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.
