Original Meaning

VERSES 25–40 RETURN TO the topic of sex and marriage in response to the pro-celibacy faction in Corinth. With the exception of Paul’s words to the widows in verses 39–40, this part of the chapter focuses wholly on those who have never married. Verse 25 introduces this new category. “Virgins” here refer to young people of marriageable age, not necessarily to those who have never had intercourse. Verse 25b parallels the parenthesis in verse 12. In each case, Paul cannot cite a word from the earthly Jesus but believes God is inspiring him to offer reliable counsel.

Verses 26b and 27b repeat the theme of “remain as you are.” Because these young people are single, like the widows and widowers of verses 8–9, Paul can be more enthusiastic about celibacy. But he quickly reminds them that his enthusiasm for abstinence does not carry over to the married (v. 27a) and, against those in Corinth teaching that sex and marriage were inherently sinful, he affirms that “if you do marry, you have not sinned” (v. 28a). This “you” is probably addressed to young men. The “virgin” in verse 28b is feminine and provides the same reassurance for young women.

Verses 25–28 also introduce two new reasons for Paul’s advice. The first deals with “the present crisis” (v. 26a), which is further explained in verses 29–31. The second has to do with “many troubles in this life” (v. 28c) and is elaborated in verses 32–35. Some have thought that the present crisis must refer to some unique historical circumstances of famine or persecution in Corinth.1 But as far as we can tell, the city in the mid-50s was as prosperous as any in the Roman world. And there is no indication that Corinthian Christians were persecuted much, at least not more than most first-century Christians. So it is better to understand verses 29–31 as explaining verse 26a, in which case the NRSV reading, “impending crisis,” is more helpful. Paul knows that after Christ’s first coming, his second coming could take place very soon (“the time is short”—v. 29a). This does not mean that Paul had set any dates or necessarily expected the Lord to return within his lifetime. Rather he, like the rest of the New Testament writers, recognized what C. E. B. Cranfield has phrased so aptly, that

the Parousia is near … not in the sense that it must necessarily occur within a few months or years, but in the sense that it may occur at any moment and in the sense that, since the decisive event of history has already taken place in the ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, all subsequent history is a kind of epilogue, necessarily in a real sense short, even though it may last a very long time.2

All Christians should therefore sense an urgency to serving the Lord, caused by the uncertainty of the time of the end, after which point it will no longer be possible to win any more people to Christ or to disciple them to maturity. Paul is well aware that distractions of marriage may temper this urgency. So those who choose to wed must not become so preoccupied with their families that they can no longer effectively serve Christ (v. 29b). The same is true with other normal human activities—celebrations and wakes, commerce and shopping (vv. 30–31). All are legitimate endeavors, but all remain fleeting. The Christian should therefore be less involved in the affairs of this world than the non-Christian. The balance Paul seeks to achieve leads one writer to label him a “worldly ascetic.”3

Verses 32–35 unpack Paul’s second rationale for encouraging those who have never married to stay single. Even if Christ does not come back right away, attending to the concerns of spouse and children takes time away from ministering to the needs of others in both church and world (vv. 32–34). Yet once again Paul refuses to absolutize his preferences or endorse without qualification the stance of the pro-celibacy faction. Verse 35 supplies the most crucial clue in the whole chapter for determining when marriage is or is not appropriate. Whichever state enables one to “live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord” is preferable. Paul does not wish to “restrict” his audience (literally, “throw a noose around” them), one way or the other.

Verses 36–38 focus on one specific kind of unmarried person. But as the NIV footnote demonstrates, the language is vague enough to be taken in two quite different ways.4 The early church almost without exception interpreted these verses, as in the footnote, to refer to a father considering whether or not to give his daughter’s hand in marriage. The term for “marry” in verse 38 (gamizo) is different from that used elsewhere in this chapter (gameo—vv. 9, 10, 28, 33, 34, 36, 39), and in its other, relatively rare biblical occurrences it means “to give in marriage” (Matt. 22:30 [par. Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35]; Matt. 24:38 [par. Luke 17:27]). But it is rare in extra-biblical Greek too, and other verbs with the same suffix (-izo) were losing their causative force in the New Testament period.

To “act improperly” (v. 36) translates a word that suggests sexual innuendoes that would be inappropriate for a father-daughter relationship. All of the language in verse 37 about the man settling the matter, not being under compulsion, and being in control over his own will, sounds strange if the practice of arranged marriages is in view, for the father would not normally have vacillated in these ways.

It is probably better, therefore, to follow the NIV text and take the two people involved to refer to fiancé and fiancée.5 The trend in Greco-Roman society was decidedly away from arranged marriages in the first century. But even then ambiguities remain. Some have seen these verses as implying the contemplation of a “spiritual” marriage, in which two people of the opposite sex would agree to live together without sexual relations. The word translated “getting along in years” might actually mean “oversexed” and refer to the young man rather than the woman. But all in all, the NIV has probably got it right. Engaged couples should not feel compelled to heed the pro-celibacy faction and refrain from marriage, but if they choose to do so, that is acceptable as well. Indeed, as in verses 7–8, 26, and 40, Paul reiterates his preference for the single life (v. 38), but he refuses to legislate it.

