Original Meaning

HERE BEGINS THE second half of the body of this letter, as Paul turns to take up the issues about which the Corinthians had written to him. These include marriage (chap. 7), food sacrificed to idols (8:1–11:1), problems in public worship (11:2–14:40), the resurrection (chap. 15), and the collection for the Judean Christians (16:1–4). The Corinthians’ concerns may have been phrased as questions or as challenges, but either way Paul recognizes substantial problems that need correcting.

The apostle may simply be responding to the Corinthian issues in the order in which they raised them. But he may also be deliberately placing the concerns about marriage immediately after the sexual topics addressed in chapters 5–6. Either way, he must now address the opposite error from the problem of promiscuity discussed there. Here the ascetic wing of the church (see p. 25) is advocating the virtue of celibacy.1

The key to a correct understanding of this chapter is the recognition that 7:1 is Paul’s reluctant and qualified endorsement of a Corinthian slogan or position, just as he did in 6:12 and 13, a point recognized already by Origen around A.D. 200.2 Verses 1–16, 17–24, and 25–40 seem to form an ABA structure, with two sections of explicit response to the proponents of celibacy sandwiched around a discussion of analogous situations in life in which it is good for Christians to “remain as they are.” Applied to the issues of singleness and marriage, Paul’s central point stresses that believers should not be in a hurry to change their marital status. More specifically, in every walk of life there is a place for asceticism, though at times it is often limited. In marriage, regular sexual relations should prevail. Paul’s balance between extremes of indulging in and refraining from sex produces a sensitive, mediating position between the tendency in Jewish circles to overemphasize marriage and the Greek (and especially Gnostic) trend to idealize asceticism.

Paul uses a “Yes, but” logic as his thesis for the entire chapter. The NIV footnote (“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman”) gives the most likely meaning of verse 1b on two grounds. First, it recognizes verse 1 as a Corinthian saying. Second, it better renders the Greek euphemism, “touch,” as referring to sexual intercourse, not to marriage. Verse 2 offers Paul’s qualification: sexual abstinence is, for the most part, inappropriate for wedded couples. To “have” a spouse probably does not mean to “acquire” one but to “engage in sexual relations.” “Each man” and “each woman” must then refer to “each married person.” With prostitutes and mistresses abundantly available (recall 6:12–20), Corinthian men unable to have sex with their wives would often look elsewhere.

Verses 3–7 unpack this first application of Paul’s response to the pro-celibacy faction in Corinth. They advocated completely refraining from sex within marriage, but Paul can imagine only a very limited role for such abstinence. A husband and wife should have sex often enough so that neither is frustrated or tempted to cheat on the other.

“Fulfill his marital duty” (v. 3) reads literally “give back that which is owed.” One’s “body” (v. 4) probably carries the broader sense of an instrument of interpersonal communication, as in 6:18. “Does not belong to” should be rendered “does not have authority over.” Married persons no longer control their own bodies but must surrender authority over them to their spouses. “Do not deprive” (v. 5) should probably read “Stop defrauding” (cf. KJV)—that is, cheating someone else out of what is properly his or hers. The only exception Paul will tolerate is if both partners agree that for a very limited time they will abstain from sex for the sake of some unusually concentrated period of communion with the Lord. But even this Paul says only by way of concession (v. 6); he never insists that married people abstain at all from sex with each other.3

Verse 7 offers the first hint of what verse 8 will make explicit: Paul is currently single, and he likes it that way. He wishes all could share his enjoyment of singleness but realizes that only some have that gift, while others are gifted for marriage.

In verses 8–9 Paul turns from the currently married to the previously married. “Unmarried” is a masculine plural, just as “widows” is a feminine plural (v. 8). Given that verses 25–38 will address those who have never married, and given that the more explicit Greek word for “widower” was falling into disuse in the first century, we should probably understand the unmarried here to refer to men whose wives had died.

