Section V The New Faith and Marriage
The church at Corinth had written to Paul concerning a number of problems existing within the membership.1 Paul had used his answer to deal with additional problems which the inquiry had not mentioned. Thus the first six chapters of this letter may be considered a “literary bonus” or a “spiritual extra.” In the first four chapters Paul dealt with the matter of divisions in the church. In c. 5 he had shown that faith in Christ produced a new morality. In c. 6, Paul had discussed the nature of Christian liberty, in relation to both permissible and non-permissible areas. In c. 7 he begins to answer questions which were the occasion of the letter. Here the concept of Christian liberty appears again, but now the problem centers in domestic relationships.
A crucial question at Corinth was the Christian concept of marriage. Paul’s idea of marriage as stated in this chapter is not a general statement which may be applied universally, but must be understood against the peculiar background of the Corinthian church. Charles R. Erdman writes: “It seems certain, at least, that some Christians regarded marriage as an absolute duty. Others considered the marriage state as an inferior moral condition, a weak concession to the flesh. Still others held that by accepting Christ all existing social relationships, including marriage, were dissolved.”2
A. MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY, 7:1-2
Paul interprets the institution of marriage from a practical rather than from a moral point of view. He looks at the single state from the angle of expediency rather than from the standpoint of the Tightness or wrongness of being married. In the apostle’s thinking, the practical benefits of remaining single were significant. However, if a person married, he neither enhanced his spiritual life nor did he mar his religious experience. But marriage brought obligations which the Christian could not ignore. These obligations were especially difficult in times of distress.
1. Benefits of Remaining Single (7:1)
In his opening remark, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, Paul does not present a low estimate of marriage. Nor does he attempt to downgrade it. Paul’s basic concept of marriage is a lofty one, for in Eph. 5:23-28 he uses it as an illustration of the relationship of Christ to the Church. The view of marriage reflected here was a specific answer to this particular church, in response to the things whereof ye wrote unto me.
Some of the church members in Corinth may have been influenced by a type of Greek thought which regarded the single state as superior to marriage. Others may have placed a wrong interpretation on the words of Jesus, “But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage” (Luke 20: 35). Again, some may have spiritualized the single state, making celibacy seem superior because they were disgusted with the extreme emphasis on sex in Corinth.3
On the other hand, the Jewish element in the church may have disparaged or criticized the single state. The Jews regarded marriage as a sacred obligation and the family as the center of society. This idea of marriage is traced back to Gen. 2:18, “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”
Paul speaks to defend the single state. “He proclaims aloud that the state of celibacy in a man is absolutely becoming and worthy, has nothing in it contrary to the moral ideal.”4 According to Lenski, the phrase to touch a woman refers “to sexual contact and intercourse in marriage.”5 The word good (kalon) does not indicate morally good, for there is no question of sin or of wrongdoing. The word means that it is for man’s best interest in some circumstances to remain single. However, the words of the apostle do not state a general principle for every age of the Church. “Paul writes for the Corinthians and for their specific circumstance at the time.”6 Nor do the words of the apostle refer to “abstinence from intercourse in the already married.”7 Paul is simply stating a practical concept of the benefits of remaining single. The ideas of spirituality and morality are not included in his statement.
2. Practical Necessity of Marriage (7:2)
The loose attitude in the city of Corinth made fornication a persistent temptation. Marriage would thus be a safeguard against sin. Here again Paul is not depreciating the romantic aspect of marriage, nor does he make marriage a concession to fleshly appetites. He does not regard marriage as an escape mechanism for those too weak to bridle the passions. Elsewhere he speaks of it as “honourable” (Eph. 5:25-27). Here Paul only points out that a practical result of marriage is that one could avoid temptation in the area of sex.
In his statement Paul included “an incidental prohibition of polygamy,”8 which was common at this time. Even some Jewish rabbis encouraged a plurality of wives. Paul took this occasion to remind the Corinthians indirectly of the words of Christ, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). Thus, while celibacy is honorable, it should not be the rule for the Christian.