Verses 39–40 round out the chapter by reaffirming monogamy as a lifelong commitment. These verses also contain the only explicit reference to remarriage in this chapter. Christian widows and, by implication, widowers are free to remarry, so long as they marry fellow believers. As in verse 8, Paul reiterates his preference for the single life but will not absolutize it. “I think that I too have the Spirit of God” (v. 40b) does not reflect any doubt on Paul’s part but represents a slightly sarcastic aside to the Corinthians, who felt that only they had attained true spiritual insight.

Bridging Contexts

PAUL CONTINUES to chart his careful course between the hedonists and the ascetics in Corinth. Most of what we said under verses 1–16 about the overall method of moving from original meaning to contemporary significance applies here too. In addition, various other specifics clamor for attention.

First, as with verse 12, verses 25–26 and 40 must not be viewed as any less inspired than the rest of Paul’s writing. He is simply admitting that he cannot cite any previous Christian authority but must rely on his own sense of God’s guidance. Second, if “the present crisis” of verse 26 is taken to reflect some unique historical problem in first-century Corinth, then Paul’s subsequent remarks will of course be relativized. But if we are correct in seeing verses 29–31 as disclosing the crisis to be nothing more than the characteristic tension believers experience between the two advents of Christ, then Paul’s counsel remains equally valid for any time and place throughout church history. Third, verse 27 contains two further examples of “remain as you are,” but it is significant that verse 28 qualifies only one of them. In other words, even though Paul stresses that those who choose to marry do not sin, he could never have written, “But if you do divorce, you have not sinned,” except under the very limited circumstances previously discussed (see above, pp. 138–39).

Verses 29–31 should not be made to promote the very asceticism Paul was trying to play down. But they do suggest that the cares of this world must take a significant back seat to kingdom priorities. Vincent Wimbush helpfully characterizes this balance as a “middle-of-the-road ethic” that

remains both as baggage and challenge for every subsequent model of Christian spirituality. For those for whom Christian faith demands and is synonymous with a worldly agenda for aggressive social change, the way of Paul and the Pauline Christians will appear embarrassingly weak and irrelevant. For those for whom Christian faith demands the development of interior piety first and foremost, the way of Paul and the Pauline Christians will appear to be substandard, a worldly compromise.6

Those concerned to obey God’s word, however, will strive for precisely Paul’s balance between being in the world but not of it.

Verses 32–35 offer crucial guidance for people in any time and culture trying to decide whether or not to marry. Instead of adopting the countless other criteria society suggests, Christians should ask themselves in which state, single or married, they can best serve the Lord. Michael Green recommends asking the following question, “Could I be equally useful to the Lord if married, or would it inevitably curtail my usefulness to him?” He then comments, “The quantity of time available for Christian involvement may be reduced once we are married, but its quality may be enhanced. At all events, I have no right to marry unless I have honestly faced the question of the impact marriage will have on my Christian life and service.”7

The identical cluster of issues surrounds the decision whether or not to have children (or how many children to have)—to the extent that we are permitted such choices. Voluntary childlessness for the sake of the kingdom is an option not many married couples choose, but it is an option that is surely worth prayerful consideration.8 Both spouses and children can influence Christians to become reluctant to obey Jesus in such areas as sacrificial financial giving and keeping oneself free from worldly pursuits, but they can also greatly enhance one’s personal life, strengthening one’s ability to minister to families and offering innumerable opportunities for discipleship right within one’s own family.

Part of the application of verses 36–38 clearly hinges on which translation is adopted. If this is a father contemplating whether or not to “marry off” his daughter, the application to societies without arranged marriages will be minimal. If this is an engaged couple, then we learn that Paul did not consider engagement nearly as binding as did the Jews (who required a divorce to break it off). If “she is getting along in years” is a correct translation, then verse 36 may suggest that older engaged couples may often require a shorter period of betrothal than younger ones. Whatever translation is adopted, Paul’s “Yes, but” logic is again clear.

Rounding out the chapter, verses 39–40 stress that marriage involves a lifelong commitment. That is another reason why it is not to be entered or dissolved lightly (particularly for the sake of avoiding sex). First Timothy 5:11–15 sounds a bit more positive toward remarriage precisely because Paul is not dealing with quite the same problem as in Corinth.