The ascetics would of course be telling widowers and widows never to remarry. Paul again affirms that this may be a good course of action but not if it leads to sexual immorality. “Cannot” (v. 9a) is absent from the Greek and somewhat misleading. The text actually reads, “If they are not controlling themselves, they should marry.” “With passion” (v. 9b) is the NIV’s attempt to interpret the Greek verb puroomai (“burn”) and is probably correct (cf. Paul’s burning with indignation in 2 Cor. 11:29). But it could just possibly mean “burn in hell” and be parallel to 1 Corinthians 6:9–10.

Verses 8–9 also make it clear that Paul is single. If his words here are limited to widows and widowers, then perhaps his wife has also died. Rabbis were almost always married, and members of the Sanhedrin had to be. Acts 22:3 refers to Paul’s rabbinic training under Gamaliel, but we do not know if he ever completed it. In Acts 26:10, Paul speaks of “casting my vote” with the Sanhedrin, but the language could be idiomatic for being in agreement with them. It is therefore perhaps likely that Paul was once married, but we simply cannot be sure.

In verses 10–16 Paul returns to address those who are married, but this time in light of a different proposal by the ascetics. The pro-celibacy faction encouraged people to get divorced if they could not live with a spouse without engaging in sex. At this point Paul’s ability to side with this faction is drastically curtailed. Only when an unbelieving partner walks out on a Christian spouse can Paul permit such a rupture (vv. 15–16). Verses 10–11, therefore, seem to be directed to marriages in which both partners are believers.

Paul’s parenthesis, “not I, but the Lord” (v. 10), alludes to words of the earthly Jesus widely known in early Christian tradition (cf. Mark 10:11–12). Those already divorced must not remarry, in order to leave the door open for possible reconciliation with their estranged partners. The words translated “separate,” “divorce,” and “leave” throughout verses 10–16 are used interchangeably. This is demonstrated by the close synonymous parallelism between verses 10a (“A wife must not separate from her husband”) and 11b (“A husband must not divorce his wife”) and the antithetical parallelism between verses 12–13 (unbelievers willing to stay must not be divorced) and 15 (unbelievers wishing to leave may do so). Many spouses in antiquity left marriage without legal divorce proceedings, but the end result was the same. If there is any difference between the wife “separating” in verse 10 and the husband “divorcing” in verse 11, it may be that the man was legally entitled to divorce his wife, whereas the woman often had no recourse but to move out.

In verses 12–16, however, Paul addresses the members of mixed marriages. With all the new converts in Corinth, there were no doubt many couples in which only one of the two had become a Christian. Some believers seem to have feared that sexual relations with an unbeliever would defile them. Paul disagrees and insists that if the unbelieving partner is content to stay, the believer must not initiate divorce (vv. 12–13). Here he can cite no word of the earthly Jesus but relies directly on his own sense of how God is guiding or inspiring him (cf. vv. 25, 40).4 Verse 14 supplies the rationale for Paul’s insistence on preserving the marriage: there are spin-off blessings for the non-Christian spouse and children that come from having even one member of the family follow the Lord. “Sanctified” and “holy” cannot here mean “saved,” as verse 16 proves. Rather they refer to “the moral and spiritual impact of the life of the believer” on the rest of the family, making those other family members “set apart in a very special place … as God’s object of devotion.”5

But the tension introduced by one partner in a marriage suddenly having a new allegiance to Christ at times proved intolerable to the non-Christian partner. If such a person chose to divorce (or simply leave) his or her spouse, the Christian partner was not compelled to try to prevent the separation (v. 15a).6 Often there would be nothing he or she could do anyway. “God has called us to live in peace” (v. 15b) offers another reason for Paul’s permission to let the unbeliever depart. There is no guarantee that the non-Christian partner will ever be saved by staying, and the constant tension introduced by divergent loyalties may even exacerbate the unbeliever’s alienation from both spouse and God (v. 16).7

Bridging Contexts

FEW PASSAGES OF Scripture have been more abused and ripped from their historical moorings than 1 Corinthians 7. Without understanding the context of the ascetic wing of the Corinthian church, one easily attributes to Paul an overly negative view of marriage and sexual intercourse. We must never lose sight of the fact that Ephesians 5:21–33 presents, in contrast, a very sublime and positive picture of marriage in the context of a much less “occasional” document (i.e., less tied to the immediate circumstances of the church addressed). The genius of Paul’s reply to the Corinthians is that he avoids the extremes of asceticism and hedonism and refuses to prize too highly either single or married life. Even when he does give qualified assent to celibacy, as when he advocates remaining single, it is with an entirely different rationale than that used by the Corinthians (Paul primarily gives practical rather than theological reasons).

