Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “Some Epistemological Reflections on 1 Cor 2:6–16,” Westminster Theological Journal 57, no. 1 (1995): 103–124.

This excellent article examines the structure of 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, links Paul’s teaching to Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 11:25-27 and Luke 10:21-22, and highlights the eschatological dimension of the wisdom of the Spirit in contrast to the wisdom of this age. He concludes that there is an “unbridgeable epistemological gulf between this age and the age to come, the yawning, nothing less than an eschatological chasm between belief and unbelief” (114). Thus, “1 Cor 2:6–16 (1:18–3:23) is the death blow to all natural theology. There is no knowledge of God resident in unbelievers or accessible to them that reduces the eschatological void that separates them from a saving knowledge of God” (123).

There is a debate today in Reformed theology about the role of natural theology and the place that theologians like Thomas Aquinas should play in formulating Protestant theology. Those who argue for a greater use of Thomas appeal to the Reformed Orthodox for precedent. Though writing over 20 years ago, Gaffin addresses this argument:

The prevailing reading of that history today—namely, that seventeenth-century Reformed and Lutheran orthodoxy is an abandonment of the Reformation that prepares the way for the Enlightenment and then Liberalism (until all has been made better by Karl Barth cum suis)—is a gross distortion. It does, however, contain a significant germ of truth. The increasing preoccupation of orthodox dogmatics with natural theology, particularly after Descartes, worked to undermine that orthodoxy and aided the rise of the very rationalism it was opposing. The tension is there, for instance, in Francis Turretin on the role of reason in theology. And the outcome—a permanent lesson that we miss to our theological peril—is the startling swiftness with which in the span of a single generation at the Academy in Geneva, from Turretin father to son, Reformed orthodoxy was virtually displaced and rendered impotent in the face of a frank rationalism, bordering on Socinianism, that was quick to follow. By now, too, we should have learned: natural theology may have a place in Roman Catholic and Arminian theologies—with their semi-Pelagian anthropologies [my apologies to my Arminian friends!] and qualified optimism about the unbeliever’s capacity to know God—but not in a theology that would be Reformed.” [123-24]

Origen appealed to Paul’s Christological identification of the rock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness to justify his method of  interpretation (On First Principles, 4.2.6). Some modern interpreters have also argued that Paul departs from a method rooted in authorial intent in favor of a method based on Jewish interpretive traditions. For instance, Peter Enns appeals to this passage to demonstrate that Paul both incorporated Jewish interpretative traditions into 1 Corinthians and that Paul, wrongly, believed these fables to be fact (Peter Enns, “The ‘Movable Well’ in 1 Cor. 10:4: An Extrabiblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 6 (1996): 23-38).

Modern interpreters who think Paul is drawing on Jewish interpretive traditions connect Paul’s statement, “For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them” (10:4), with Jewish traditions of a moving well. Earle Ellis provides a synthesis of the rabbinic traditions that these interpreters appeal to:

A movable well, rock shaped and resembling a sieve, was given to the Israelites in the desert. As to origin, it was one of the things created on the evening of the Sixth Day. About the size of an oven or beehive, it rolled along after the wanderers through hills and valleys, and when they camped it settled at the tent of meeting. When the princes called, ‘Rise up, O well’ (Num. 21.17), water flowed from its many openings as from a flask. . . At the death of Miriam the well dried up and disappeared, for it was given for her merit. But for the sake of the Patriarchs it was restored, and continued with the Israelites until they reached the Sea of Tiberias. . . .