It is worth noting in passing that if Paul allowed for and at times even encouraged widows and widowers to remarry, then it is not likely that the criterion of church leadership usually translated “husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2, 12) was intended to exclude the remarried. But there is no linguistic or contextual justification in 1 Timothy 3 for allowing this expression to include those remarried after the death of a spouse while excluding those who are remarried after a biblically legitimate divorce. Better, therefore, to understand “husband of one wife” as equivalent to “currently characterized by marital fidelity, if married.”9

Contemporary Significance

NOT MANY WESTERN CHRISTIANS give adequate consideration to the possibility of remaining unmarried for the sake of wholehearted devotion to the Lord’s work. More need to do so. Examples such as the internationally influential Anglican pastor, John Stott, or the widely heralded Southern Baptist missionary, Lottie Moon, have demonstrated how much one life can accomplish when freed from the demands of family. Many Christian preachers, from John Wesley to contemporary workaholics, would have been better off unmarried rather than going through the agony of watching their marriages fall apart after years of neglect. William Carey’s marvelous missionary career remains somewhat tarnished because of the sacrifices he demanded of his wife, Dorothy, who eventually lost her mind.10 Some of this heartache could surely have been avoided if couples unprepared to count the cost simply had not married in the first place.

For all of us, single or married, if the end of the world truly could come in our lifetime, we should have an urgency about the Lord’s work that contemporary Christians seldom reflect. And even if the Lord delays his coming, sudden death claims too many lives for any of us ever to assume complacently that we have a certain number of years or decades left to serve God more leisurely.

Verses 29–31 were followed more closely when evangelicalism as a movement in this country was poorer and more marginalized. Now with our great numbers and affluence, many Christians seem to be very “engrossed” in “the things of the world” (v. 31) and buy material possessions precisely as if they were “theirs to keep” (v. 30). Third-World Christians, of course, can often teach us profound lessons concerning obedience to Paul’s commands in these areas, because they are less tempted by such materialism. We must keep verse 31b ever before us, reminding ourselves, against every message society sends, that this life is an infinitesimal drop in the bucket compared to eternity. It is only worth investing our lives and our resources in that which will outlive this world.11

Many couples today can honestly attest that by the criterion of verse 35 they are better off married. Spouses can engage in team ministry, bring complementary gifts to a mutual task, and support and encourage one another (cf. Eccl. 4:12). But in growing numbers of Christian families, husbands and wives are torn in different directions and grow increasingly apart, especially when the daily responsibilities of each allow for little or no family time. Many spouses of seminarians these days seem uncommitted to their partners’ present and future ministries, asserting instead their independence in other careers. If this is true for those preparing for full-time Christian service, how much more may it apply to the layperson?

Throw in children and the problems are exacerbated still further. We desperately need role models of entire families engaging in ministry together. For those who want children but are unable to have them, adoption could become a major form of Christian commitment and service. Almost every major American city has its long line of biracial, ethnic, abused, or physically challenged children whom no one wants to adopt. Meanwhile, white middle-class, childless couples themselves form long waiting lists, willing to consider only healthy white infants as prospective family members. But whether adopted or biological, rearing godly children can itself be a ministry, though, as with non-Christian spouses (v. 16), there is no guarantee that children of Christian parents will accept the Lord. The notion that Christians ought to have large families to help Christianize the world is refuted both by Paul’s concerns in verses 25–35 and by the sad testimony of many who have attempted such a task and then grieved to watch their children give allegiance to other gods.

Verses 36–38 surely speak to contemporary dating patterns. By international standards, Americans tend to have relatively short engagement periods, often following prolonged periods of serious relationships with multiple partners in succession. Many other cultures have prolonged engagements, beginning early in a serious relationship, often preceded only by much more casual friendships with the opposite sex. Paul’s commands necessarily favor neither of these approaches, but they do suggest that betrothal is a serious matter, not to be entered rapidly. Yet once entered it is not the binding covenant marriage is. Careful thought and prayer should continue as to whether the marriage should be consummated. A balance must be struck between not prolonging engagement to such an extent that it leads to sexual frustration or sin and not making it so short that couples enter married life unsure if God’s will has been done. The recent upsurgence of premarital and even pre-engagement counseling can be a good step in the direction of achieving this balance.12

Contemporary application of verses 39–40 in most aspects repeats what we have said under verses 8–9. These verses also underline the consistent biblical call to lifelong faithfulness which wedding vows normally promise. There are numerous reasons for a preserving marriage even when we don’t feel like it, but one that modern people often ignore is that of keeping our promises. “Falling in love” does not constitute adequate grounds for marriage. “Falling out of love” does not grant a person the right to divorce. Warren Wiersbe suggests five questions to be answered when considering marriage, which aptly sum up Paul’s concerns in this chapter: “What is my gift from God? Am I marrying a believer? Are the circumstances such that marriage is right? How will marriage affect my service for Christ? Am I prepared to enter into this union for life?”13 These questions demand far more attention in contemporary Christian families, youth groups, and singles gatherings than they usually receive.