Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:25-35, Paul on Marriage

Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

 - 1 Corinthians 7:25-35

Introduction

            In deciphering scripture, there are many issues that one needs to consider. The tendency in reading scripture is for one to read our own agenda into the text without letting it truly speak to us. Often when this happens, scripture becomes the cause for division and manipulation. In the case of this scripture from 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 that is under exegesis, much has been said about whether marriage should be a qualifier for one to be in ministry. Each difference in opinion has caused the division in the church to fracture a little bit more. If Paul were the author of this letter, and he preached so much about unity in the community, could it possibly have been his intent for his letter to cause division? Here we will examine this text more closely.

Literary Criticism

            With regards to authorship, scholars seem to come to a general agreement that this first letter to the Corinthians is Pauline. Both Jerome Murphy-O’Conner and Joseph Fitzmyer interprets the Lucan account to be the main source of credibility that Paul did actually travel to Corinth.[1] However, Murphy-O’Conner goes on to say that:

Luke gives the impression that he arrived more or less on the heels of Aquila and Prisclla, he arrived more or less on the heels of Aquila and Priscilla, who had ‘recently’ come from Italy as a result of the edict of Claudius (Acts 18:1-2). Thus, Paul would have arrived not long after A.D. 41. Unfortunately, things cannot be as simple as this.

He argues that it is on his second missionary journey that Paul arrived in Corinth. In holding the Lucan account and placing Paul’s other letters on a chronological timeline, we arrive at the conclusion that Paul probably left Corinth sometime in A.D. 51.[2]

Murphy-O’Conner writes that “Paul returned to Ephesus in mid to late summer AD 52. He stayed there for two years and three months (Acts 19:8-10), during which he probably wrote letters to Galatia, Philippi, Colossae, Philemon, and Corinth.”[3] Murphy-O’Conner, Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch all agree that 1 Corinthians is not actually the first letter that Paul wrote to the Corinths, as Paul does make a reference to a previous letter in 1 Corinthians 5:9.[4] Murphy-O’Conner writes that the first letter was actually lost. These three scholars maintain that because of the reference to a previous letter, it sets it up that Paul “was already situated in a well-set-up information exchange relation.”[5] Murphy-O’Conner writes that

The circumstances surrounding the writing of 1 Corinthians are much more complex, and go a long way to explaining the number of subjects dealt with in what is easily the most dialogical of all Paul’s letters . . . Paul had three sources of information regarding the situation at Corinth – Chloe’s people, the delegation, and the letter. Together these revealed two sets of problems, to which Paul responds in different ways.[6]

Form Criticism

            Malina and Pilch suggest that the book of 1 Corinthians can actually be divided into two sections. They write that

In the first part of the letter, Paul responds to the information brought by Chloe’s people . . . In the second part covering questions put in the letter sent by some Corinthians, Paul deals with their concerns about having children (7:1ff), arranging marriage (7:25ff), eating foods set before images (8:1ff), and gifts of the Spirit (12:1ff); about his own idea of a collection for Jerusalem (16:1ff); and about Apollos (16:12).[7]

Ben Witherington III seems to agree with this analysis of the text. He writes that “[Paul] is convinced that even social problems have theological roots and ethical implications . . . He must show the future good of allowing love to govern how, when, and whether one expresses one’s freedom, knowledge, and gifts . . . Paul structures his discourse to achieve these aims.”[8] He gives the suggestion that this chapter under exegesis falls under the section probatio, which includes arguments concerning marriage and singleness amongst other topics. He writes that “The probatio was the heart of a rhetorical speech or letter and included the principal arguments used to persuade the audience.”[9]

Textual Criticism

            To gain as close of an unbiased understanding of this text as we can, we need to examine the text more closely, especially with regards to the use of words such as “virgin” and “unmarried.”

