Marriage, Divorce, Sex and Singleness (1 Corinthians 7)

Marriage Related Matters (7:1-40) "Let each remain in his/her situation when God called them" dominates each part. Outline:

1. To the Married and Formerly Married--Stay as You Are (1-16) [Counsel for Corinthians in various marital statuses]
• To the married: stay married, maintain sexual relations (1–7). No abstinence within marriage.
• To widowers and widows: it's good to remain unmarried (8–9). 
• To Christian married couples: remain married, no divorce (10–11).
• To those with an unbelieving spouse: remain married, no divorce (12-16).
2. Guiding Principle/General Rule: Remain as you were/Stay as One Was When Called (17–24) [1 Cor 7:24]
• Analogy of circumcision/uncircumcision (18–19).
• Analogy of slavery/freedom (21–23).
3. Counsel for engaged couples (25–38). To "virgins": it is good to remain unmarried.
• In view of the present necessity, stay as you are (25–28). Singleness is preferred but not required.
• Reasons for this advice (29–35). Paul's reasons for singleness.
• The form of this world is passing away (29–31).
• Freedom to serve the Lord without distraction (32–35).
• Freedom to marry or not, as they choose (36–38). Marriage is no sin (36-40).
4. Reprise: Counsel for wives and widows (39–40).
• Woman bound to husband, but may remarry if he dies (39).
• More blessed to remain unmarried (40). When widowed it is good to remain that way.

The outline indicates Paul's consistent tendency of urging them to remain in whatever condition they find themselves.

• Those who are married should remain married and continue to fulfill all their marital obligations.
• Those who are unmarried are encouraged to remain in that state.
• The flexibility and openness of Paul's counsel. He holds open a space for them—particularly those who aren't already married—to exercise their own discernment about how best to serve God, whether in the married or the unmarried state.
  

Responses to Contested Issues in Corinth [1 Cor 7:1–15:58]

From ch. 7, Paul makes a major structural transition--he addresses issues raised explicitly by them in a letter to him: "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote..." (1 Cor 7:la). Their letter was delivered to Paul in Ephesus by 3 representatives of the church: Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor 16:8, 17). Some of the content of their  letter may be inferred from Paul's responses. Each time Paul states "now concerning x," he's likely introducing a topic about which they've asked him a question:

• sex, marriage, and divorce (1 Cor 7:1)
• virgins (1 Cor 7:25)
• idol meat (1 Cor 8:1)
• spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:1)
• the collection for the saints (1 Cor 16:1)
• Apollos's travel plans (1 Cor 16:12)

Paul is responding to their written concerns: ch. 7 (sex); chs. 8–10 (idol meat). Ch. 11 introduces matters not posed directly by them (1 Cor 11:18--what he's heard about them from other sources). When "now concerning" reappears (12:1), he's perhaps returning (after some digression in ch. 11) to address their questions again. Chs. 12–14 (spiritual gifts) constitute an answer to some points in their letter. The resurrection of the dead (ch. 15) suggests that he's again reacting to reports about them rather than to direct queries from them. The two passages in ch. 16 are so cursory that it's hard to tell whether Paul is responding to issues raised by them, or whether he is summarily finishing up the list of matters that he himself wants to mention.

It's striking that Paul takes up their concerns only after writing the lengthy discussion of chs. 1–6, in which he:

1. calls for unity, 
2. reasserts his authority, 
3. forcefully scolds the community, and 
4. calls them to new standards of holiness and community discipline.

Paul doesn't allow their concerns to set the agenda. He addresses their questions only after carefully rebuilding the foundation upon which he believes answers must be based. This allows him to reframe the issues:

• He calls repeatedly for their community to be shaped by the gospel of the cross, and
• illuminated by the eschatological setting of the church between the cross and the final day of the Lord. 

Thus, it's not necessarily wise to begin "where the people are." Doing so may make it impossible to move to any other place. Questions must be answered—as Paul did—but only after the groundwork of the gospel has first been laid out clearly.

Sex and Marriage (7:1-40). Sex and marriage in ch. 7 has been widely misunderstood in the history of the church, with tragic consequences. Therefore, working with this text requires clearing away many misconceptions, such as:

• The widespread view that Paul despised women. 
• Paul regarded sex as dirty or defiling.

This is a grossly inaccurate caricature--even the opposite--of Paul's teaching. With careful reading, note 5 crucial findings:

1. Paul's not writing a general treatise on marriage, but responding to issues and questions posed in their letter to him.
2. The slogan "It is well for a man not to touch a woman" comes not from Paul himself but from them.
3. There's no trace in this passage of contempt for women or of the idea that sexual intercourse within marriage is sinful.
4. Paul's teachings demonstrate a remarkable vision of mutuality between man and woman in the marriage relationship.
5. Paul's advice on the topic of sex and marriage is strongly conditioned by his belief that the day of the Lord is coming very soon.

Hearing only one side of the conversation we have to guess what they were saying and doing. Without that (for eg., who were the "virgins"?), Paul's comments are difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, the general direction of his advice is clear.

1. Counsel for Corinthians in Various Marital Statuses (1-16). To the Married and Formerly Married--Stay as You Are

The first issue from their letter: May Christians continue to consummate marriages, or is it more appropriate for people who have received the Holy Spirit to live celibate lives? Paul frequently adopts an interactive style of argumentation (as in ch. 6), where he quotes a slogan expressing their point of view and then rebuts or qualifies it (1 Cor 6:12–14, 18). "Now concerning the things about which you wrote: 'It is well for a man not to touch a woman'" (1 Cor 7:1). The quote is probably a direct citation from their letter, or a pithy summary of one of its main points. Paul doesn't entirely reject this slogan, but he strongly qualifies its implications in the following verses. [Similar patterns of a quote followed by Paul's rebuttal (1 Cor 8:1; 10:23).] Paul does think that a life of singleness or celibacy is a good thing (1 Cor 7:8–9, 27, 32–35, 40). Nonetheless, he strongly disagrees with some inferences that they've drawn from this position.