E. Earle Ellis, “Note on 1 Corinthians 10:4,” Journal of Biblical Literature 76.1 (March 1957): 53-54

However, later rabbinic sources are not a sure guide to Jewish thought at the time of the New Testament, and it is not clear in what form this legend may have existed in Paul’s day. Ellis observes, “It is quite difficult to determine the precise character of the fable in the first century; apart from the sources mentioned above there is little evidence” (Ibid., 54). Only one source that may be from the first century mentions a form of the legend, and it mentions a following well but not a following rock (Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities, 10:7; 11:15). Even the date of the source is disputed. Enns notes that some think this work dates before AD 70 (Enns, “Well,” 24). Ellis labels the work “ca. 100 C.E.” with a question mark (Ellis, “Note,” 54). G. K. Beale notes that a first-century dating is the majority position but that it is not an uncontested date (Erosion of  Inerrancy, 98, n. 28). Some think that the absence of the mention of the rock means that that form of the legend did not exist in Paul’s day (See Ellis, “Note” and Andrew J. Bandstra, “Interpretation in I Corinthians 10:1-11.” Calvin Theological Journal 6, no. 1 [April 1, 1971]: 11). Enns, however, thinks that 1 Corinthians 10:4 is itself evidence that such a tradition existed at this time. Enns is too confident. (Beale, Inerrancy, 97), and while Ellis and Bandstra may be correct it is hard to know for sure since the claim is based on lack of evidence. Noentheless, all of the above does mean that there is less explicit connection between the known form of the tradition and Paul’s statement in Corinthians than might at first be apparent.

Furthermore, the existence of such a tradition does not mean that Paul drew on the tradition (See Bandstra, “Interpretation,” 11). Godet and Hodge both reject the idea out of hand as being contrary to Paul’s person and position. They are correct to do so, for Paul explicitly rejects Jewish myths (1 Tim. 1:4).

Paul likely relied on the Jewish Scriptures rather than Jewish myths in writing 10:4. In the Pentateuch itself, God is addressed with the appellation “Rock” (Deut. 32:4, 15, 18, 30-31). Paul may reasonably make a word play with the physical rock that supplied water to the people and Rock as a title for the God who was present with his people and who provided the spiritual food and drink for them. This move on Paul’s part was not entirely unprecedented; Psalm 78 also brings together this title for God, the provision of water, and the presence of God in a context similar to that of 1 Corinthians 10 (Beale, Inerrency, 99). The Psalm recounts the blessings of God upon Israel and Israel’s subsequent rebellion. Verse 14 indicates the presence of God theme by reference to the pillar of cloud and fire. Verses 15-16 speak of God splitting rocks in the desert to provide water for the people (incidentally, the plural “rocks” undermines the theory that the rock in Exodus 17 and Numbers 20 were the same rock simply because it shows up at the beginning and end of the journey; contra Enns, “Well,” 30). Verses 17-31 describe Israel’s rebellion (verse 20 again mentions the provision of water through the striking of a rock). Verse 32 notes that their sin was despite God’s miraculous working on their behalf. Verse 35 reveals that the Israelites needed to remember “that God was their Rock.”

Thus to identify this Rock as Christ poses no difficulty for anyone who believes that Christ is God. Paul was not allegorizing when he called Christ the Rock who provided water to the Israelites in the wilderness; he was simply making a word-play with an existing title of God to highlight the presence of Christ among the Israelites in the wilderness. Christ really was in the wilderness with Israel, he really did stand behind the provision of water from the physical rock, and he was given the title Rock by Moses. Nor was Paul adopting a Jewish fable in this passage; he was building off connections already made in the Old Testament and applying them to his present situation.

In this passage, Paul cites Deuteronomy 25:4, which deals with the treatment of oxen, and asks, “Is it for oxen that God is concerned?” Paul then asks, “ἤ δι’ ἡμᾶς πάντως λέγει,” which he then affirms. If the first question is read rhetorically as expecting a negative, and if the second question is translated, “Does he not speak entirely for our sake?” then it seems that Paul is denying the original intent of the Law. This is the way Origen understood this text (On First Principles, 4.2.6).

