians’ questions, the apostle employs common rhetorical features that his readers would have followed easily, although many generations of translators and commentators, as well as everyday readers of the Bible, have not succeeded in tracking Paul’s line of reasoning.

7:1 / Paul explicitly refers to a letter from Corinth. We already know that Paul has met with Chloe’s people (mentioned in 1:11), and later in the epistle we will encounter the names of three persons from Corinth (see 16:17) who “supplied what was lacking from [the Corinthians].” In the present verse we encounter the first of several overt references to and citations from the letter that came to Paul from Corinth (cf. 8:1; 12:1; 16:1). The NIV attempts to recognize that Paul has and refers to the letter from Corinth by placing a colon after the words Now for the matters you wrote about and then by beginning the next line with capitalization It is good for a man not to marry. Similarly, in the NRSV one finds an introductory phrase followed by a colon, “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote:”; but then one finds quotation marks around the words “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” This punctuation correctly indicates that Paul refers to and quotes a line from the Corinthians’ letter. In sum, the position of some of the Corinthians is that “it is well for a man not to touch a woman.” Obviously the point was debated, for the Corinthians wrote to get Paul’s thinking on this point. The NIV leaves Paul’s rhetorical ploy somewhat unclear and runs the danger of perpetuating the misunderstanding that Paul himself thought men ought not to have physical dealings with women, but nothing could be further from Paul’s own thinking and teaching.

The rendering of the second part of verse 1 in the NIV is questionable, It is good for a man not to marry. Literally the Greek reads, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” The NIV’s translation mistakenly focuses on the issue of marriage, whereas the Greek words speak of sexual relations between a man and a woman, obviously in the context of marriage. In the lines that follow, it becomes apparent that Paul is particularly concerned, as were the Corinthians, about whether or not there were to be sexual relations in the context of marriage.

7:2 / Paul’s thinking comes clear in this verse. In Greek Paul uses an imperative, so that he declares, “Because of instances of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband.” This statement is often described as a concession; that is, Paul doesn’t want people to marry, but he gives in on this point. However, the imperative force of the declaration calls that description into question. Paul’s assumption is that marriage is a normal, natural necessity. He recognizes the potential problem of immorality in order to explain and to verify his basic understanding that marriage is the rule, not the exception.

7:3 / Having laid the foundation for his teachings by first referring to the Corinthians’ assertion and then stating his own understanding, Paul works with the assumption that people are already married. He instructs the husbands to give their wives their due and, likewise, the wives to give their husbands their due. At issue are so-called conjugal rights, which Paul assumes do exist. He refers to the mutual responsibility of husbands and wives with the Greek word hē opheilē, a term that refers to a debt or something owed to someone, frequently connoting a profit or an advantage. In other words, Paul understands sexual relations to be a basic element in the economy of marriage. Paul’s statement is straightforward, although the NIV translation seems to squirm about with a euphemistic reference to marital duty. While there is nothing bawdy or lewd in Paul’s language, there is nothing oblique. Paul assumes that sexual relations are a standard, natural, even necessary part of marriage; and one should recall that he works from the assumption that marriage per se is necessary and normal. Some persons in the church in Corinth may contend that partners in marriage are above or freed from sexual relations, but Paul does not agree, and his teaching makes that clear. Mutual fulfillment in sexual relations is Paul’s plain understanding of the essential, normal condition of marriage.

7:4 / Paul juxtaposes a pair of balanced statements in this verse that give the social or anthropological assumptions behind his directions, although recalling 6:16 we should not understand that Paul has abandoned theological perspectives and concerns. Remarkably, at this point Paul assumes a genuine mutuality in marital relations. The authority over each spouse’s body is attributed to the other marital partner. There is little to no historical or cultural precedent for what Paul says. While male-dominant society was the predominant culture of antiquity, Paul understands the dynamics of marital relations in a strikingly egalitarian way—at least at this point in his discussion of sexual rights and responsibilities. In marriage, Paul teaches that one’s “other,” be that husband or wife, holds the authority over the mate’s body. The verb translated belong to in the NIV more literally means “to have authority over,” so Paul is not concerned with ownership or property rights but with relationship and relatedness.

7:5 / In verses 1–4 Paul initially encourages sexual union in the context of marriage, but in this verse he allows for abstinence for special times of devotion to prayer. This practice, as he outlines it, is Paul’s true concession. Paul speaks to both partners in the marriage and recognizes that they must be in true agreement on this matter. From Paul’s manner of reasoning one sees that some of the Corinthians assume that ascetic restraint in sexual relations in marriage is an element or encouragement of spirituality. But Paul does not follow their line. Rather, he recognizes that refraining from sexual union in a marriage is not a necessary path to spirituality, although he does allow for limited abstinence in special circumstances. Nevertheless, the sharp apocalyptic or cosmic note struck in mentioning Satan and temptation recognizes that even sincere humanly designed practices (here, abstinence for prayer) may open persons to the forces of evil.

Paul recognizes the reality and the insidiously subtle nature of evil. Humans are not superhuman, and efforts to practice or display spirituality may backfire despite the best intentions. Self-control as a human commodity, even in its most sincere form, has limited potential for accomplishing good. Indeed, the power of evil can even use good, noble, honest intentions against those who seek to do what is good. Paul’s warning should be a sobering reminder to the Corinthians that they live out the reality of God’s salvation, not by their own decisions and efforts, but through the presence and the power of God’s Spirit at work in their lives.

7:6 / When in the following verse Paul says, I say this as a concession, not as a command, he is merely qualifying his statement in verse 5 that allowed for sexual continence for prayer. In other words, Paul himself does not think that married persons need necessarily refrain from sexual activity “by mutual consent and for a time” in order to devote themselves to prayer. Asceticism is a possibility in very qualified circumstances, not a norm or mode of Christian life.

7:7 / Paul’s further remark, I wish that all [persons] were as I am, is often misunderstood or misinterpreted. The heart of Paul’s thinking and teaching about marriage and sex in marriage comes through clearly at this point, but one must listen carefully. The ensuing line is crucial, But each [person] has [a personal] gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Paul’s language is inclusive, as he addresses both the men and the women, the husbands and the wives, in the Corinthian congregation. Paul’s point is that chastity, the capacity not to marry, freedom from a desire for sex in the context of a marriage, is a spiritual gift from God. Such a gift from God brings freedom and opportunity for extensive service to God. One must see, however, that for Paul not marrying is preferable only if the capacity to remain single is given by God; but the gift of chastity is not universal, and it is not necessary. Either one has it, or one does not. Paul’s prejudices come out clearly in his comments, since he understands the gift of remaining unmarried to be an opportunity for freedom from marital responsibilities. The teaching is clear, not cryptic, though brief. Later in this chapter Paul develops additional aspects of his thoughts along this line (see 7:32–35). For now, one should note that Paul sees each believer as gifted in some particular way by God; and so each person is responsible and privileged to use whatever gift God has given her or him for God’s own purposes. Mission, not manipulation, is God’s will for the life of the believer.