For the married: maintain sexual relations (7:1–7). The key to understanding this opening section is in the first 2 verses. In their slogan, the expression, "to touch a woman" (7:1) is a common euphemism meaning "to have sexual intercourse with a woman." [It's never used to mean "to marry," as the old 1984 NIV misleadingly translates it. Also, "Let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband" (7:2, 1984 NIV) doesn't mean that those who are unmarried should find spouses; that in fact is the exact opposite of the advice that Paul gives to the unmarried (1 Cor 7:8, 27, 38)! Instead, the verb "to have" in this context means—just as it can also in English—to enjoy sexual possession of another person. It's the same Greek verb used in 5:1: literally, "for a man to have his father's wife."] What, then, does verse 2 mean? The text makes sense only when we recognize that Paul is speaking here not to the unmarried, but to the already married. He's telling married couples that they ought to continue to have sexual relations with one another. This interpretation is decisively confirmed in 7:3–4: Paul reiterates the point in unmistakable terms, insisting that each partner possesses the body of the other. The logic, then, is as follows. It is all very well in principle to abstain from sexual intercourse, as they've suggested, but Paul insists that couples who are already married should not try to renounce their sex life, because of the danger that one of the partners might be tempted outside the marriage into fornication (1 Cor 7:2).

To the modern reader, is this advice really necessary? Do married couples need to be told to keep having sexual intercourse? Do the Corinthians need to write a letter to Paul to clarify this issue? The answer to these questions, in fact, is yes. Some of the Corinthians may very well have concluded that sexuality was part of a "fleshly" unspiritual existence and that persons in Christ ought to renounce such base physical pleasures in order to "be holy in body and spirit" (1 Cor 7:34).

Such asceticism was "in the air" in ancient Mediterranean culture. The Stoic and Cynic philosophical schools significantly influenced them—debating whether a philosopher should marry or whether the unmarried state was more conducive to the pursuit of wisdom. In Greek popular religion, virginity and sexual purity were often associated with those set aside for the service of the gods, particularly for women who were prophets—the priestess of the oracle at Delphi, for example. Even Judaism, which classically had celebrated procreation as the duty of everyone, developed ascetic movements such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae about whom Philo of Alexandria wrote glowingly. Difficult as it may be for many at the end of the 21st century to appreciate, sexual abstinence was widely viewed as a means to personal wholeness and religious power.

Ascetic impulses within early Christianity. How were they to interpret the baptismal proclamation, which they would've learned from Paul, that in Christ "there is no longer male and female" (Gal 3:28)? If tradition about the teaching of Jesus were circulating in their church, would they have heard that Jesus had 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 … they are like angels" (Lk 20:34–35, 36)? And what conclusion were they to draw from the fact that Paul himself—their founding apostle—had been conspicuously unmarried (1 Cor 7:8; 9:5)? Remember that they had no past Christian tradition to look to for guidelines about how to interpret such things; they were inventing the Christian life as they went, trying to work out the implications of the gospel for refashioning their lives.

Radical forms of asceticism was practiced according to early Christian writings. In Col 2:20–23 Paul oppossed false teachers who say "Do not handle [the same verb translated as touch in 1 Cor 7:1], do not taste, do not touch." Such rules, he insists, "have indeed an appearance of wisdom (sophia) in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence." Similarly, 1 Tim 4:3 polemicizes against those who "forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods."

By associating holiness and wisdom with celibacy, some of them decided that ordinary married life was incompatible with their new spiritual identity in Christ. Some decided that celibacy was necessary; even some who were married attempted to renounce sex. Sexual abstinence might have been especially appealing to some of the women in the community, who were functioning as prophets in the church and finding a new sphere of power and freedom outside the traditional restraints of domestic life. Abstinence from sexual intercourse also would give women freedom from pregnancy and the responsibilities of caring for children. Their slogan ("It is well for a man not to touch a woman") also suggests that it was the men in the community who were urging the renunciation of sexual relations. Asceticism likely found a sympathetic hearing among some members of both sexes in the church.

Deprived of sexual companionship. Some found their spouses withdrawing from the physical relationship or even separating from the marriage altogether (1 Cor 7:10–11) in the interests of holiness. This may be a reason that some of them were going to prostitutes (1 Cor 6:15–16).

1 Cor 7:1–7 comes with clarity and force: Those who are married must not declare abstension from sex! "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband" (1 Cor 7:3). Why? "...because of cases of sexual immorality" (1 Cor 7:2). The spouse who "deprives" his or her partner of sexual intimacy may be preparing the conditions for Satan to tempt the partner into porneia because of the difficulty of self-control (1 Cor 7:5). Paul has already explained at length: porneia is damaging to the community of faith as a whole.

Another reason more profoundly related to the character of marriage itself: "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does" (1 Cor 7:4a). This was a commonplace view in the ancient world. Paul's next sentence, however, must have struck many first-century hearers as extraordinary: "likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Cor 7b). Here Paul challenges views of marriage--both ancient and modern alike:

• Marriage partners are not placed in a hierarchical relation with one over the other,
• nor set apart as autonomous units each doing what he or she pleases. Rather...

The marriage relationship is one of mutual submission, each partner having authority over the other. Regrettably, Paul doesn't pause to develop the wider implications of this remarkable idea. His immediate concern is focused on their problem: in marriage, he insists, there is to be no unilateral withdrawal—nor even a mutually negotiated withdrawal!—from regular sexual intercourse.

Temporary short-term abstinence is permissible if it is undertaken "by agreement" (the Greek ek symphnou means literally "with a common voice"—notice the etymological root of the English word "symphony") of husband and wife together. This is Paul's one concession to their desire to seek special spiritual disciplines (1 Cor 7:5). The purpose of such an arrangement is to allow the partners to devote themselves to prayer, but Paul is insistent that they must come together again after the fixed time, in order to avoid the danger of temptation. This allowance for temporary abstinence is the "concession" (1 Cor 7:6), though he makes it clear that he is not at all commanding such a practice.