B. THE CHRISTIAN ATTITUDE TOWARD SEX, 7:3-6
Marriage involves certain practical obligations which husbands and wives owe to each other, especially in matters of sex.
1. The Obligation of Reciprocity (7:3-4)
Paul frankly states that intercourse between married people is not only a valid aspect of marriage, but is also an obligation in accord with need and desire. The verb translated render “signifies not the granting of a favour, but the discharge of an obligation, here from husband to wife and wife to husband.”9 Godet says: “This verse confirms us in the idea that among some of the Corinthians there existed an exaggerated spiritualistic tendency, which threatened to injure conjugal relations, and thereby holiness of life.”10 In its deepest sense the verb render (apodidomi) means to give what one owes or is under obligation to give. The apostle puts the sexual aspect of marriage in its proper perspective, avoiding both a loose attitude and also a rigid asceticism.
In v. 4, Paul expands the idea of mutual reciprocity to include all of life when he states that married partners have power over the bodies of each other. The words hath not power refer to the exercise of authority. Mutual understanding eliminates two extremes in the married state—separate ownership of oneself and the subjection of one party to the other. In marriage each partner has a legitimate right on the person of the other.
In other writings Paul regards the husband as the head of the household, stating that the wife should be subordinate (Eph. 5:22-23). But in the sexual area both are on the same level. The main teaching here is that husbands and wives have the same rights. Both should act as Christians. Thus any excessive or abusive conduct is prohibited. But extreme asceticism—in which one partner might feel that sexual relations are out of harmony with spiritual living—is also eliminated.
2. Temporary Abstinence (7:5-6)
There are exceptions to the rule of mutual reciprocity in sexual relations. At times one party may desire to pursue a course free from sexual activity. Under the pressure of a spiritual burden or driven by an impulse toward extraordinary spiritual activity, one may wish exemption from fulfilling the marital obligation. Where such a situation rises, three conditions must be met: (1) there must be mutual consent; (2) the situation must be temporary (for a time);(3) it must be for purposes that are higher than even our highest physical joys. Alford calls them “seasons of urgent supplication.”11 When the reason for the extraordinary time of prayer is past, the couple should come together again, i.e., resume normal relations.
Paul’s views on marriage here stated are mainly by permission, and not of commandment(6). He has no direct command from God, but presents a bit of personal advice. When he says, But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment, he refers to v. 5 and includes the possibilities suggested there.
C. PERSONAL PREFERENCE AND PECULIAR GIFT, 7:7-9
From a practical point of view Paul would have preferred that all Christians remain single in order to permit complete and unbroken work in preaching the gospel of Christ. But he realized that this was both impossible and impractical. The apostle recognized that he had a special gift in this area, and that a person could and should marry if his natural inclinations made it desirable.
1. Paul’s Marital Status (7:7a)
Paul said: For I would that all men were even as I myself (7:7a). The words imply “with certainty that Paul was not married, and quite as certainly that he was not a widower. For how could he have expressed the desire that all men were widowers?”12
Some have suggested that the reference to Paul’s voting in Acts 26:10 indicates that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, and that such membership was limited to married men. However, a distinction existed between the Great Sanhedrin and lesser Sanhedrins. Paul could have voted as a member of a lesser Sanhedrin without having been married. Moreover, it was only a maxim of later rabbis, not a rule of eligibility, that a man must be married to sit in judgment. Paul never refers to wife or to children. The entire approach of the apostle is that of one who has never been married.
2. Paul’s Peculiar Gift (7:7b)
Paul’s preference that all men remain single is not a common or natural reaction. There is a difference among men which must be taken into consideration. Jesus had previously pointed out (Matt. 19:10-12) that some men have a tendency not to marry. They may be too restless or too highly motivated in a certain direction. When spiritual zeal is added to such a tendency, there is apparently little struggle with the natural desire to marry.
Such complete self-mastery is a gift of God. It is not given to everyone. Man’s natural inclination as well as God’s revealed plan for man includes marriage. So one person has a God-given aptitude for celibacy. Another person follows the normal pattern and marries. There is no spiritual superiority of one state over the other.