            Fitzmyer offers that the noun parthenos could have been in reference to a girl without experience of a man, or who has not been given to a man. He writes that

Elsewhere in the NT it denotes (14 times) a chaste marriageable girl (except Rev 14:4, where it is figurative: parthenoi, those who have not defiled themselves with idolatory) . . . Here, however, parthenoi has to be understood as masc. as well as fem., because v. 26 extends its connotation to anthropos, “human being,” and v. 32 applies it to masc. ho agamos. For this reason, the RSV, REB render it “the unmarried.” The translation “betrothed” (ESV, Hurley, “To Marry,” 16; Elliot, “Paul’s Teaching”) is tendentious and wrong; and parthenoi, as “widow(er)s married only once” (Ford, “Levirte Marriage,” 362) is bizarre. The noun occurs elsewhere in the Pauline corpus only in 2 Cor 11:2.[10]

Richard Horsley however, offers that “Traditionally, because of the reference to “his virgin” (NRSV: fiancée) in verse 36 and the verb “cause to marry” in verse 38, the passage has been understood as addressed to fathers about their virgin daughters.”[11] Gordon Fee seems to agree with this translation. He writes that “Of the various options for the meaning of “virgins,” that seems most probable which sees Paul as speaking to some who are betrothed and are now questioning whether to go through with their marriages.”[12] If we hold that Paul was writing this letter to address the issues raised by the Corinthian church, then the argument presented by Horsley and Fee would probably hold more water.

Fee goes on to address the use of the word “being loosed” that presents some difficulty to work with. It is often assumed that in this case, Paul is referring to divorce. However, Fee raises the question that “If Paul had intended divorce, therefore, why did he use this strange noun?”[13] He writes that “The clue lies with the word “loosed,” which is found throughout the papyri as a technical term for discharging someone from the obligations of a contract . . . If the view is correct, then [the reference here would be] in particular to those who are already under obligation to one another.”[14] Fitzmyer agrees with this argument. He writes that “The perf. Lelysai might seem to mean, “have you been loosed from a wife,” i.e., by death or divorce. The NEB understands it of one whose marriage has “been dissolved.” In view of the preceding question, however, it must mean, “Have you been free of any bond to a wife?” . . . In saying this, Paul is not speaking against marriage as such.”[15]

Another part of this text that needs to be examined are the words “free of concern.” Fitzmyer writes that “Paul is expressing his pastoral care by providing guidance to the celibate male, and is undoubtedly using a notion often associated with marriage in Stoic writings . . . Paul makes this assertion about an unmarried man in the context of an exhortation in favor of virginity. What he thus asserts is intended as a recommendation to consider the appropriateness of “pleasing the Lord” in a celibate way of life.”[16] Fee offers here that

The words “to be free from concern” translate the infinitive “to be” and the adjective “without anxiety” (amerimnous). They have to do with a state of being, not with “cares” as such . . . Paul’s concern most likely still has to do with living in the present age as an eschatological person. That is, because life is determined by one’s new existence in Christ (already but not yet, with the “not yet” clearly in view), the believer should be free from the anxiety-ridden existence of those who are determined by the world in its present form . . . These things do not determine one’s existence; the clear vision of the future does.[17]

Redaction Criticism

            Because of the nature of this text being a specific letter addressing specific issues to the Corinthian church, there is little that can be said about the redaction of this text. However, we do find that this issue of the “present distress” that Paul talks about in verse 26 is also discussed in Luke 21:23.

The passage in Luke makes reference to a time of great distress in the land. However, the tone in this text seems to indicate more of an empathetic tone toward those who are suffering than one of reprimanding for the fate that they found themselves in. If anything, it seems to suggest that Paul might have suggested the Corinthian church remained as they were because in a time of great distress, a change from the status quo might bring trouble, similar to the reference made in the Lucan text.

Another portion of scripture that seems to reflect what Paul is saying in verse 26 about a man remaining as he is can be found in verse 8 where he encourages the unmarried and the widowed to remain as he was. However, it is difficult to interpret what he might have really meant in that text. Murphy-O’Conner suggests that, “When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians he was single. His formulation, however, draws attention to a latent ambiguity.”[18] He also raises the point that we cannot make the conclusion that Paul remained single his whole life based on one verse found in one of his letters.[19] This again points us back to the fact that Paul wrote this letter specifically to the Corinthians, addressing the specific issues that they had asked him.