How disastrously misinterpreted this passage has been by much of the Christian tradition. The reading of this text sees Paul as grudgingly permitting marriage itself as a distasteful concession to the lusts of the flesh. In fact, however, it is some of the Corinthians who are seeking to renounce marriage and sexual intercourse, and it is Paul who insists in a robustly realistic way that sex within marriage are normal and necessary.

Paul is unmarried and—by his own account—in control of his own sexual impulses, so that he doesn't need the physical satisfaction of marriage. Even though he wants everyone to be "as I myself am," he simultaneously recognizes that different people have different gifts and that not everyone is called by God to celibacy (1 Cor 7:7). This implies that marriage itself is also a gift (charisma) from God, though Paul doesn't say so explicitly.

Let's clarify the meaning by constructing a paraphrase, filling in some of the silent assumptions and gaps in the conversation. Explanatory expansions are not in bold to show how Paul's advice seeks to address the particular issues raised by them.

1. Now I will respond to the matters about which you wrote. You propose that, for the sake of holiness and purity, married couples should abstain from sexual intercourse. As you say, "It is a fine thing for a man not to touch a woman." 
2. But—since that is unrealistic—let each husband have sexual intercourse with his own wife, and let each wife have sexual intercourse with her own husband.
3. Marriage creates a mutual obligation for a couple to satisfy one another's needs; therefore, let the husband give the wife what he owes her, and likewise let the wife give what she owes to her husband.
4. For the wife does not rule her own body; the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not rule his own body; the wife does. 
5. Do not deprive one another, unless you decide—in harmony with one another—to abstain from intercourse for a time so that both of you can devote yourselves to prayer. But (when the time is up) come together again, so that Satan will not be able to tempt you.
6. I am not commanding this practice of temporary abstinence; rather, I am saying this as a concession to your proposal [1 Cor 7:1].
7. I wish that everyone could be in control of sexual desire like me. Obviously, however, that is not the case. But each person has his or her own gift (charisma) from God: if not celibacy, then something else, one in one way and another in some other way.

When read in this way, the true emphases of Paul's pastoral advice are brought more clearly into view.

How is this account of the situation related to the problems addressed in ch. 5 and 6, where their problem seems to be an excess of sexual free expression rather than a withdrawal into asceticism? Two mutually reinforcing answers may be given.

1. Their community is divided into factions (1:10–17; 3:1–4). If the debate over abstention from certain foods was a cause of division in the community [ch 8–10], it's not unreasonable to suppose that differences over sexual practices might also have been among the causes of division, though Paul says nothing in 1 Cor 7 to indicate this. This might explain why they raised this issue prominently in their letter. Paul's teaching in ch. 5–7 would, then, address different factions sequentially:
1. first those who believe themselves free to do whatever they want with their bodies, 
2. then those who believe that their bodies should be kept from all sexual contact. 
• In response to both groups, Paul offers a single consistent position:
1. celibacy is good, 
2. sex within marriage is good, and 
3. porneia is a disaster for the community.
• By affirming the rightness and necessity of sexual love in marriage—and only there—Paul rejects the extreme positions on both sides.
2. It's a sad truth of human nature that hyperspirituality often leads, paradoxically, to a backlash of fleshly indulgence. This truth is impressed upon us each time we see another headline about a television evangelist or church leader whose sexual misadventures have been exposed to the light—and all of us have seen more than enough such headlines in recent years to make us grieve deeply. Paul's directives in 7:1–7 take the measure of this sober reality. There is an inner spiritual connection between these apparently antithetical claims and behaviors at Corinth. Those who say "I am free to do anything" and those who say "I must abstain from everything" are equally setting themselves outside their God-given creaturely limitations. The attempt to escape our finitude—whether one way or the other—is bound to fail and send us crashing down. That's why Paul gives simple earthy counsel: husbands and wives should cling together and fulfill one another's needs.

For widowers and widows: stay unmarried (7:8–9). Next, Paul addresses a different group: "the unmarried and the widows" (1 Cor 7:8). "Unmarried" (agamoi) refers specifically to widowers, not all those who are not married. (Paul's advice to other non-married persons—the divorced and the not-yet-married—is in 7:11, 25–38). This counsel, like most others, is carefully balanced and directed equally to men and women: in this case, men and women who have lost a spouse to death. Paul apparently places himself within this group, telling them that it's well for them to remain "as I am" (1 Cor 7:8, 7), i.e., unmarried. [This is the only hint in Paul's letters that he might once have been married—as would have been normal, indeed virtually mandatory, for a Jewish man of his time who was devoted to the study of Torah (Ac 22:3; Gal 1:14; Phil 3:4–6; cf. the later rabbinic teaching that "He who is twenty years old and not yet married spends all of his days in sin."] Paul's marital history and status, whatever it may have been, was no doubt known to them; so, he need offer no further explanation. His purpose is simply to advise widows and widowers to remain as they are (cf. 1 Tim 5:14).

An important qualifier urging remarriage "if they are not practicing self-control" (1 Cor 7:9). [Porneia looms in the background.] Paul's concern is that widowers or widows find themselves lured into illicit sex [prostitutes or extramarital affairs]. Those who feel the compulsion of sexual desire should marry, "for it is better to marry than to burn." Almost all modern translations correctly interpret the last verb to refer to the "burning" of sexual passion, rather than the flames of God's judgment. "It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" [NRSV]. This is often read as though Paul were damning marriage with faint praise. But Paul is specifically addressing the widowed, not everyone, and that his teaching is far more flexible and permissive than the position of the anti-sex faction at Corinth, who were undoubtedly insisting that it was forbidden for the widowed to remarry.