But the second question could be translated as, “Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he?” (NIV). BDAG lists five senses (with glosses) for πάντως: (1) “pert[aining] to strong assumption, by all means, certainly, probably, doubtless,” (2) “pert[aining] to thoroughness in extent, totally, altogether,” (3) “expression of inevitable conclusion in view of data provided, of course,” (4) “expression of lowest possible estimate on a scale of extent, at least,” (5) “with a negating marker . . . not at all . . . by no means.” BDAG lists 1 Corinthians 9:9 under sense one, and this coheres with the translation of the NIV (see also Fee, NICNT [1st ed.], 408; Thiselton, NIGTC, 686; Garland, BECNT, 410).

This non-exclusive translation of πάντως means that the first question need not be understood to absolutely exclude God’s concern for oxen. When the second question is understood as the NIV translates it, Paul is not denying relevance to oxen; he is simply saying there is an extended application to humans as well.

The Old Testament context points toward this extended application. In its context, the command regarding oxen stands alone among commands to provide for the needy. The command regarding the oxen was, in context, an illustration of the kind of care that people should have for one another. This means that Paul interpreted Deuteronomy 25:4 with more care to its original context than those who claim he succumbed to allegory.

Godet makes this point well.

Does not this whole context [in Deuteronomy] show clearly enough what was the object of the prohibition quoted here? It was not from solicitude for oxen that God made this prohibition; there were other ways of providing for the nourishment of these animals. By calling on the Israelites to exercise gentleness and gratitude, even toward a poor animal, it is clear that God desired to inculcate on them, with stronger reason, the same way of acting toward the human workmen whose help they engaged in their labour.

F. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. A. Cusin (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1893), 2:11. (See also Ciampa and Rosner, CNTUOT, 719; Merrill, Deuteronomy, NAC, 325).

The interpretation of 7:36-38 is a matter of debate as a comparison of the NASB and ESV reveals.

NASB:

But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.

ESV:

If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.

The first obvious translation difference is the NASB’s “virgin daughter” in contrast to the ESV’s “betrothed.” In favor of “betrothed,” Garland cites several passages where the betrothed are said to be virgins (Matt. 1:18, 23; Luke 1:27; 2 Cor. 11:2). But in none of these cases does “virgin” mean betrothed. All who are betrothed would be expected to be virgins, but not all virgins are betrothed. Some appeal to the English idiom “his girl” to support the translation “betrothed” (Barrett, 184), but appealing to English idioms seems like an exegetical stretch. In favor of “virgin daughter,” παρθένος never means betrothed anywhere in Scripture (LXX or GNT), Plato, Philo, or the Apostolic Fathers. However, it must be acknowledged that when Scripture refers to a virgin daughter, in other passages “daughter” is explicit in the text (Judges 19:24; 2 Sam. 13:18, etc). In extra-biblical Greek Sophocles does use “my virgins” for “my daughters” (Morris citing LSJ, 117). On the balance, the usage leans towards interpreting “his virgin” as “his virgin daughter.” It may be that Paul avoided the term daughter to keep the relationship indefinite so that the teaching applies to both fathers and guardians.

The second translation difficulty is between the NASB’s “if she is past her youth” and the ESV’s “if his passions are strong.” After surveying extra-biblical usage (the word occurs only here in the Scripture), Winter concludes, “From these examples of ὑπέρακμος and its cognates a number of points emerge. Clearly the verbal form neither suggested that a person had reached menopause if a woman, nor impotence through age if a man. It was used to refer either to a woman who has reached puberty and therefore could engage in intercourse and safely conceive, or to the sexual drives or passions of either sex. Usually it referred to the man, and then to indicate the danger of being entrapped by immorality through his natural sex drives” (TynBul, 77). This means the ESV’s rendering is possible, but “if she has reached puberty” is also possible. The NASB’s rendering is probably not the best unless “youth” is taken to mean childhood.

Thus ὑπέρκαμος could refer either to a woman who has reached puberty or to the passions of a man or woman. Winter favors the latter on the basis that ἀσκημονέω often has overtones of sexual impropriety (TynBul, 78). This is true, but the word has a “variety of connotations” (Garland, 340) and can refer to any kind of impropriety (see Fee, 638 and Thiselton, 1049, 1051 on 1 Corinthians 13:5; see also Deut. 25:3 and Ezekiel 16 for other biblical uses). Another argument in favor of the ESV’s rendering is that the “unexpressed subject in a dependent clause usually picks up the subject of the preceding clause” (Fee, 351). But Fee also says, “one cannot be sure” and leaves open the possibility that the word here refers to the virgin (ibid.).