Source Criticism

That Paul begins this part of the letter with “Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy,” seems to indicate that he could not address this issue directly based on his knowledge of the Law. Peter Tomson offers that when we approach this passage, we have to recognize Paul’s authority as a Jewish religious teacher in his “previous life.”[20]

Witherington makes the suggestion that “Throughout this letter Paul tries to inculcate in the Corinthians a sense of what it means to live in the eschatological age . . . For Paul, the one thing of eternal significance that humans can do in this world is serve the Lord, proclaiming the good news of eternal salvation available through the crucified Messiah Jesus.”[21] If we hold this argument to be true, then perhaps we can assume that Paul wrote this section of his letter based solely on his authority as an apostle of Christ, “one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.”

Socio-Historical Criticism

            Witherington writes that “Often the study of passages like 1 Corinthians 7 has been attempted without consideration of the character and conduct of Roman marriage and family life. Such background study might help to explain why the Corinthians were acting as they were and why they were making statements like “It is good for a man not to ‘touch’ a woman.””[22]

Malina and Pilch offer that “The principle behind [Paul’s answers] are consistently the same: our present living is hemmed in by coercive conditions . . . The theme here is anxieties that come from family life. Given the shortness of time before the Lord’s coming, it seemed better, in terms of orderly and devoted living, to bypass family problems.”[23]

In his book, “Paul on Marriage and Celibacy,” Will Deming offers that there may have been a reason for Paul’s approach to celibacy. He writes that “An option pursued by a number of other scholars posits an ascetic theology among the Christians that arose from their confusion over Paul’s teachings on holiness and eschatology. As Johannes Weiss explains, these “earnest, fearful, unfree souls” were frightened by the Apostle’s condemnation of sexual sins, such as one finds in 1 Corinthians 6, and by the nearness of the End.”[24]

However, we still need to understand what is going on in the Roman world during this time to truly understand what it is that Paul is speaking to in this passage. Witherington offers several ways in which we can look at this. He writes that

First, while moderns tend to view a home as a haven or refuge from public life, the demarcation between public and private life was by no means as strong in antiquity . . . Whether because of work or because of arranged marriages, Romans frequently looked outside the home for pleasure and for much else that we would associate with home and family . . . A good deal of this background information comes into play in 1 Corinthians 7 because of the household setting of the ekklesia, which meant that sexuality and sex roles . . . represented an area Christians themselves could influence and control, whereas the public world was outside their control.[25]

Also, advocating that singleness was better than marriage was a view that would probably have been frowned upon by the Roman Corinthains. Witherington writes that “Some emperors, especially Augustus, had done all they could to encourage Romans to marry and have many children. Augustus even put into law penalties on women who remained unmarried too long after being widowed.”[26]

            At the same time, there was also much debate between the Stoics and the Cynics about the issue of marriage. Deming writes that “The starting point for this “Stoic-Cynic marriage debate” . . . was the recognition of a basic datum of free Greek society: marriage involved a man in weighty responsibilities . . . The effect was cumulative: marriage was the equivalent of leaving the freedom of one’s bachelor days behind and beginning the settled life of a responsible citizen with all its cares and concerns.”[27] One of these concerns was the issue of having children, as this was synonymous to being married in the eyes of both Stoics and Cynics. Deming goes on to write that “The basic question they asked was: Should the intelligent, informed, morally upright person take on such responsibility?”[28]

            The Stoics did not evaluate marriage as an entity in itself, but “as an important component in a larger system of morality. The act of marrying was a sign of allegiance to a higher metaphysical order.”[29] The Cynics, on the other hand, saw freedom to be more important than anything else. Deming writes that “the Cynic idea of freedom necessarily also included freedom from the responsibilities of conventional existence: “from all care about food, clothing, house, home, marriage . . . For this reason they resolutely excluded marriage from their sphere of moral concern.”[30]

            These were the arguments both for and against marriage during the time that Paul wrote this letter to the Corinths. However, Deming also presents that “In 7.26 Paul speaks of what is “good for a man”, an expression he uses in 7.1, and for which we have analogies in Stoic authors. In contrast to 7.1, however, where Paul follows this phrase with a Cynic-like judgment on marriage, here he states explicitly that he is giving his own advice as one who has been shown mercy by the Lord.”[31]