Paul demonstrates his pastoral genius by walking so delicate a tightrope. Given his personal preference for the single life, it would have been easy for him to cave in to the pro-celibacy faction and insist that all people become as he was. Given his “pro-marriage” upbringing in Judaism and the lures of easy sex in Corinth, it might have been equally tempting for him to issue a wholesale condemnation of the proponents of celibacy as legalistic, opposed to the goodness of God’s creation, and placing an impossible burden on fellow-Christians’ shoulders. But he takes neither of these tacks. Instead, he charts a central course, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Modern theological and ethical controversies regularly require Christian leaders to do the same.

Once we view verse 2 as Paul’s qualification of the Corinthian slogan in verse 1, we become less likely to accuse Paul of taking a dim view of marriage and sex. Even if verse 2 is taken as a reason for getting married, it is not the only or even primary reason for doing so mentioned in this chapter (cf. vv. 26–35). But as noted above, verse 2 more likely prepares the way for verses 3–7 by commanding those already married not to withhold sexual privileges from their partners. Notable here too is the first of numerous statements in this chapter about the mutuality of marriage: husbands and wives have equal privileges and equal responsibilities (cf. vv. 3–5, 8–9, 10a/11b, 12–16, 28, 32–34). This strongly suggests that such mutuality is implied in other statements even when it is not made explicit (e.g. 10b–11a) and that other gender-specific references should in fact be treated generically—that is, applying equally to husband and wife (vv. 1, 7, 25, 29, 36–38, 39–40).

Against the highly patriarchal societies of antiquity, this mutuality stands out in sharp relief. Most non-Christian husbands would have been horrified at the notion that their bodies belonged to their wives (v. 4). These verses do not prove that Paul could not have envisioned any role differentiation—other texts will have to determine the outcome of that debate (e.g. Eph. 5:21–33). But the emphasis surely rests with his strong affirmation that both partners are essentially equal in God’s eyes and must treat each other with the mutual respect such equality merits.

Verses 3–5 prove crucial in understanding the role of sex in marriage. It is something each partner “owes” to the other. So it should never be used as a bribe or reward for good behavior or as something to be withheld as a threat or punishment. Husband and wife alike must be sensitive to the emotional and physical states of each other and not insist on sex on demand. But neither should one partner consistently try to get out of satisfying his or her spouse’s conjugal needs. The mutual agreement and submission Paul commands here should in fact apply to most all areas of marriage (cf. Eph. 5:21). The exceptional situation in which Paul permits temporary abstinence highlights, in passing, the central role spiritual disciplines (prayer, meditation, Bible study, etc.) should play in believers’ lives. As with fasting, limited asceticism can free up time and energy for particularly focused prayer. But as with fasting, the New Testament nowhere commands sexual asceticism as a practice required of all believers and, indeed, seriously questions its overall religious value (see esp. Col. 2:20–23; 1 Tim. 4:1–5).

Paul’s wish in verse 7 that all were like him resembles God’s desire for everyone to be saved (2 Peter 3:9), in that simply wishing it does not mean that it will happen. But in the case of salvation, the alternative is undesirable. Here Paul quickly concedes that God gives gifts to different believers that result in equally desirable options. The word for “gift” (charisma) matches that used in 1:7 and reminds us that spiritual gifts are not to be limited to the representative lists of chapters 12–14. The capacities for celibacy or marriage are abilities God graciously bestows on us for the edification of his church, just as much as teaching, giving, or speaking in tongues (cf. also Matt. 19:10–12). Like other gifts, the gift of singleness may last only for a time. On the other hand, we may seek after the gift of marriage but not obtain it. Yet singleness and marriage are not quite the same as some of the other gifts because they also include obligations on believers that are not optional. No one, for example, may excuse premarital sex by claiming not to have the gift of celibacy! If people are unmarried, they must refrain from sexual intercourse whether they feel like it or not.