“And it must be so”/“and it has to be” is a reference forward to the marriage under either interpretation. If taking the NASB’s line of interpretation, this refers to the father or guardian’s conviction that he should permit his daughter to marry since it would be shameful otherwise. If taking the ESV’s line of interpretation, this refers to the betrothed man’s conviction that since he is acting in a sexually dishonorable way toward his betrothed, he must marry her.

The NASB renders the closing line of 7:36 “let her marry.” The ESV translates “let them marry.” In this case, the ESV is clearly correct. Γαμείτωσαν is clearly a third person plural. Garland says that under the father-daughter view the third person plural subject “abruptly brings in a third party” whereas the betrothed view naturally takes the “them” as the man and his virgin spoken of throughout the verse (Garland, 337). A. T. Robertson, however, suggests “the subject [is] drawn from the context” (Robertson, 1204).

Verse 37 provides a contrast to the “let them marry” of verse 36. Under the father-daughter view, the one standing firm refers to the father who is firmly convinced that he is doing the right thing in keeping his daughter a virgin. Under the betrothed view, the one firmly established is the man who is convinced that he is doing the right thing in not marrying his betrothed.

“Being under no constraint/necessity.” In the father-daughter view, “under no constraint” means the father is not under any compulsion (like the knowledge that it would be improper) to hold his virgin back from being married. In the betrothed view, “under no necessity” means the betrothed man is not under the compulsion of his own desires for sexual satisfaction. Thus he can refrain from marriage (Garland, 343).

In contrast to being under compulsion, the one who lets them marry/the one who marries must have “authority over his own will” (NASB) or have “his desire under control” (ESV). The difference here is simply a more literal translation on the part of the NASB and a more interpretive translation on the part of the ESV at this point. In the father-daughter view, having “authority over his own will” simply means that this action is not coerced. Paul doesn’t want men to keep their virgins just because of the pressure in the Corinthian church for an ascetic lifestyle (cf. 7:1). In the betrothed view, having “authority over his own will” means the man has control over his sexual desires.

Nothing to this point in 7:37 firmly points one way or the other. Either view can make sense of 7:37 up to this point. But “to keep his own virgin daughter” (NASB)/“to keep her as his betrothed” (ESV) presents a major problem for the betrothed view. As noted above, it is unlikely that παρθένος should be translated betrothed. Thiselton argues the verse should be translated, “to respect her virginity.” He says, this “cannot be intelligibly translated as to keep his own virgin without distorting Paul’s meaning. The noun refers to the-woman-as-virgin for which in English we should speak of the woman’s virginity.” Thus “it is difficult to improve on the REB’s to respect her virginity” (601). Against Thiselton, the noun refers not to virginity but to the-woman-as-virgin. The “his own” makes no sense if the noun refers to virginity. In support of “keep her a virgin” Fee cites Achilles Tatius 8.17.3 τηρησω δε σε παρθενον (but I will keep you a virgin) and 8.18.2 παρθενον γαρ την κορην μερχι τουτου τετρηκα (I have kept the maiden a virgin to this hour) (353n. 26). But note that Fee’s quotations don’t include the important “his own.” Fee says “this tends to be a difficult clause for any view,” but in reality this clause fits the father-daughter view quite well. It is a major difficulty for the betrothed view. It results in the odd conclusion that Paul is saying that a man may betroth a woman, and keep her as his betrothed, and yet never marry her.