For Christian married couples: no divorce (7:10–11). Paul returns back to married couples in the church. If continuing sexual relations are mandatory for Christian husbands and wives, might some of them seek an escape route into celibacy by means of divorce? Had this perhaps already been occurring in Corinth? Or had the issue of divorce arisen for other, more ordinary, reasons? Whether prompted by a concrete instance or not, Paul articulates a general norm in verses 10–11: Christian wives and husbands should not divorce one another. In contrast to the counsel of verses 8–9, this teaching is not merely advice: it is commanded by the Lord himself.

One of the very few places that Paul appeals explicitly to a teaching of Jesus to support a directive to his churches (1 Cor 9:14; 1 Thess. 4:15–17). The wording is different from the Gospels, but Paul is certainly alluding to Jesus forbidding divorce (Mk 10:2–12; Mt 5:31–32; 19:3–12; Lk 16:18), an unusual stance more stringent than anything found either in Judaism or in Greco-Roman culture. In Judaism, only the husband had the prerogative of divorce, but in the Roman world women also had the right to initiate divorce. The fact that Paul uses different verbs to describe the action of the wife ("separate") and the husband ("divorce") probably reflects his Jewish background and sensibilities, but there is no difference in the legal or practical effect of the action: the modern distinction between "separation" and "divorce" is not in view here, and Paul's formulation in verse 13 does recognize the woman's legal right to divorce her husband—though he is urging Christian women not to exercise it.

Paul not only repeats the teaching of Jesus but also reckons with the possibility that some within the community may not obey it. Therefore, he adds his own proviso to the Lord's commandment: If the wife does terminate the marriage, she is to remain single (agamos) unless she is reconciled to her husband (1 Cor 7:11). Paul doesn't explicitly state the reciprocal commandment (that a husband who divorces his wife must remain single or be reconciled to his wife), but in view of the symmetry of Paul's teachings for men and women throughout the chapter, this norm should be assumed as implicit in Paul's directive. The reasoning behind this ruling is probably the same as the reason in Mk 10:11–12: divorcing one spouse to marry another is nothing other than a legalized form of adultery. Paul says nothing here, however, about whether the spouse who has been abandoned is free to remarry. The major concern of his pastoral counsel is to prevent either partner from initiating divorce.

Paul doesn't call upon the community to expel or discipline persons who go against this teaching of the Lord by divorcing their partners. Presumably, they're allowed remain in the community, with the proviso that they are not to marry again.

For Christians married to unbelievers: stay in the marriage (7:12–16). Next Paul confronts an issue not envisioned by the teaching of Jesus: mixed marriages in which a believer is married to an unbeliever. Jesus was addressing a Jewish audience, and his prohibition of divorce assumed that both husband and wife were part of the covenant people of God. Paul's Gentile mission created a very different set of circumstances. What about those situations in which one partner in a marriage hears the gospel and becomes a convert to the new faith, while the other remains an unbeliever (apistos)? Can such a marriage continue? Some must have argued, in such a marriage the believer is defiled by sexual contact with the pagan spouse, and must break off intimate attachment with an unbeliever who lives in the realm of darkness and lawlessness (2 Cor 6:14–7:1).

Paul responds by speaking on his own authority ("I say—I and not the Lord"). He offers an amendment to Jesus' unconditional prohibition of divorce. (Paul shows no sign of knowing the Matthew's exception clause that permits divorce in cases of porneia [Mt 5:32; 19:9]; that seems to have been a later adaptation of the tradition.) Paul makes a point of distinguishing his own ruling—one is tempted to say his own halakhah [the collective body of Jewish religious laws derived from the written and Oral Torah]—from Jesus' commandment, offering it for their guidance. The believer should stay with the unbelieving spouse as long as the unbeliever is willing to maintain the marriage, but if the unbeliever desires to terminate the marriage, the believer is no longer bound to the marriage commitment. Again Paul carefully states this ruling in a way that applies symmetrically to men and women in the church. The striking thing here is the way in which Paul exercises the freedom to adapt the Lord's teaching to new circumstances.

By this stance, Paul rejects the assumption congenial to his own pharisaic background—that the pure person is defiled by contact with the unclean. Instead, he argues, "the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband" (1 Cor 7:14). Holiness is "contagious." This extraordinarily declares the power of God to work through the believer to transform the spouse and children. This is exactly the reverse of the logic of defilement that Paul has used earlier in the argument [union with a prostitute defiles Christ, (1 Cor 6:15–17); bad leaven leavens the whole lump of dough, (1 Cor 5:6)]. Here, Paul reverses the metaphor and asserts that, within the family at least, holiness is more powerful than impurity (cf. Rom 11:16: "If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy.")

1 Cor 7:16 is to be understood as encouragement to the believing partner to stay in the marriage even if there's no evidence of the unbeliever's receptiveness to the gospel. As one whose own life had undergone a dramatic reversal—from persecutor of the church to apostle—Paul knows that we should never underestimate the power of God's grace to redeem and transform even the unlikeliest people (1 Cor 15:8–11).

What Paul addresses here must have arisen with some frequency in Corinth and elsewhere in the early church. The spouse who joined the Christian movement would often be perceived as having joined a bizarre sect of people venerating a crucified criminal. Pagan spouses might have found their Christian spouses' new religious practices and companions embarrassing, or even intolerable. Paul says to let the unbeliever go if he or she wishes, for "it is to peace that God has called you" (1 Cor 7:15b). The believer's fundamental loyalty is to the new family of God. At the same time, Paul's openness to maintaining mixed marriages must seem like a puzzling compromise to those who were pressing the community to adopt radical ascetic standards. Paul is walking on a tightrope, maintaining a delicate balance between the radically new character of the community of faith and its continuing existence within the sphere of worldly commitments. The marriage commitment is not merely a burdensome obligation but where God's holiness and transforming power may operate. Thus, Paul's view of marriage, even marriage to an unbeliever, is hope-filled.