If our interpretation of verse 9 is correct, that Paul is speaking of those who are not controlling themselves, then again Paul seems far less negative about marriage than is often alleged. But even if “cannot” is inserted, as in the NIV’s “cannot control themselves,” verse 9 still remains only one valid reason for marriage among others yet to come. Still, avoiding unnecessary lust is an important consideration. Humans were created as sexual beings, and God did not intend for most of them to remain alone (Gen. 2:18; cf. 1:27–28). Sexual pleasures should be enjoyed, but within the proper constraints of a marriage relationship. Paul’s recognition that widows and widowers often should remarry, notwithstanding his personal preferences, matches his counsel to younger widows in 1 Timothy 5:14, which is phrased somewhat more positively (“So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander”).

Applying the New Testament teaching about divorce requires an examination not only of verses 10–16 here but also of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels, especially in Matthew 5:31–32 and 19:1–12. Jesus clearly permits divorce in the case of porneia (Matt. 5:32; 19:9), though he never commands it. And by far the most common and contextually appropriate meaning of porneia is “sexual immorality,” which among married people we refer to as adultery. Although the grammar of these two texts is less clear, Jesus probably permits remarriage in this instance as well.8

Why does Paul make no mention of Jesus’ “exception clause”? Does he know Jesus’ teaching only in the form that came to be incorporated into Mark’s Gospel (Mark 10:11–12)? Or is he presupposing it, because Jews, Greeks, and Romans alike all agreed that divorce and remarriage were permitted in the case of adultery? We cannot be sure. But one little-noted hermeneutical observation remains clear. Paul cannot have interpreted Jesus’ pronouncements on divorce and remarriage as intending to cover every possible scenario or he could not have felt free to add a second exception. Indeed, it is plain, especially from Matthew 19:1–2, that Jesus’ words addressed distinctively Jewish debates and did not envision the situation, largely unique to the Hellenistic world, of a Christian (or Jew) marrying a pagan. But Paul’s context is equally occasional, as evidenced by his lack of reference to adultery. And the discussion below suggests that it is the desertion, not the “mixed marriage,” which legitimates divorce in verse 15, so that Paul’s counsel should probably apply equally to desertion by a believer. The question remains open as to whether or not there are other situations in which divorce and remarriage might be permitted.

A promising approach to answering this question arises when we ask what adultery and desertion have in common that makes divorce permissible even in those two instances. If we recall the foundational biblical definition of marriage (leaving/cleaving and becoming one flesh; recall 6:16), then it is noteworthy that adultery undermines the unique one-flesh relationship, and desertion makes it impossible to continue cleaving to one’s spouse (as well as to have sex). This suggests that what these two behaviors share is that each de facto dissolves a marriage even before a legal divorce has occurred. To determine if divorce is ever otherwise permitted, we must ask if any other circumstances prove equally so damaging that for all intents and purposes a marriage is already destroyed, and a divorce does nothing but acknowledge legally what has in fact already occurred.

Rather than trying to create lists of such circumstances (some, for example, would include physical abuse, prolonged alcohol or drug abuse, insanity, advanced Alzheimer’s disease, etc.), each situation should be considered on a case-by-case basis, including cases of adultery or desertion, since even then reconciliation remains the ideal if it is at all possible. Of course to open the door even to the possibility of other circumstances legitimating divorce is to run the risk of greatly abusing that freedom. But to refuse legalistically ever to countenance such exceptions may do even more physical and emotional damage to an individual.

Other items emerge from the details of verses 12–16. Paul’s parenthesis in verse 12 (“I, not the Lord”) reflects “the sovereign application of the necessarily restricted Jesus-tradition to the new and altered circumstances on the part of the apostle and charismatic, Paul. The I [of v. 12] and the not I, but the Lord [of v. 10] are a single authority.”9 In other words, neither is any more or less binding than the other. Too often, readers have inappropriately questioned the inspiration or authority of Paul’s instructions in verses 12–16 on the grounds that these are merely Paul’s fallible, spur-of-the-moment opinions. Paul’s ironic conclusion to this chapter in verse 40 is actually a strong avowal of inspiration by the Holy Spirit for his entire letter.