In 7:38 Paul gives his conclusion. The key difference between the NASB and ESV is the phrase translated either “he who gives . . . in marriage” (NASB) or “he who marries” (ESV). The key word is γαμίζω. The dispute is whether the word γαμίζω can mean “marry” or whether it only means “to give in marriage.” Everywhere else in the New Testament (it does not occur in the LXX), γαμίζω means “give in marriage” (Matt. 22:30; 24:38; Mk. 12:25; Lk. 17:27; 20:35). The word γαμέω uniformly means “to marry” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9f; 22:25, 30; 24:38; Mk. 6:17; 10:11f; 12:25; Lk. 14:20; 16:18; 17:27; 20:34f; 1 Co. 7:9f, 28, 33f, 36, 39; 1 Tim. 4:3; 5:11, 14), including nine occurrences within 1 Corinthians 7 itself.

Fee counters by noting “that the classical distinctions between -eo and -izo verbs had broken down in the koine period” (355). Thus he argues for the possibility that γαμίζω simply means “to marry” in 7:38. While Fee is correct that –ιζω was losing its distinctive force in the period of the New Testament, the question remains whether this was the case with γαμίζω. Apollonius Dyscolus, a second-century Greek grammarian, wrote that γαμῶ meant “I receive in marriage” and γαμίζω meant “I give in marriage” (BDAG, 188; Bekker, 280). This seems to indicate that the distinction between γαμίζω and γαμέω held longer than with other words. Furthermore, those who argue that γαμίζω and γαμέω mean the same thing need to explain why Paul changes the verb here since he used γαμέω nine times in this chapter. Why change the verb? Why change it here? Fee says that the best answer may simply be stylistic variation. He also floats the idea that γαμέω is used intransitively and γαμίζω is used transitively by Paul. This is a difficult statement to prove or disprove since this is the only occurrence of γαμίζω in Paul. On the whole, it is more likely that γαμίζω here means “give in marriage.”

The editors of BDAG minimize the Apollonius quotation by saying, “It is hard to say how far the rule of Apollon., quoted above, applies, since there are so few exx. of γ. In any case, his observation indicates that mistakes could be made in the use of either term.” They also note that γαμίζω is used for “marry” by the third-century bishop Methodius. Yet it is interesting that Theodoret of Cyrus, a fifth-century bishop text using the word εγγαμιζειν, which means to “marry off” (246, n. 23). Theodoret takes the father-daughter view without even noting another possibility.

On the whole, the father-daughter view seems preferable to the betrothed view. It adopts the attested rather than an unattested meaning for παρθένος. It provides the best explanation of “keep his own virgin.” It best accounts for the use of γαμίζω. It’s handing of ὑπέρκαμος is well within attested usage. It also seems to fit the cultural context better. The biggest challenge to the father-daughter view seems to be the subjects of ᾖ ὑπέρκαμος and γαμείτωσαν. The unexpressed subject of ᾖ ὑπέρκαμος would more naturally refer to the man, and on the father-daughter view the implied subject of γαμείτωσαν introduces a groom without previous mention. But neither of these are insurmountable challenges.

According to the father-daughter view, Paul concludes the chapter by looking at what a father’s attitude toward his virgin daughter should be (and the issue of remarriage after widowhood). Paul had been recommending (but not commanding) singleness for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (7:36–38). At the same time some Corinthians seem to have wrongly thought that abstinence from marital relations was a more spiritual state than marriage (7:1). In this context Paul warns fathers and guardians about improperly restricting the marriage of their virgin daughters. It seems from the opening question of the Corinthians that some fathers might have been under pressure not to marry off their daughters. Paul here tells them that to do so is no sin. If the father thinks he is not acting rightly toward his virgin daughter by not giving her in marriage, he should give her in marriage. A father may conclude that he is not wronging his daughter by her remaining single for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. But if this is the choice, it can’t be due to pressure from others. He has to be convinced in his own heart that he is acting rightly toward and not wronging his daughter. Paul observes that both courses of action are good. In keeping with his emphasis in this passage, however, Paul does express his preference for singleness.