3. Both Marriage and Celibacy Permitted (7:8-9)
The phrase to the unmarried(8; tois agamois) refers to those who had never married.13 Paul suggests to them, men or women, and also to the woman who had lost her husband, that they remain single even as I. It should be restated that Paul was here answering questions in a particular situation. It should be stated also that Paul’s ideas were matters of personal conviction rather than of divine command, and that these ideas were stated under a strong sense of urgency regarding the task of the Christian to serve Christ fully and completely.
Yet marriage was also permissible (9). It is not a sin to desire a marriage partner, for this is man’s natural state. Marriage was initiated by God, sanctioned by Christ, and used by the apostle to express the relationship of Christ to the Church (Eph. 5:22-29).
Paul here presents only one reason for marriage when he writes: But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn(9). The compound verb contain (egkratevomai) means “to possess in oneself the power of controlling oneself.”14 When used with a negative it means the lack of power, the absence of self-control. If people lack this power, let them marry. It is permissible for people who lack the power of control in matters of sex to marry and thus solve the problem related to sex impulses. It must be stated again that Paul is answering a question about a specific situation in Corinth, and not presenting a universal principle for all Christians. To encourage Christians to marry for purposes of sex alone would be absurd, but it is one of the factors to consider. It is better to marry than to continually struggle with the fire of sexual desire or, worse yet, to suffer the guilt of yielding to such a desire outside the married relationship. In a very real sense, to burn means “to be consumed with passions which would hold the upper hand if there was no continence.”15
D. CHRISTIAN OBLIGATIONS IN MARRIAGE, 7:10-16
In dealing with the obligations involved in marriage Paul speaks with authority. In all cases people are to accept their station in good grace.
1. Obligations in Christian Marriages (7:10-11)
In dealing with marriages between Christians, Paul can speak with authority: And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord. In essence he transmits a command given by the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul appears to have in mind the words of Jesus in Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11; and Luke 16:18. These commands of Jesus, repeated by Paul, simply state that Christians ought to remain loyal to their marriage vows, and remain together as man and wife.
The basic reference in regard to separation and divorce is addressed first to the wife: Let not the wife depart from her husband (10). The command may have been directed to the woman because “the Christian women at Corinth may have been the most ready to make the separation.”16 Or the woman may have been forced to leave, since the husband normally controlled the property. If for some reason the Christian wife left her husband, she had only two options—to remain unmarried (11) or to effect a reconciliation.
The husband had an equal obligation, for he was commanded not to put away his wife. Divorce was a free and easy matter in Corinth, as in all cities under Roman rule. The Roman legal system granted either party the right to take the initiative in dissolving a marriage. The Jewish law also permitted a man to give a woman a statement of divorce for insignificant reasons. In addition, marriages between slaves were not considered binding, and marriages between a freeman and a slave had a very low standing. All these factors combined to make Corinthian marriages rather insecure and temporary arrangements.
2. Obligations in Religiously Mixed Marriages (7:12-16)
Many in the church had become Christians after they were already married. Unless the other partner was won to Christ, the Christian was faced with the problem of living with a heathen. Since Jesus left no direct command on this subject, the apostle speaks as he feels directed (12). However, Paul did not make his declaration regarding mixed marriages a matter of indiscriminate personal opinion. He was not an ecclesiastical dictator, but he was an apostle. Therefore his words were to be authoritative in the Church. Two examples of mixed marriages are discussed.
a. A Mixed Marriage Where the Partners Are Content (7: 12-14). The first example of a mixed marriage is one in which the unchristian partner is willing to remain with the partner who has become a Christian. In such a case the Christian was obligated to remain with the unchristian partner. Such a directive from Paul would make it clear that a Christian could not leave or divorce a partner on the grounds that the partner refused to become a Christian. Christianity cannot become an excuse for unchristian conduct. So if the unchristian partner is content, the believer is obligated to remain married.