General Rule: Remain as You Were When Called (7:17–24). In this short section, Paul repeats 3 times the maxim that believers should remain in the condition in which they were called—their position in life at the time they first accepted the preaching of the good news about Christ. The section has the structure of a club sandwich: in between the three-layered repetition of the maxim (1 Cor 7:17, 20, 24), he inserts two illustrative analogies, implicitly comparing the married/unmarried distinction to the circumcised/uncircumcised (vv. 18–19) and slave/free distinctions (vv. 21–23). All these distinctions, he declares, are unimportant before God.

There's no indication that circumcision and slavery were contested issues at Corinth. Paul is merely using these as parallel illustrations to support his counsel that they should not seek to change their marital status. It's not coincidental that these 2 illustrations, combined with the discussion of sex in the Christian life, parallel precisely the 3 elements in Paul's baptismal catechesis:

• As many of you were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
• There is no longer Jew or Greek [cf. 1 Cor 7:18–19]
• there is no longer slave or free, [cf. 1 Cor 7:21–23]
• there is no longer male and female; [cf. the rest of 1 Cor. 7]
• for all of you are one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:27–28)

These binary polarities are basic categories for Paul's perception of the human condition, but even such basic markers of human identity have been rendered meaningless in light of the gospel. 1 Cor 7 is Paul's own explication of Gal 3:28. Some of them thought that "no male and female" obliged them to give up sex; to the contrary, Paul declares that the gospel sets us free from anxiety about such distinctions and to call us to find our identity in Christ rather than in gender. Marriage, like ethnicity and social status, belongs now to the category of adiaphora: matters that fundamentally make no difference. On this basis, Paul articulates a very simple rule: Do not try to change your position.

In view of Paul's strong proclamation elsewhere of the world-transforming power of the gospel (2 Cor 5:16–21), this may seem like a disappointingly conservative account of the social implications of the new life in Christ. We must remember, however, that Paul writes under the conviction that "the present form of this world is passing away" (1 Cor 7:31b). To scramble for new social positions is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: it is a pointless exercise that only generates anxiety. His immediate pastoral concern is to set them free for wholehearted service of God wherever they find themselves in the present time. "Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called" means, "Bloom where you are planted; don't worry about trying to become something you are not." Paul's application of this advice to their situation was to dissuade them from abandoning their marital commitments. There's more wisdom in such counsel than in Utopian schemes for breaking free from human limitations. At the same time, the application of Paul's maxim requires discernment and the ability to know when exceptions are appropriate, as his discussion throughout this chapter indicates.

Paul's conviction that "circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing" (1 Cor 7:19) would've shocked his Jewish contemporaries, but it was integral to his vision for the church. The church is a community that transcends ethnic boundaries in order to unite Jew and Gentile as one new people serving one God. More shocking still is the punchline of Paul's declaration: What matters is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision; what matters is "obeying the commandments of God" (1 Cor 7:19). But circumcision is one of the commandments of God (Gen 17:9–14)! If obeying the commandments is crucial, how can circumcision be unimportant? Paul offers no explanation here since the present argument is not dealing with the problem of Jewish identity. His statement presupposes that the Law is to be read anew through a different hermeneutical lens, since Christ is the telos of the Law (Rom 2:25–29; 8:1–4; 10:1–13; 13:8–10). Perhaps already instructed about such matters by Paul, the Gentile Christians would acknowledge the force of this argument. Becoming a Christian did not require them to change their ethnic status by becoming Jews first. Similarly, Paul suggests, there's no reason for them to change their marital status.

7:21–23 is problematical, because it urges Christian slaves to remain contentedly in their slave status. This is where the "conservatism" of Paul plays into the hands of oppressive social forces. Before rushing to judgment, consider what's known about ancient slavery and how Paul uses the illustration in his argument. Slavery in the ancient Greco-Roman world was pervasive, and wasn't invariably perceived as oppressive. Americans think of slavery as it was practiced in the antebellum South, but the ancient reality was more complicated. Slavery provided for many people not only economic security, but also upward social mobility. The slave of a powerful master could be an honorable station, and slaves were sometimes highly educated and entrusted with major administrative responsibility. (4:1–5.) That's why "slave of Christ" (1 Cor 7:22) could be an honorable designation, and a position of some authority. Of course, some slaves were treated badly, and many sought emancipation when possible, sometimes through saving up money to buy their way out of slavery. The emancipated slave was still not a free-born citizen, but a "freedman" (apeleutheros), who often remained attached to the service of his or her former master. Many early Christian converts came from these lower ranks of society, being either slaves or former slaves. Indeed, Christianity may have appealed especially to people of low social status who were nonetheless relatively well-educated or economically successful.

Against this background, observe how Paul uses this language rhetorically. He says that those who were slaves when called by God should not "be concerned about it." The explanation for this (1 Cor 7:22–23) recalls the status reversal proclaimed in (1:26–29). The "bought with a price" metaphor (1 Cor 7:23) was in 1 Cor 6:20: Through his death Christ has paid the price to redeem those whom he has called. The result of this transaction is a reversal of relative status within Christ's household. The slave becomes "a freed person [apeleutheros] belonging to the Lord," whereas the one who was free (eleutheros) when called becomes a "slave of Christ" (1 Cor 7:22); thus, the former slave is accorded the higher rank. All, regardless of wordly social status, are now under the authority of Christ. Thus, Paul insists that those who have been "bought" out of slavery by Christ's death should not "become slaves of human masters." Paul means that they should live their lives, whatever their outward station, as people devoted to the service of Christ.

Where such language is deployed, the symbolic world of the ancient slave system has been dramatically destabilized. Paul expected the sociopolitical order of his day to be swept away in the immediate future by God's eschatological judgment. When that did not occur, however, the metaphorical reversals of the present passage could only serve to undermine the system from within and to prepare the way for the withering away of slavery as a social institution in later Christian civilization.