In sum, Paul does not fully assent to the statement that it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman (7:1). He denies that this is the case for people already married (7:2-6). He further does not believe that marriages should be dissolved, even if they are mixed between unbelievers and believers (7:10-24). But Paul does commend singleness. He wishes that everyone were single like himself (7:7). Because of the last days that have arrived (7:26, 29, 31), it is good not to marry so that undivided attention may be given to the Lord’s work. However, Paul concedes that this is simply his trustworthy opinion and not a binding restraint (7:25, 35). Paul wants it to be as easy as possible for undivided attention to be given to God’s work (7:32). Nonetheless, Paul notes that it is possible to render great service to the Lord and be married (7:29). In fact, to be single is a special gift from God not granted to everyone (this does not mean that those so gifted are superior to those who have differing gifts, see Paul’s discussion in 12:14-26) (7:7), and some who cannot control themselves (including both thoughts and actions) ought to marry (7:9).

Paul is clearly commending singleness in this passage. Many resist Paul’s clear teaching by attempting to limit the application of Paul’s teaching to a first century situation (e.g., a local famine or a time of persecution) while others may simply ignore Paul’s commendations. Neither should be done. On the other hand, Paul’s words must be placed within their broader canonical context. When the disciples respond to Jesus’ teaching on divorce by exclaiming that it would be better not to marry, Jesus replied, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given” (Matt. 19:11).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, C. K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentary. ed. Henry Chadwick. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1968.

Bekker, Imanuelis, ed. Apollonii Alexanrini De Constructione. Berlin: Reimeri, 1817.

Birkett, Kirsten and Lois Hagger, “Gift of Singleness? You’re not Serious? A Look at Paul’s Call to Singleness in 1 Corinthians 7,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 5 (Fall 2000): [Electronic].

Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible. ed. Matthew Black. London: Oliphants, 1971.

Calvin, John. “Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.” In Calvin’s Commentaries. vol. 20 trans. John Pringle Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Fee, Gordon D. “1 Corinthians 7:1 in the NIV.” In Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (December 1980): 307-14.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. ed. F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

Morris, Leon. 1 Corinthians. rev. ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. ed. Leon Morris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New York. United Bible Society, 2002.

Piper, John. “Foreword: For Single Men and Women (And the Rest of Us).” In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research. Third ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919. Reprint, Norfolk, VA: BibleWorks, 2005.

Theodoret of Cyrus. Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Volume 1. Translated by Robert Charles Hill. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Winter, Bruce W. “Puberty or Passion? The Referent of ΥΠΕΡΑΚΜΟΣ in 1 Corinthians 7:36.” In Tyndale Bulletin 49.1 (1988): 71-89.

 

In verse 25 Paul picks up once again the subject of singleness. He says that regarding virgins (unfortunately rendered “betrothed” in some translations) he has no express command, though he does have a trustworthy (even inspired!) opinion. (Theodoret notes that Christ actually said not everyone could accept the condition of celibacy, which meant that Paul’s advice here could not be considered law; p. 187.) Paul’s opinion is: “I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released [echoing what he said previously]. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a [virgin] marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that” (7:26-28).

What does Paul mean by “present distress”? Some think that it refers to some immediate crisis, like a famine, in the locale of Corinth (Winter cited in Garland, 324). But this is unlikely in light of Paul’s fuller explanation (“This is what I mean… [v. 29]) which concludes with the statement “the present form of this world is passing away” (7:31). The present distress is the last days that stretch from the ascension of Christ to His return.

