A. The general principle (7:1–7)
4. Marriage (7:1–40)
A. The general principle (7:1–7)
Paul turns to the specific subjects on which the Corinthians had written to him, the first of which is marriage. In antiquity some people had a deep admiration for ascetic practices, including celibacy, and clearly some of the Corinthians shared this view. Paul makes every concession to their point of view. He agrees that celibacy is ‘good’, and he points to some of its advantages. But he regards marriage as normal, and he will later make the point that, though there are some advantages in celibacy, there is a greater completeness in marriage (11:11). Celibacy requires a special gift from God, and Paul is not unmindful of the stresses involved in living the Christian life in Corinth, with its constant pressure from the low standards of pagan sexual morality, and what he calls ‘the present crisis’ (v. 26). He himself prefers celibacy, but his advocacy of that state is very moderate. He does not command a celibate life for all who can sustain it, nor does he say that celibacy is morally superior to marriage. He regards marriage as the norm, but recognizes that there are some to whom God has given a special gift, who should remain unmarried.
1. ‘Now concerning’ (peri de), which begins this verse, is a formula introducing topics raised in the letter from the Corinthians (again in v. 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12). It is possible that we should take the words It is good … as a quotation from what the Corinthians had written (Bruce notes that this view is as old as Origen). It is possible, also, to see it as a question (Orr and Walther). Good does not here mean ‘necessary’ or ‘morally better’ (cf. vv. 8, 26; Gen. 2:18; Jonah 4:3, 8). It is simply something to be commended, rather than blamed. Not to marry is NIV’s interpretation of what is more literally ‘not to touch a woman’ (RSV). ‘Touch’ in such a context is often used of sexual relations (e.g. Gen. 20:6; Prov. 6:29). It is possible that some of the Corinthians thought it advisable for believers to have no sexual relations in marriage. Paul, however, would not have called this good; he saw sexual relations as a necessary part of marriage (vv. 3–4).1 NIV’s interpretation seems better. Paul’s view is that the unmarried are freer to serve God, since they are without the cares attendant on the married state (vv. 32ff.). But this does not imply that the married state is not also good. Our Lord commanded the rich young ruler to sell all that he had, but this does not imply that all ownership of goods is an evil.
2. The general rule is that people should be married and the expressions his own wife and her own husband point to monogamy. Paul is agreeing that celibacy is good, but he is also pointing out that temptation abounded: there is so much immorality (the word is plural, pointing to many acts). In the face of such temptation each should be married. Should have is an imperative, a command, not a permission. There will be exceptions (v. 7), but Paul leaves no doubt as to what is normal. Since fornication was so common at Corinth it was hard for the unmarried to remain chaste and hard for them to persuade others that they were, in fact, chaste. Some complain that Paul is here giving expression to a low view of marriage. But, of course, he is not here expounding his view of the married state (cf. Eph. 5:28ff.). He is not saying that this is the only reason for marriage; he is dealing with a specific question in the light of an actual situation. Calvin comments, ‘the question is not as to the reasons for which marriage has been instituted, but as to the persons for whom it is necessary.’ Conzelmann thinks Paul’s words ‘unfashionable, but realistic’.
3. Each partner in a marriage has rights and Paul calls on each to pay what is due (tēn opheilēn). Each owes duties to the other. Paul does not stress the duty of either partner at the expense of the other, but puts them on a level, a noteworthy position in the male-dominated society of the time. His verb is the present imperative, which indicates the habitual duty. It is significant that he stresses the importance of giving rather than getting. Marriage is the giving of oneself to another.
4. Paul makes this more explicit, NIV paraphrases with does not belong to her, for the verb exousiazō means rather ‘to exercise authority over’ (cf. Luke 22:25, ‘those who exercise authority over’). Bengel sees ‘an elegant paradox’ in the conjunction of her ‘own’ body with ‘does not exercise authority over’. Paul is saying that neither wives nor husbands have the right to use their bodies completely as they will. They have obligations to one another. Two things are noteworthy: the putting of the sexes on an absolute equality in this matter, and the indispensability of the sex act in marriage. Paul will have no truck with a view of marriage that leaves the sex act in the sole control of the male, nor with a view of marriage that sees sex as defiling.
5. There may arise occasions when the partners to a marriage agree to abstain for a time from normal intercourse in order to give themselves whole-heartedly to prayer. But this is clearly exceptional. Each belongs to the other so fully that Paul can call the withholding of the body an act of fraud (apostereite). That you may devote yourselves (hina scholasēte; we get our word ‘school’ from this verb) is literally ‘that you may have leisure for’. Prayer must be unhurried. In the rush of life it may be necessary sometimes to take exceptional measures to secure a quiet, leisurely intercourse with God. But for married people the breaking off of normal relations, even for such a holy purpose, can be only by mutual consent. Then the couple must come together again. Otherwise the strength of their natural passions means that they will place themselves at Satan’s mercy.
6. Not many take this to refer to what follows (though that is a possible understanding of the text). It is much more likely that it refers either to v. 5, or to the whole of the preceding section with its acceptance of marriage. It makes good sense to say that the suspension of intercourse is the concession (it is less likely to refer to the resumption of sexual intercourse). But it seems more in harmony with the general thrust to see Paul as saying that marriage is not a duty required of all. He has laid down the duties of all who are married, but he has not said that all should be married.
7. Paul’s own preference is that all men were as I am. The chapter makes it clear that Paul was not married, but it is unlikely that he had never married. Jewish men were required to be married and beget children (Mishnah, Yeb. 6:6). R. Eleazar said, ‘Any man who has no wife is no proper man’ (Talmud, Yeb. 63a), while Raba and R. Ishmael taught that God watches a man to see when he will marry; then ‘As soon as one attains twenty and has not married, He exclaims, “Blasted be his bones!” ’ (Talmud, Kidd. 29b). Thus it is likely that Paul had at one time been married (and this is certainly the case if he had been a member of the Sanhedrin; cf. Acts 26:10), but clearly he was not in that state when he wrote this letter. He may have been a widower, or perhaps his wife had left him (when he became a Christian?). He had a number of special gifts (charismata), one of which enabled him to live the single life. He recognizes that continence is a divine gift. Those who have not received it should not try to remain unmarried. Each has his own gift from God. The question of whether to marry or not cannot be decided by applying one law to all. Each must consider what gift God has given, and marriage, just as much as celibacy, is a gift from God.