The traditional interpretation of 1 Cor 7:21b is surprisingly: "Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition [slavery] now more than ever" (NRSV). But the interpretation of the RSV, NIV, NEB, JB, and NRSV footnote is to be preferred: "Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let that trouble you; but if a chance of liberty should come, take it" (NEB). This reading fits the pattern throughout ch. 7: remain as they are but then allows exceptions for various reasons (1 Cor 7:8–9, 10–11, 12–15, 26–28). The exception here is the slave's opportunity to gain freedom. Paul's point is not to insist that people must remain in their present status, even to the extent of refusing emancipation (such a refusal would have been legally impossible); rather, his point—to say it one more time—is to reassure his readers that they should not be troubled about their present social location and that they should focus their attention on serving God, wherever they stand in the social order.

Paul's argument is that the married shouldn't abandon their marriages and that the unmarried shouldn't necessarily be urgently seeking partners. In the 21st century, the analogy may be opaque and troubling, but Paul's original audience would've found it relatively clear and reassuring. Paul's basic advice: relax and "remain with God" (1 Cor 7:24) wherever you find yourself.

Counsel for Engaged Couples: Remain as You Are (7:25–38). Paul takes up another point from their letter: "Now concerning virgins" (1 Cor 7:25). Who are the virgins, and what question did they ask? The virgins are likely young women who are betrothed but not yet married to men in the church. The question raised is whether young people in this situation may go ahead and marry or whether as Christians they are now obliged to remain unmarried. Paul's answer is completely consistent with the pattern in all the other cases in ch. 7: it's better for them to remain as they are (in this case, unmarried), but if they choose to marry, that's no sin. The conclusion (sums up Paul's position nicely: "He who marries his fiancee [literally, "virgin"] does well; and he who refrains from marriage does better" (1 Cor 7:38). The decision is left to the persons involved, with some encouragement from the apostle to stay unmarried if they are able to choose that course freely and decisively (1 Cor 7:37). (Paul discusses the problem exclusively from the male point of view, and the decision of whether to marry is presented as the man's unilateral decision (7:36-38). This is one place where the careful symmetry of his treatment breaks down.)

Misinterpretations are created when 7:2 is misread as a command from Paul to the unmarried, because this advice would seem to contradict 7:26–27 and 7:36–38. But when 7:1–7 are understood as directed to married couples, the difficulty is resolved. Paul first begins to address those who have not yet been married only in 7:25. So why should the unmarried remain unmarried? Paul offers two interrelated reasons:

1. The present order of the world is going to pass away in the very near future.
2. Marriage presents many distractions that may hinder service to the Lord.

First, "the appointed time has grown short" (1 Cor 7:29a). Paul expects Jesus' return and the judgment of the world in the very near future. "Salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone, the day is near" (Rom 13:11-12). This powerful apocalyptic expectation should shape the thought and action of believers. Ordinary temporal matters dwindle in significance in the light of God's eschatological judgment. Thus, Christians should live as if the end were at hand (1 Cor 7:29b-31a), not investing themselves inappropriately in issues and affairs that belong to the old age. "...let even those who have wives be as though they had none" (1 Cor 7:29) cannot mean that married Christians to renounce sex, for he has explicitly said otherwise (7:1–7); rather, he means that they should live out their marriages with a watchful awareness that the present order of things is not ultimate. Similarly, Paul cannot be telling them not to mourn and rejoice (1 Cor 7:30ab; Rom 12:15; 1 Cor 12:26). Rather, he means that even in the midst of mourning and rejoicing they must recognize that the day is coming when God will wipe away all tears and joy will be complete. And "when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end" (1 Cor 13:10). The same logic applies to possessions and financial transactions (1 Cor 7:30c-31a). Christians should live as people who know that all these things have at best penultimate significance; knowing that, we can take whatever may come with equanimity [calmness, composure]. (See 2 Esdras 16:40–48).

Though sounding like Stoic apathy, Paul's reasoning is very different from that of the Stoics. The Stoics sought to cultivate an imperious detachment from all things, based on internal strength of character and on the conviction that all events are ordered by providence. Paul's teaching of detachment is based instead on the conviction that the future is impinging upon the present; consequently, "the present form of this world is passing away" (1 Cor 7:31b). Under such circumstances, it looks illogical to undertake long-term commitments such as marriage.

The unfolding eschatological scenario may impose particular hardships on the people of God. "...the present crisis" (1 Cor 7:26) may point to the conventional apocalyptic idea that suffering will come upon the elect in the last times (Mk 13:3–23). Paul believes that Christians will be better prepared to face these trials if they are single rather than married. [Strikingly neither here nor anywhere else does Paul mention children as the fruit of marriage or as a possible hindrance during a time of eschatological trial (Mk 13:17).]

2nd reason Paul offers for single people to remain unmarried: "those who marry will experience distress in the flesh, and I would spare you that" (1 Cor 7:28b). What does Paul have in mind here? Pain in childbearing for the woman? The cares and sorrows of raising a family? Was Paul speaking here from some sad personal experience? Paul offers no information about what he means. But he thinks that marriage will bring complications and responsibilities that will prevent believers from serving the Lord without distraction. At best, marriage will produce divided interests, because the married Christian (rightly) must consider how to please the spouse rather than concentrating singlemindedly on pleasing God (1 Cor 7:32–35). Thus, Paul tells his readers, his advice is not designed "to keep [them] on a tight rein" (NEB, literally "to throw a noose upon you") but to set them free for unhindered service to God. This argument bears a striking similarity to a passage in which Epictetus argues that the Cynic philosopher should avoid marriage: "But in such an order of things as the present, which is like that of a battle-field, it is a question, perhaps, if the Cynic ought not to be free from distraction, wholly devoted to the service of God, free to go about among men, not tied down by the private duties of men, nor involved in relationships which he cannot violate and still maintain his role as a good and excellent man, whereas, on the other hand, if he observes them, he will destroy the scout and messenger of the gods, that he is." Paul's thinking is similar. The potential danger of marriage is that it will hinder the Christian's single minded devotion to the mission of the church--"the affairs of the Lord." This concern about freedom for mission motivates Paul's hesitation about the advisability of marriage.