Paul’s opening words of his explanation (7:29-31) are quite shocking. They may perhaps be best understood by working backward from 7:31. The KJV translates this verse, “And they that use the world, as not abusing it.” The ESV translates “those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it,” but it is probably better translated, “and those who use the world as though they did not make full use of it” ([H]CSB, NASB). In other words, because this world is passing away don’t make the world the full focus of your attention. Note the end of 7:30, “those who buy as though they had no goods.” Paul admits people are going to buy, but don’t let their goods consume your attention. The first part of v. 30: “Those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing.” Paul is not commanding the absolute cessation of weeping or rejoicing. Garland notes, “He himself weeps (Rom 9:2; 2 Cor. 2:4; Phil. 2:25-30; 3:18) and rejoices (1 Cor. 16:17; 2 Cor. 7:4-10; Phil. 1:12-19; 4:10)” (Garland, 329-30). Paul’s point is that these are not ultimate. Don’t weep as if that’s all there is. Don’t rejoice as if that’s all there is. Don’t buy as if that is the end all. Don’t use the world as if it’s all that mattered. And the married should not live as though marriage is ultimate. It’s not. These are the last days. In the eternal state, marriage will not continue (Mark 12:25).

So Paul says to the married, live as though you had no spouse—in a certain sense. Certainly not as a celibate; Paul commands the contrary earlier in the chapter. Furthermore, Paul is certainly not encouraging couples to ignore their spouse’s needs. He assumes that the spouses will be concerned about one another (7:33). But Paul is telling the married that they should not view their marriage as ultimate. The ultimate should be service to the Lord since the end times are now.

In 7:32-35 Paul expands on why he encourages people to remain single. Though the married are to live in some ways as though they were not married because of the last days, Paul realizes that by its very nature, married people won’t be able to be as undivided in their service to the Lord. Married people are concerned how to please their spouse—and it is pleasing to the Lord that they are. But Paul recommends the single life for undivided service to God.

This should be kept in context. Paul begins the section by saying that his comments here are not commands from God, though they are trustworthy opinion (7:25). And as he concludes this section, he notes that he is not seeking to “lay any restraint” on his hearers (7:35). They may marry without sin (7:28).

Verse 7 marks a transition. Most translations leave the conjunction in this verse untranslated, but the NASB rightly includes it: “Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am.” In verses 2-6 Paul responds to the issue of whether or not it is good for men and women to have sexual relations. Paul’s response is that within marriage there is no choice—a husband and a wife must have such relations. But, here he does acknowledge a situation in which it is good for a man to not have such relations: “To the unmarried and widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am” (v. 7).

Paul is not saying that singleness is better than marriage. He says it is good. Marriage is good. Singleness may also be good. Paul does say that he wishes everyone could be single like him, but he recognizes that singleness is a gift from God. Other people may have other gifts and not this gift. Paul commends singleness as a good thing, but he recognizes that it is only good for those to whom God grants it as a gift. He then provides a sure indication that one does not have the gift: if a person is not exercising self-control, he does not have the gift of singleness and ought to marry rather than “burn in his passion” (some think the intended meaning is rather than “burn in hell,” but “to burn” was a common idiom in Paul’s day for “burn with passion”) (Garland, 273-74).

Beginning with verse 10 Paul gives further instructions to the married. In general he is urging them to remain married. In verses 10-11 he reiterates Jesus’ teaching that divorce is not an option for a Christian (cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; Luke 16:18). In 7:12-16 Paul deals with the issue of Christians who are married to an unconverted spouse. Paul acknowledges that Jesus said nothing about this during his earthly ministry (“to the rest I say (I, not the Lord)” 7:12). But Paul’s words here are inspired by God and thus still carry divine authority. Paul says that the Christian should try to keep the marriage together for the sake of the unbeliever and the children. The presence of the believer in the family has a sanctifying effect on the family which may result in the salvation of those in it who are lost (7:14, 16). If the unsaved spouse ends the marriage, the saved spouse is not bound to attempt to keep the marriage together (7:15). Paul supports his teaching with illustrations about circumcision and slavery. Hellenized Jews would undergo surgery to reverse the marks of circumcision. Paul tells circumcised Christians not to do this. Likewise, uncircumcised Christians had no need to seek circumcision. In the same way, slaves were to be content with their position as slaves, though in their case they may take advantage of an opportunity for freedom (7:21). These illustrations reinforce Paul’s teaching about marriage. People who are married should be satisfied with their condition. It is wrong to seek divorce. If, however, an unbelieving spouse leaves, the Christian should be willing to accept the new condition of singleness.