There is no spiritual stigma attached to a new convert who remains with an unconverted mate. On the contrary, the unconverted partner receives some spiritual benefit from the Christian. Regarding the spiritual blessings which the unsaved share, Paul writes: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband (14). This does not mean that the unbeliever undergoes a moral or spiritual change. The verb is sanctified “cannot mean holy in Christ before God, because that kind of holiness cannot be predicated of an unbeliever.”17 Paul uses sanctified here with a ceremonial meaning rather than in an ethical or spiritual sense.
The unbelieving husband or wife of a Christian believer is set apart or dedicated to God by the life of the believer. As Lenski interprets it, “Through the believing spouse the blessings of a sanctified marriage are bestowed upon the unbelieving spouse and thus more is given to him than his unbelief deserves.”18 Even the children of such a marriage are benefited in that now are they holy (14). Here again the idea is that the children of mixed marriages are acceptable within the church and that in both home and church they are surrounded with the blessings related to the believer. Notwithstanding any spiritual blessings coming from the parent, “the Christian child is individually born in sin and a child of wrath; and individually needs the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost.”19
In mixed marriages where the unbelieving partner is content to remain together, the Christian is under obligation to be loyal to the marriage contract. A difference exists, however, when the unbelieving partner chooses to leave.
b. A Mixed Marriage Where the Unbeliever Is Not Content (7:15-16). The situation here is the opposite of a mixed marriage where the partners remain together by mutual consent. If the unbeliever refuses to remain with the believer, the Christian is free from obligation to sustain the marriage: But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart (15). In this way the believer comes into peace. Under these circumstances the Christian is not committed to a lifetime of persecution, abuse, and agony because of his relationship to a heathen partner. But the separation must be initiated and completed by another. The Christian should neither encourage dissension nor promote separations. Peace and love should always be the trademarks of Christian living.
There is no contradiction between Paul’s permission to allow the breakup of a marriage with a heathen unbeliever and the command of Jesus in Matt. 5:32. The Lord’s words were directed to those who professed to be loyal subjects of God. The words of Paul are addressed to those who are married to unbelievers. The directive does not grant permission for a believer to marry an unbeliever. The guidance is for a married person who becomes a believer after his marriage. In such a situation the Christian is free to let the unbeliever depart, rather than insist on continuing a union which survives in an atmosphere of tensions, bickerings, and fear.
Marriage is never to be undertaken as a “missionary institution.”20 When one is already married, as in this instance, there is no way of knowing whether or not the other party will be saved (16). Nevertheless, the Christian wife or husband is under obligation to try to win the other partner (I Pet. 3:1). Paul also urges that the Christian partner sacrifice much in the hope that the unbelieving husband or wife might be saved eventually. But if the unbelieving partner is hostile and antagonistic to Christianity, he will not be apt to become a Christian. A person’s salvation is ultimately a matter between himself and God. The Christian partner is obligated to do all he can to persuade the unchristian husband or wife to come to Christ. But finally the person stands at the crossroads of decision. So no one can guarantee the salvation of another. If the unbelieving partner initiates the separation, the Christian should not condemn himself for the failure of the departed spouse to become a Christian.
E. PRINCIPLE OF SPIRITUAL CONTENTMENT, 7:17-24
The Christian is under obligation to fulfill all the duties of the particular relationship in which he is involved at the time of his conversion. This principle of obligation is more than a mere duty; it is a matter of spiritual contentment.
1. The principle (7:17)
Paul writes, But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk(17). The apostle ordained that people should place spiritual matters foremost in their lives. The word ordain (diatasso) means to prescribe or to appoint. Such an ordination indicates a summary decision and suggests apostolic competency. This principle of spiritual contentment means that “every believer ought to remain in the earthly situation in which the call to salvation found him.”21 The mandate from Paul does not mean that one should not seek to improve himself through education or that he should not seek to advance himself by diligent effort. The point that the apostle makes is that a new convert should not use the gospel as an excuse to free himself from an unfortunate situation. Nor should the believer use the gospel as a springboard for unnecessary personal change or for social anarchy.