Verse 14 has a curious history of application by certain Christians to support infant baptism, but nothing remotely related to baptism appears in the text itself. On the other hand, supporters of believers’ baptism have often treated children of Christian parents as little different than outright pagans. At the very least, this text suggests that God looks on family units in which at least one adult member is a believer as special recipients of his blessings. They have opportunities to learn God’s word, see Christian living modeled, and make decisions for Christ. Even as children should be encouraged to internalize their own faith as they reach an age of accountability, so also they should be reared in a Christian environment at church and at home that makes them feel like insiders rather than outsiders.10 More broadly, “there is an infection about Christianity which involves all those who come into contact with it.” And “in a partnership between a believer and an unbeliever, it is not so much that the believer is brought into contact with the realm of sin, as that the unbeliever is brought into contact with the realm of grace.”11

A major question surrounds verse 15a. If a believer is not bound to try to preserve a marriage in cases of permissible divorce, is he or she then free to remarry? Verse 39 uses similar language in addressing the widow. Once her husband dies, she is no longer “bound” to that marriage and is free to find another partner. The verb for binding is different in that context, but seemingly synonymous. If remarriage was universally granted to the legally divorced in both Jewish and Greco-Roman circles, it would seem that Paul would have been much more explicit in forbidding it if that was his intention. Verse 11a should then be understood as referring to the illegitimately divorced. But we must admit that no unequivocal answers emerge from the text.

Similar controversies surround verse 15b. If the statement “God has called us to live in peace” refers to preserving the marriage, then it obviously cannot be used as a criterion for legitimate divorce. But if, as we have suggested, it refers to not trying to prevent a desertion when one partner is unwilling to stay, then it raises the possibility of application to other contexts. But all kinds of trivial disputes could be said to disrupt the peace of a home without being grounds for divorce, so this criterion must be applied only in extreme instances.

Contemporary Significance

FEW CHRISTIANS TODAY advocate total abstinence from sex as an ideal for all believers. Our problems parallel those of the hedonistic wing of the Corinthian church far more than those of the ascetic wing. So any application of 1 Corinthians 7 must proceed with the caution that these changed circumstances dictate. Perhaps the closest analogies to this sexual asceticism remain in traditional Roman Catholic circles, which still insist on celibacy as a requirement for priests and various religious orders. Neither Paul nor any other biblical writer justifies this across-the-board requirement. Protestants, however, often continue to overreact against this extreme by inappropriately denigrating the single life. Some churches will not hire pastors if they are not married! Even single lay adults regularly testify to feeling like second class citizens in the church. The recent boom in singles groups has helped to allay much of their loneliness, but it is questionable if these groups have succeeded in integrating singles into the larger world of married adults and families in the church.12

The specific problem of advocating celibacy within marriage (vv. 2–7) also seems quite foreign to our modern experience. Yet some Christians continue to view sex as inherently dirty, and others use it in inappropriate ways in marriage (as a reward or punishment). Studies consistently suggest that married couples engage in sex much less frequently (usually about once a week or less often) than the three-to-four day cycle of peak desire, which at least younger and middle-aged adult men and women regularly experience.13 Given the numerous opportunities in our modern world to gratify sexual desires illicitly, Paul’s concern to guard against temptation (vv. 2, 5) remains equally appropriate. The option of temporary abstinence for the sake of spiritual devotion provides yet another example of how different Paul’s world seems. Yet moves are afoot to recover an emphasis on the spiritual disciplines, particularly prayer,14 and places need to be made for this option of unusually intense communion as well.

Verses 8–9 reflect a crucially needed balance among Christian singles who have been previously married. Sadly, it is common to hear attitudes voiced these days, particularly among divorced people, which insist on sex as a right but refuse ever again to consider marriage. Given the option of limited self-stimulation as an appropriate outlet for sexual drives (see above, p. 130), no one can ever legitimately claim that sex outside of marriage is either a right or is right. Still, remarriage can be good, even crucial, and not just for enjoying interpersonal sexual intimacy. Increasing numbers of single parents need help with rearing children, earning additional income, and over coming loneliness. Yet none of these reasons alone or together is sufficient for justifying remarriage, since each views the new spouse as a means for meeting my needs. Only whole-hearted commitment to the other’s well-being (v. 4) can lay the adequate groundwork for a healthy marriage.