"I think that, in view of the present necessity, it is well for you to remain as you are" (1 Cor 7:26) [Hay's translation]. This refers to the eschatological sufferings that Paul expects to come upon the church. Another meaning fits the context better. The translation "impending crisis" (NRSV) is wrong. It refers to present, not future, events (1 Cor 3:22, the same word refers to "things present" in contrast to "things to come"). The noun is usually interpreted to refer to some sort of suffering or "crisis" (NRSV). The meaning of the word is "necessity" or "urgency." Paul uses the same word just a few paragraphs later: "[N]ecessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Cor 9:16, KJV). It seems probable that the "present necessity" (1 Cor 7:26) is the urgent imperative of proclaiming the gospel and doing the work of the Lord in the short time that remains (7:32–35). This explains more clearly why Paul regards celibacy as preferable to marriage: It frees the time and attention and energy of believers for the crucial work that is to be done in the precious short time before the parousia.

Reprise: Counsel for Wives and Widows (7:39–40). There's nothing substantively new to Paul's counsel. He merely reiterates some of the things he previously said, with particular application to the wife. She's "bound as long as her husband lives" (1 Cor 7:39), i.e. no divorce (1 Cor 7:10–11). She may remarry after his death if she wishes, but she's "more blessed" if she follows Paul's maxim of remaining as she is (1 Cor 7:8–9). Paul's closing summary focuses suggests that their letter may have explicitly targeted the problem of remarriage for widows.

What's the tone of the intriguing final sentence (1 Cor 7:40)? Paul chides them throughout much of the letter for prideful claims about their special knowledge and possession of the Spirit. So, there's a little sting in this pronouncement: "[Oh, you think that your opinions about sex are given to you by the Spirit? Well,] I think that I too have the Spirit of God." Through ch. 7, Paul avoids confrontational rhetoric, but he ends their questions about sex and marriage with a pointed reminder that, if they're really interested in being guided by the Spirit, they'd do well to listen to his advice.

REFLECTIONS. For the church today issues of sex, marriage, and divorce top the list of controversial problems. Paul's response to them reframes these issues in categories that may appear strange to us. Here's a list of reflections on the theological and ethical issues raised.

1. Paul's careful cautious tone. In contrast to other places where he makes unequivocal pronouncements (5:3–5; 6:1–8), here Paul moves much more cautiously. He carefully distinguishes his own teachings and opinions from the command of the Lord and repeatedly invites them to join him in the task of moral discernment. What does it mean for us to acknowledge as Scripture a text that says, "I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy" (1 Cor 7:25)? Paul encourages them to make their own decision, and enter with him into the process of discerning God's will. He doesn't offer a packaged pronouncement, but an invitation to reflection. On some issues, he issues clear directives (1 Cor 7:2–4, 10–11, 39a), but on many others he leaves room for the church to exercise judgment and for individuals to discern their own calling. Thus, he models a welcome alternative to much contemporary debate in the church, which often seems to be characterized by strident dogmatism on one side and shrugging relativism on the other. Paul's ethical reflection is firm but open-textured.
2. Mutual submission in marriage. Paul offers a paradigm-shattering vision of marriage as a relationship in which the partners are bonded together in submission to one another, each committed to meet the other's needs (1 Cor 7:3-4). In the ancient world, this challenges the prevalent patriachal picture of the husband as master of the wife; today, it challenges the prevalent picture of the sexual autonomy of each individual. If we reflect seriously on the implications of this Pauline model for marriage we'll be forced to reevaluate many of our assumptions and habits. Today, as in 1st-century Corinth, the church unthinkingly absorbs many assumptions about sex and marriage from our culture—disseminated through TV, movies, magazines, self-help books. Grapple seriously with Paul's alternative vision to identify the false images of sex and marriage that surround us.
3. The purpose of sexual intercourse in marriage. A strange development in the history of Christian doctrine is the Roman Catholic Church's espousal of the nonbiblical idea that the purpose of marital intercourse is primarily for procreation. Nothing could be further from Paul's view. He never mentions procreation at all, but he argues strongly that partners in marriage should satisfy one another's desires. This takes very seriously the reality and power of the human sexual drive—and the danger of sin and self-deception when that reality is denied. Paul says nothing about love and companionship, bearing and raising children; he was responding to a specific question from them. Paul's fundamental insight is that a good purpose of marriage is to provide sexual satisfaction for husband and wife together.
4. Divorce and remarriage. Paul reaffirms Jesus' strong prohibition of divorce—more fully articulated in Mark and Matthew—that marriage is an aspect of Christian discipleship. To acknowledge Jesus is Lord is to enter the reconciling power of God's kingdom, where forgiveness and healing should dissolve the alienation that leads to divorce. We insist on the seriousness of marriage as a binding covenant commitment. In the church we reflect the love of God, a love that overcomes all faithlessness. But Paul leaves open the sad possibility that members of the church may exercise their legal option of divorce. If that happens, they're not to be excluded from the fellowship of God's people; if anything, their need for the community will be even greater in such circumstances. With a believer married to an unbeliever, the church may need to exercise flexible moral discernment in particular cases not sufficiently dealt with by the command of the Lord. This has significant implications for our thinking about the problem of remarriage after divorce. Paul doesn't say whether the believer whose unbelieving spouse chooses to separate is then free to remarry. (This is where Roman Catholic tradition has allowed remarriage.) That question remained on the agenda for their own discernment. If remarriage is allowable in that case, might there be others as well, such as in cases of abuse or abandonment of one spouse by the other? Paul and the gospels clearly excludes divorce and remarriage as a legal strategy for serial polygamy. But this still leaves many questions unresolved, and Paul's careful reflection about the issues addressed in 7:10–16 offers a model of how our thinking about such matters might proceed.
5. The power and lure of holiness. That the believing partner sanctifies the unbeliever (1 Cor 7:14) marks a revolution in religious consciousness, the same revolution that began when Jesus had table fellowship with sinners and tax collectors and prostitutes. The power of holiness is so encompassing that it can draw the unholy into its field of force and transform it. The hope of 1 Cor 7:16 is that the lure of holiness will be manifest through members of the community of faith in such a way that their unbelieving spouses will be drawn to the truth and love of God. The logic of this way of conceptualizing holiness can be extended to many situations other than marriage relationships; it suggests metaphorically a broader truth about the vocation of the church in the world.
6. The dignity and value of singleness. One of the most important messages of this text for the church is that the single life has dignity and value before God. Most Protestant churches, historically in reaction against the Catholic imposition of mandatory clerical celibacy, have come to regard the unmarried state as aberrant and unhealthy. This tendency has been reinforced by powerful forces in popular culture that insinuate the idea that human wholeness is possible only through sexual relationships. But 1 Corinthians 7 insists that we take a serious look at it. Paul argues that for many it's better to remain unmarried—not because sex is dirty or wrong, but because the single life allows Christians the freedom and flexibility to serve God without distraction. This merits sustained reflection. Can Christians learn to think about their choices between marriage and singleness within the framework of the church's mission to carry the gospel to the world? Our conversation in the church about these matters would begin to pose a serious challenge to Western culture's frantic idolatry of sexual gratification as a primary end of human existence.
7. Rethink eschatology. Paul's counsel on sex and marriage presupposes a version of the world-story in which Paul's generation expected to see the coming of the day of the Lord. Living in the same story > 2,000 years later, we know that Paul's expectation of the imminent parousia was wrong. Now what? How does that fact affect the validity of his advice that Christians should "remain in the condition in which [they] were called" (1 Cor 7:20, 24)? There's some positive theological consequences of living in the framework of imminent expectation. 1st, Paul's eschatological framework enables us to look to the future in trust and hope, knowing that our salvation depends not on our success in restructuring the world but on the vast mercy and justice of God. 2nd, a corollary of the first, disregard the various roles assigned us by society, finding our identity in Christ rather than in affiliations of ethnicity, gender or social class. Grasp these truths, and walk more gracefully through the conflicts, hassles, and disappointments of mundane reality. Be empowered to act more boldly and confidently to represent God's truth in a recalcitrant world.