2. The Illustration of Circumcision (7:18-20)
The Christian state does not depend upon or call for external rites. If a Jew was converted to Christ, let him remain circumcised (18). If a convert was a Gentile, he did not need to be circumcised. Thus circumcision, which played so decisive a role in Judaism, was shown to be meaningless in Christianity, “The coming of Christ inaugurated a new era, in which holiness alone remains.”22 The meaning is that both Jew and Gentile should be content to remain in the particular physical state, regarding circumcision, as they were when they were converted.
Since both the former Jews and the former pagans are now Christians, circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing (19). Paul’s own personal actions supported his teaching at this point. He had encouraged the circumcision of Timothy as the child of one Jewish parent (Acts 16:3), and had refused to seek the circumcision of Titus (Gal. 2:3). The principle Paul presents condemns those who insist on the absolute rejection of former conditions as well as those who insist on returning to them. Lightfoot writes that in this instance circumcision is used as “a symbol of a much wider application … the observance of sabbaths, festivals, etc.”23
While observing external forms was of little importance to Paul, it is of utmost importance that a Christian have a concern for the keeping of the commandments of God. The Christian ought to be careful in fulfilling the requirements of the gospel; he ought to be concerned about “faith working by love.”24
Rather than lose spiritual victory because of undue concern for external status or conditions, a Christian should abide in the same calling wherein he was called (20). The word calling may mean three things: a designation of a calling or vocation, an invitation to attend a supper, or an official summons to appear as a witness or advocate in court. Here the meaning is “the summons to the knowledge of God, to membership in the Church, to the kingdom of Christ.”25 Another writer suggests that the term calling should not here be interpreted “in the sense of a man’s profession, position, or life work, for this is the standard apostolic term for the effective gospel call which makes a man a true Christian.”26 The apostle simply presents the truth that the gospel is designed primarily to change one’s spiritual life, not his social status. The change in status may come later, as a result of personal improvement or a change in society.
3. The Illustration of Slavery (7:21-24)
If the believer was a servant (slave, 21) when he was converted, he should not react to his situation so that he loses his spiritual peace and victory. At this point Paul did not condone slavery. The apostle was neither a rigid reactionary nor an anarchist. To him the important thing was personal redemption. The slave should not lose his spiritual balance because he was a slave. Freedom in Christ elevates a man above his social status. In an ideal society there would be no slavery of any kind. But Paul was a realist who knew that the Roman Empire was not an ideal society.
A man may have spiritual victory in a social situation which he cannot control. But if a legitimate opportunity for freedom comes, the Christian should take advantage of it: If thou mayest be made free, use it rather. The free man can be of more service to Christ than a slave. No Bible command and no Christian ethic forbids any man to improve his social or economic status by rightful means. In the days of the Early Church, a slave could be freed (a) by the death of a master who left a legal will freeing him, (b) by a reward for service given to a generous master, or (c) by an act of worship on the part of the master, who gave the price of the slave as an offering to his god. In the latter case, no one could enslave him again, for he was the property of the god.
Whether a man is free or a slave, he is Christ’s servant (22). Christ has paid the purchase price to free man from the mastery of sin. Paul writes, He that is called in the Lord … is the Lord’s freeman. According to Roman law, a person freed from slavery by a generous benefactor was obligated to take his patron’s name, live in his house, and consult him on business affairs. The Christian likewise owes a debt to Christ that he can never fully pay.
The man who is a slave is free in Christ, and the man who is free is the servant of Christ. Thus both men are free and both men are slaves. As Alford puts it, “The (actual) slave is (spiritually) free: the (actually) free is a (spiritual) slave.”27
Since Christ has freed us, the Christian should guard his liberty: Be not ye the servants of men (23). Some regard the command as a warning against selling oneself into slavery. In any case, the idea is that Christ has freed the believer, and the believer should not allow social relations or social status to rob him of spiritual victory.