Witherington seems to agree with this argument. He writes that “He urges the Corinthian Christians to do what is for their benefit (v. 35), that is, what allows couples to be united and individuals to be sure of what their marital status ought to be.”[32] He also says that Paul is not merely being socially conservative “in the interest of the ekklesia’s survival.”[33] Murphy-O’Conner makes the same argument in this. He writes that

Paul applies a very coherent set of principles to the solution of these problems. (1) God’s call comes to people in all walks of life. Hence one’s social status essentially irrelevant. In particular, celibacy is not intrinsically better than marriage (verse 7). Thus in itself no social change will raise one in God’s estimation. (2) A change of status may be initiated in order to compensate for human weakness . . . (3) A forced change of status should be accepted.[34]

Praxis

            In examining what Paul really thought about community and life in the church, it is hardly surprising that even in this text in 1 Corinthians, we come to the conclusion that essentially, whatever labels or structures that society may try to impose on us really does not matter. We may not always come to the same conclusion about everything concerning lifestyle habits, but we are essentially just “everyday people” trying to live “everyday lives.” As Paul himself concludes in this passage, “This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.” (1 Cor. 7:35).

Everyday People

Sometimes I'm right, but I can be wrong

My own beliefs are in my song

The butcher, the baker, the drummer and then

Makes no difference what group I'm in

I am everyday people

Yeah, yeah

There is a blue one who can't accept the green one

For living with a fat one trying to be a skinny one

Different strokes for different folks

And so on, and so on and scooby-dooby-doo

Ooh, sha, sha

We got to live together

I am no better, and neither are you

We are the same, whatever we do

You love me, you hate me, you know me and then

You can't figure out the bag I'm in

I am everyday people

Yeah, yeah

There is a long hair that doesn't like the short hair

For being such a rich one that will not help the poor one

Different strokes for different folks

And so on and so on and scooby-dooby-doo

Ooh, sha, sha

We got to live together

There is a yellow one that won't accept the black one

That won't accept the red one that won't accept the white one

Different strokes for different folks

And so on, and so on and scooby-dooby-doo

Ooh, sha, sha

I am everyday people

           

Bibliography

Dunn, James D.G., Editor. Paul and the Mosaic Law. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.

Dunn, James D.G., Editor. The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 32 from the Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians from Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.

Murphy-O’Conner, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Murphy-O’Conner, Jerome. St Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology, vol. 6 from Good News Studies. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983.

Malina, Bruce J. and John J. Pilch. Social Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.

Witherington III, Ben. Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

---

[1] Joseph Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: a new translation with introduction and commentary, vol. 32 from the Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 37; Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, St Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology, vol. 6 from Good News Studies (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983), 130.

[2] Murphy-O’Conner, St Paul’s Corinth, 139-140.  For the purpose of this paper, we will not go into an extensive discussion of when the letter to the Corinthians might have been written. Various texts, including the Cambridge Companion to St. Paul and Social Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul  seem to either point to Murphy-O’Conner as the authority on Paul, or make the general assumption that Paul is indeed the author of the letters to the Corinthians. Murphy-O’Conner’s in-depth discussion of dating 1 Corinthians in this book.

[3] James D. G. Dunn, eds., The Cambridge Companion to St Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 75.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 59.

[6] Dunn, 75-76.

[7] Malina, 59.

[8] Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 73.

[9] Ibid., 76.

[10] Fitzmyer, 314.

[11] Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians from Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 104.

[12] Gordon D Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 323.

[13] Ibid., 331.

[14] Ibid., 332.

[15] Fitzmyer, 316.

[16] Ibid., 318-319.

[17] Fee, 342-343.

[18] Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, Paul: A Critical Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 62.

[19] Ibid., 62-63.

[20] James D. G. Dunn, eds., Paul and the Mosaic Law (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 255.

[21] Witherington, 179.

[22] Witherington, 170.

[23] Malina, 90.

[24] Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 16.

[25] Witherington, 172-173.

[26] Witherington, 174.

[27] Deming, 52.

[28] Ibid., 54.

[29] Ibid., 57.

[30] Ibid., 61.

[31] Ibid., 173.

[32] Witherington, 174.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Dunn, 78.