The divorce and remarriage statistics, of course, continue to grow and stagger the imagination.15 Attempts to synthesize biblical teaching on these topics quickly divide Christians today into at least four camps: those who believe neither divorce nor remarriage is ever permitted, those who believe divorce is at times permitted but never remarriage, those who permit both divorce and remarriage in the cases of adultery and desertion (or desertion by an unbeliever), and those who permit both divorce and remarriage for a wide variety of reasons.16 There are in turn subdivisions of and mediating positions among these four primary positions. Since the days of the Reformation, however, the third of these positions has dominated in Protestant circles and, as we have suggested above, is probably the most correct. Many Christian workers committed to solid biblical principles insist that the views that prohibit all remarriage after divorce (or which prohibit all divorce as well) are simply unworkable, pastorally speaking, in the modern world.17

But proponents of divorce as a legitimate last resort in various instances must admit that this “way out” is adopted far more often than God could ever desire. Those contemplating divorce often feel that they have exhausted all alternatives long before they have really done so. Supportive Christian friends, fellowship groups, and churches need to come alongside couples well before they reach the point of no return to encourage, nurture, confront, and suggest options that the couples themselves may not have considered. Those couples, in turn, must be open to exploring such options, not least of which is individual and joint counseling from qualified Christian therapists. We need far more marriage enrichment experiences in our churches than divorce recovery workshops, though obviously the latter are necessary.

In spite of our best efforts, people will divorce even when biblical wisdom suggests they should not. In such instances, the Christian community needs to avoid the twin errors of easy acceptance and total lack of forgiveness that tend to polarize it today. The presence or absence of a genuinely repentant attitude on the part of those at fault will go a long way toward deciding which end of the spectrum Christian response should approximate. We need to ask hard questions of candidates for church membership that determine if they have inappropriately divorced or remarried and, if so, whether they are genuinely repentant.

We must be prepared to help those long since divorced to work through nagging personal problems that remain, even while continuing to confront (or eventually disfellowship) those who arrogantly insist they never did any wrong. Surely singles of all ages, including the never married, should be cautioned against marrying too quickly or for wrong motives. It is sad to hear how in older singles groups, the widowed and divorced often propose remarriage extremely early in the dating process, and how difficult it is for many singles to find unmarried friends of the opposite sex who will “just be friends.” It is even more sad to hear the same reports from younger singles groups comprised primarily of the never married.18

Verses 12–14 remind us of another reason for doing everything in our power to preserve marriage—the effect of divorce on children. Although it goes beyond the specific issues Paul had in mind when he used the language of “unclean” and “holy,” surely the prolonged, detrimental effects, particularly on younger children, of losing regular interaction with their father or mother, falls into the category of that which is not wholesome and therefore unholy.

New marriages and blended families may be better than single parenting. But statistics demonstrate they are increasingly not the solution, as they break up even more frequently than the original nuclear families.19 The rationale that it is better to live happily divorced than unhappily married, while increasingly common, is fallacious on several grounds: (1) most who think they will be happy divorced are not; (2) even those who are happy themselves often do not take adequate account of the effect on their children or their ex-spouse; (3) the premise of the entire argument is ultimately self-centered and flies directly in the face of the fundamentally selfless nature of Christian living.

Verses 15–16 bear on modern dating practices and debates. While no biblical text clearly bans all Christians from marrying non-Christians (2 Cor. 6:14–7:1 more likely refers to the unequal yokes of legalism or pagan worship), verse 39 places such restrictions on widowed Christians contemplating remarriage. And verse 16 reminds us that an evangelistic motive is not adequate for dating or marrying, because there is no guarantee that it will succeed. Certainly Christians need to have close non-Christian friends, if for no other reason than to make their witness credible, and there may be a limited place for fairly informal dating in this context. But a successful marriage demands shared commitments that can be extremely difficult for a believer committed to serving Christ wholeheartedly and a non-Christian unwilling to convert.