The Christian should abide with God (24), and live in the atmosphere of the Spirit. Such spiritual freedom is true freedom. The word with (para) suggests the idea of being by God’s side in peace and rest, regardless of physical or social conditions. In this emphasis on spiritual freedom Paul does not condone slavery. In writing to Philemon about the treatment of a runaway slave the apostle had said: “Knowing that thou wilt do even beyond what I say” (Philem. 21). Godet declares that “this passage may certainly be called the first petition in favour of the abolition of slavery.”28 It is the genius of Christianity to apply Christian principles to social situations and to change them for the better. The Christian practice, then, is “accepting everything to transform everything, submitting to everything to rise above everything, renewing the world from top to bottom while condemning all violent subversion.”29
F. MARRIAGE AND CHRISTIAN SERVICE, 7:25-38
Apparently the church at Corinth had asked Paul’s opinion regarding unmarried daughters and the responsibilities of parents in such instances.
1. Apostolic Advice (7:25)
Paul writes that he has no commandment of the Lord but that he would give his own personal opinion. He had received no direct revelation from the Lord, nor did he know of any direct teachings of Christ in the matter. Yet he felt qualified as an apostle and steward to speak on the subject. The word “virgins” appears in Rev. 14:4 in relation to unmarried people of both sexes. But here it refers to unmarried daughters and the father’s role in assenting to or prohibiting marriage. The question must be understood in the light of the Oriental practice which permits the daughter to marry only if the father agrees. There are three aspects in the apostle’s reply.
2. The Single State Better in Times of Distress (7:26-31)
Paul stated that in his judgment the unmarried state was good for (because of) the present distress. The word good (kalos) denotes something that is intrinsically good in its nature, something well-adapted to its purpose or condition. Present (enestos) in some cases means imminent, and here alludes to the “painful and terrible experiences which the confession of Christ may at any time bring upon a believer.”30 Distress refers to the tensions or the situations caused by external events beyond one’s control. A person who was single would eliminate the heartache that married people face in times of physical disaster. Because of the perilous times which were coming, neither the married nor the unmarried should seek a change (27).
However, if a person does marry even in the face of imminent danger, he has not sinned (28). Marriage in such cases “is not a matter of right and wrong but of expediency and personal choice.”31
But those who marry may expect trouble in the flesh. Such trouble will not be the result of any personal wrongdoing, but rather it will be because trouble is inevitable in times of social upheaval. Perhaps Paul was thinking of the distress of the Jews who were carried into captivity or of the agony of certain families during the wars of the Maccabbees. Or more to the point, the apostle may have seen the inevitable tensions and unavoidable conflict between the Roman state and the Christian Church. He was trying to spare his converts from heartache and tragedy.
In his intense concern for the welfare of both the people and the gospel Paul wrote: But this I say, brethren, the time is short (29). The word say (phemi) means to declare, while the word time (kairos) indicates a season or a period providing an opportunity. Here it refers to the return of Christ.
Because the time of opportunity to work for Christ has been shortened, all believers should become detached from the things of the earth, which are about to come to an end (29-30). While it is impossible to escape the domestic and other functions completely, such activities should be viewed in the light of the coming of Christ. Thus marriage, sorrow, joy, and business transactions, all should be put into an eschatological setting. The believer may use the things of this world (31) but he should never allow secular affairs to interfere with spiritual life. The word abusing “appears here to imply that intense and greedy use which turns the legitimate use into a fault.”32 The apostle declares that the fashion of this world passeth away—that the old arrangement of things was changing. Because of the drastic changes to come it was better to be unmarried.
3. Advantages of the Unmarried Life (7:32-35)
Paul wanted both men and women to be tree from care, The term careth (32) is used to denote “special attention and effort to some person or some thing.”33 In this sense, the unmarried man has only one concern—to please the Lord. The married man, on the other hand, has specific obligations that tend to divide his interests. While the married man is not necessarily worldly in his outlook, often he acts as though he were, because of the responsibility of the married life (33). In times of distress he cannot escape the anxieties associated with his family.