Some rethinking and re-narration of the story is necessary. If Paul had known certainly that all of the "virgins" whom he was advising would go to their graves without witnessing the coming of the Lord, would he so strongly have advised them to remain as they were? He does, after all, describe his opinion on this subject as precisely that: his opinion, rather than revealed knowledge. This chapter, more than any other in the NT, actively invites us into the process of rethinking and moral deliberation. Paul's clear preference for celibacy is based on the assumption that "the form of this world is passing away." With our changed historical perspective, 1 adjustment would be to tip the balance a bit more clearly in favor of seeing marriage, for many, as a constructive calling or gift from God, while still holding onto the equal validity of singleness as a call for others. Another adjustment, which the church has already made historically, is to rethink the question of slavery, for it contradicts the symbolic logic of the gospel. (Paul's proclamation: "You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters.") The important point is that such adjustments are not only necessary if we are to read their mail as Scripture for us—they are also actually called for by the text itself. To retell the story, now with more chapters, and to ponder the implications of that retelling for our decisions about sex and marriage is not to reject the authority of 1 Corinthians; rather, it is to remain faithful to Paul's vision for making moral judgments "in view of the present necessity" under the guidance of the Spirit.

Reference:

1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987.
   
3. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.

Sermon Divisions: 

1. 7/12/20: Always Thank God (1:1-9) [1 Cor 1:4].  Cosmic Epic Calling [1 Cor 1:2].
2. 7/19/20: The Devil Divides, God Unites (1:10-17) [1 Cor 1:10]. All Agree. No Divisions. Perfect Unity.
3. 7/26/20: The Cross--God's Way--is Dumb (1:18-25) [1 Cor 1:18]. The Cross Stumbles. The Cross is like a Cop Out. Foolish Cross.
4. 8/2/20: What You Were, Who Christ Is (1:26-31) [1 Cor 1:26, 30]. The Necessity of Lack. No Boasting  [1 Cor 1:31].
5. 8/9/20: Nothing but Jesus (2:1-5) [1 Cor 2:2]. 
6. 8/16/20: Wise vs. Stupid (2:6-16) [1 Cor 2:6]. True Wisdom is Only for the Mature. The Mind of Christ [1 Cor 2:16].
7. 8/23/20: You're NOT Spiritual (3:1-4) [1 Cor 3:1].  Spiritual, Yet Not Spiritual.
8. 8/30/20: Merely Servants (3:5-9) [1 Cor 3:5]. Field Laborers.
9. 9/6/20: Build with Care or Be Destroyed (3:10-15, 16-17) [1 Cor 3:10-11]. God's Temple.   
10. 9/13/20: Deceived by Wisdom (3:18-23). All Belongs to Christ and God. Wisdom doesn't boast.
11. 9/20/20: When You Are Judged (4:1-5) [1 Cor 4:4]. Go Ahead...Judge Me!  Judged Only by God; Accountable Only to God.  Judging Others Blinds You.
12. 9/27/20: When You Are Scum (4:6-13) [1 Cor 4:13]. Become Scum. Puffed up Corinthians and Suffering Apostle amid Others' Boasting.
13. 10/4/20: Imitate Me (4:14-21) [1 Cor 4:19]. Fatherly Admonition. Final Warning to Boasters. Fatherly Admonition to Paul's Corinthian Children.
14. 10/11/20: Expel the Wicked Man (5:1-13) [1 Cor 5:13]. Drive out the wicked person from among you.  
15. 10/18/20: You Were Cleansed/Washed in the Name (6:1-11) [1 Cor 6:11]. You will Judge the World [1 Cor 6:2]. I Say this to shame you [1 Cor 6:5].
16. 10/25/20: Your Body is for God (6:12-20) [1 Cor 6:13]. Glorify God with Your Body.
17. 11/1/20; 11/8/20; 11/15/20: (1 Corinthians 7) Wives and Women of WL. Elders.