The right understanding of 1 Corinthians 7:1 can be approached by a comparison of translations. The NIV 1984 translates 1 Corinthians 7:1 “Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.” “Not to marry” is the interpretive translation of what the NASB translates literally, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Since “touch a woman” is an idiom, an interpretive translation is helpful here. The NIV 1984, however, misinterpreted the idiom.

The idiom in question is fairly common in the ancient literature, occurring in Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Josephus, and Marcus Aurelius. The idiom also occurs elsewhere in Scripture. For instance in Genesis 20:6 God speaks to the Philistine king, Abimelech, in a dream: “I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.” “Touch” here refers to sexual relations, as the context makes clear. A less clear occurrence is found in Ruth 2:9. Proverbs 6:29 provides another clear example: “So is he who goes in to his neighbor’s wife; none who touches her will go unpunished.” “Touches” is here paralleled with “going in to” a wife, a clear reference to sexual relations (Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1,” 308). Thus translation of the NIV 2011 improves on its predecessor by translating, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

The second question that arises is whether verse 1 is Paul’s viewpoint or that of the Corinthians. In the ESV, (H)CSB, NRSV, and NIV 2011 the latter part of the verse is in quotation marks which indicate that Paul is quoting the Corinthians. The idea that this was a quotation stretches back as far as the church father Origen (Thiselton, 499; cf. Theodoret, 182). This seems likely due to the way that Paul immediately qualifies the statement in the following verses. Those who don’t view the latter part of verse 7 as a quotation, must take it as a statement of a thing good Paul thought good only in certain circumstances. Thus he immediately qualifies the statement (Calvin, Corinthians, 222-23).

In any case, Paul is responding to the questions of the Corinthians regarding the acceptability of celibacy. He counters the statement “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” with the statement, “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” Despite the sound in English, Paul is not commanding everyone to get married. Those who attempt this interpretation invariably must soften the idea to a “general rule” that most people ought to get married (Morris, 102). But if Paul had wanted to encourage everyone (or even most people) to get married, he probably would have said, “each man should take [from λαμβάνω] his own wife” (also, to have told wives to take a husband does not fit the cultural situation) (Fee, Commentary, 278). The idiom Paul uses, “have [from ἔχω] his own husband or wife,” often indicates sexual intercourse. The LXX uses this idiom to translate the Hebrew word for “lain with” [שׁכב] in passages where sexual intercourse is clearly in view (Deut. 28:30; Isa. 13:16). Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 5:1, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you…for a man has [from ἔχω] his father’s wife” (Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1,” 310-11; Garland, 255-56; Theodoret, 182). Thus we could translate this verse, “each [husband] should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband” (NIV 2011). Verses 3-5, then, are a further expansion of the teaching of verse 2.

Paul’s point is this: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations” is not true for married people. Verse 1 does not endorse celibacy as better than marriage. Verse 2 does not command everyone to get married. Instead, in response to the question of celibacy, Paul’s first response is that married people ought not be celibate.

In verse 6 Paul says, “Now as a concession, not a command I say this.” What is the “this” that Paul is conceding and not commanding? With our understanding of the first 5 verses, Paul can’t be referring back to verse 2 and saying that he concedes marriage is acceptable, but that it is not commanded (cf. Hodge, 110-11). This is a popular view, but Paul actually uses imperatives in verse 2 and throughout the first five verses. In any event, Paul isn’t talking about getting married in verse 2. He’s telling husbands and wives not to deprive one another. Others think the “this” points forward to Paul’s wish that all were single as he is (Garland, 275), but this involves adopting a less likely textual variant (the “for” reflected in the KJV, NKJV) (Metzger, 489; Fee, Commentary, 272 n.19). More likely, Paul is referring back to the one concession he does make to the Corinthians about it being good for a man to not have sexual relations with a woman: verse 5, “except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer” (Fee, Commentary, 283-94; Barrett, 157).