Similarly, there is a difference between the service given to the Lord by the unmarried woman and the virgin (34). Like the unmarried man, the unmarried woman has only one dominant concern—to please the Lord. Thus she is holy both in body and in spirit. The unmarried woman is separated in body, and dedicated in spirit to the Lord. The married woman, like the married man, has a double obligation—one to her family and one to her Lord. These two sets of obligations are not antagonistic or mutually exclusive. But a simple fact of arithmetic dictates that two sets of obligations are more difficult to fulfill than one, especially in times of emergency or distress.
Paul speaks for the benefit of the Corinthians (35). The word profit suggests that which contributes to a person’s best interests. The apostle does not intend to put a spiritual snare upon the Christians to deprive them of their liberty. Instead, he wants to point out the life that seems best suited to believers in their circumstances. The purpose of remaining unmarried is that one may apply himself diligently to the work of the Kingdom, without distraction. Thus the entire matter is lifted out of the area of the moral and ethical into the arena of spiritual advantage.
4. Duty to Unmarried Daughters (7:36-38)
This passage has always presented problems. The traditional approach has been to interpret it as a matter of the father’s reaction to an unmarried daughter who has reached the age of maturity.34 Vine suggests that the reference is to a father who may have refused to allow his daughter to marry. The father finally decides that he is acting in an unfair and unwise fashion by refusing to give his consent. The father has decided that his rigid refusal might drive the daughter to rebellion, or possibly to immorality. The daughter may have indicated a desire to marry, and was not gifted in the powers of self-denial. In this case her father should let them marry (36).
Another interpretation of the passage under consideration is that it refers to a couple who may not have been married formally. They decide to live together, to share the same problems, but refrain from entering into sexual relations. Barclay suggests that the couple was actually married,35 but had agreed upon a “spiritual union,” which was never consummated in a physical sense. However, their original decision is overcome by a desire to consummate their marriage. This they may do, without any sense of having done wrong (36).
Most commentators accept the traditional view, interpreting it as a father-daughter situation. Either way, the idea is that it is not sinful to marry and to live together as man and wife. However, if the father, or the couple, decide to remain firm, it is also within the bounds of practical Christian ethics.
Four things should determine the father’s decision if he refuses to permit his daughter to marry (37). First, he should be convinced that the single state is better for the daughter—he will keep his virgin. Second, the father should know that the daughter is not especially interested in marriage or is not bothered by sexual impulses—“having … desire under control” (RSV). Third, he is free to make his decision as he will—having no necessity. Finally, he should make a decision and hold to it”standeth standfast in his heart—rather than keep the matter in a state of indecision.
Whether the daughter marries or remains single involves only practical results, not spiritual superiority. The words doeth well and doeth better (38) sum up the whole chapter. Well indicates that marriage is neither defiling nor unholy. Better is a kind of apostolic judgment that the single state is expedient because in it one avoids suffering and gains more time to serve the Lord.
G. CHRISTIAN REMARRIAGE, 7:39-40
Paul held a lofty concept of marriage, although in some instances he recommended the single state. To the apostle marriage was a lifelong arrangement: The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth (39). However, in the event the husband dies, the widow is completely free to remarry. The only reservation Paul places upon such a remarriage is that it be with a Christian man, i.e., one who is in the Lord. However, even in such a case Paul adds that according to my judgment (40) she would be happier if she so abide (remained single).
Paul has been accused of being “a narrow ascetic who despised women and discouraged marriage.”36 Actually, he advised marriage as a general rule for most Christians and never placed any superior ethical or spiritual evaluation on celibacy. His views here expressed on marriage must be interpreted in the context of the problems presented to him by the church at Corinth. Paul wrote to discourage an extreme asceticism which had placed a spiritual priority on remaining single. He also wrote that in times of distress or of emergency the single person had fewer obligations and less concern for the ordinary affairs of this world. This chapter should be understood as a commonsense approach to decisions regarding marriage and remarriage. Paul leaves them as decisions of personal preference, not of spiritual strength or weakness.