BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

GEORGE W. TRUETT THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

AN EXEGETICAL AND THEOLOGICAL

EXAMINATION OF 1 CORINTHIANS 7:1-9

SUBMITTED TO:

DR. PREBEN VANG

FOR THE COURSE:

DMIN 7310 PROCLAIMING THE KINGDOM

BY

ELI GUTIERREZ
Introduction

1 Corinthians 1:7-9 is one of the most important passages in Scripture for a theology of sex and

marriage. However, as it will be shown, Paul is not attempting to formulate a comprehensive

theological understanding of marriage and sex, rather he is addressing particular circumstances.

The failure to understand the situation to which Paul is responding results in a misinterpretation.

Throughout Christian history many commentators on 1 Corinthians 7 have concluded that Paul is

against marriage and allows it only as a concession for those who are unable to control themselves.

For example, when commenting 1 Corinthians 7:1 Tertullian says “therefore, it is bad to touch one

[a woman]. For nothing is opposed to the ‘good’ except the ‘bad’.”1 Along the same lines and

based on Paul’s comments, Calvin affirms that marriage is “a necessary remedy to keep us from

plunging into unbridled lust.”2 Although contemporary scholars have interpreted this passage in a

different direction, the notion that marriage is a lesser good is still present in some Christian

groups. In this paper, this Pauline passage is going to be examined in its context in order to

contribute to a better understanding of the biblical view of marriage, sex, celibacy, and singleness.

The passage

In chapter 7 Paul is going to address a series of issues that have come to him in a letter from the

Corinthians.3 Scholars debate the extent of the Corinthians’ questions, whether all of the issues

Paul addresses have been raised directly by the Corinthians or not. However, it is not of the upmost

importance to define where do all the questions exactly come from. What is crucial to note is that

Paul will not offer a comprehensive discussion of marriage but he will respond “theologically and

1
Quoted in J Edward Ellis, “Controlled Burn: The Romantic Note in 1 Corinthians 7” Perspectives in Religious
Studies 29, no. 1 (Spr 2002): 90.
2
David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2008), 242.
3
Preben Vang, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2014), 90.
pastorally to actual situations.”4 As Vang notes, Paul is moving from pointing out significant errors

in their thinking in the previous chapters, to deal now with issues that are “not necessarily black

and white but require deeper spiritual insight and pastoral guidance.”5 Bailey notes that Paul chose

to discuss the problems of incest and sleeping with prostitutes in chapter 6, before he turned to

“the things about which you wrote” (7:1). Thus, Paul is publicly affirming that he received their

sanitized set of questions, in order to make them realize that he noted their “attempt to hide

embarrassing topics and go public on carefully selected ‘safe’ aspects of sexual practice.”6 Bailey

perceptively points out that Paul is subtly and very politely saying, “don’t try this stunt again. As

you can see from what I have just written—I find out everything anyway!”7

Another important aspect to understand this passage is its eschatological tone. Paul’s

imminent expectation of the end of the ages is fundamental to interpret his advice in this chapter.

For example, Sampley points out that, because Paul expects the end so directly, he repeatedly

counsels the Corinthians to “remain as you are,”8 In a similar note, Talbert says that Paul's

apparently negative statements about marriage in this passage spring from his eschatology. Paul

believes that Christ will return in the near future, thus, the Corinthian Christians are living in a

time of tribulation in which "the form of this world is passing away" (v. 31). In this turbulent time,

Christians need to be free of all distractions that could interfere with their devotion to God.9

Although we cannot know for sure, the Corinthian letter to Paul may have been written in

response to Paul’s previous letter mentioned in 5:9. It is probable that Fortunatus, Stephanus, and

4
Mark Taylor. 1 Corinthians (Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman, 2014), 161.
5
Vang, 1 Corinthians, 90.
6
Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP
Academic, 2011), 341.
7
Bailey, Paul through, 341-342.
8
Paul J. Sampley, “1 & 2 Corinthians,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary. Volume IX. Acts. Introduction
to Epistolary Literature. Romans. 1 & 2 Corinthians. Galatians, ed. Keck, Leander E. (Nashville; Abingdon Press,
2015), 869.
9
Ellis, “Controlled Burn,” 90.
Achaicus (16:8, 17) delivered the letter from the Corinthians to Paul.10 Having received Paul’s

teaching, the Corinthians were wondering how to behave in light of the imminent Parousia. Should

they remain celibate and avoid all sexual contact? What about those who are married? Is marriage

advisable at all? These are some of the questions that the Corinthians may have had in mind and

that Paul is going to address. Barre affirms that in his pastoral and prudent way to respond Paul is

going to have in mind three things. First, Paul has a general principle throughout this section

"everyone should remain in the state in which he was called" (7:20; 24). Second, Paul considers

the specific situations and needs of Christians, both male and female, in different marital and non-

marital states. And third, Paul affirms the great value of celibacy as a Christian state in life.11

Before a closer examination of the particular occasion Paul is addressing it is important to draw

the attention to the way in which Paul chose to organize his advice. Although they organize the

lines in slightly different ways, both Garland and Bailey note the chiasmic structure of verses 2-5.

In the following chart Garland’s structure is followed.

• A. But since sexual immorality is occurring (7:2a)

o B. each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with
her own husband (7:2b)
§ C. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife (7:3a)
• D. and likewise the wife to her husband (7:3b)
• D’. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields
it to her husband. (7:4a)
§ C’. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body
but yields it to his wife (7:4b)
o B’. Do not deprive each other… (7:5ab)
• A’. because of your lack of self-control (7:5c)

10
Taylor. 1 Corinthians, 159.
11
Michael L. Barré, “To Marry or to Burn: Pyrousthai in I Cor 7:9.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36, no. 2
(April 1974): 198
In the outer lines marriages is depicted as just a way to prevent immorality because of the lack of

self-control. However, in the inner lines a positive view of marriage and sex emerges as a gift that

each partner is expected to freely give to the other.

The occasion

Given the history of the interpretation of this passage it is necessary to insist that Paul is not

presenting his theology of marriage but responding to a certain situation. In this regard, Garland

notes that Paul is “addressing specific difficulties that have developed in Corinth and is not

presenting a marriage manual or his systematic thoughts on marriage. We have instead his pastoral

argument against some particular Corinthian Christian ascetics’ rejection of their sexuality.”12 The

exact nature of the situation is still a matter of debate. One has to be careful with this kind of mirror

reading. Since we only have Paul’s side of the conversation, a definitive answer about what was

going on and why it was going on in Corinth is not possible. There is a number of possibilities that

scholars have proposed and, in spite of the differences, there are some clues and consensus that

shed light on this passage.

What seems undeniable is that some Christians in Corinth have claimed that celibacy is a

better way of life. Paul’s statement that those who marry commit no sin (7:28) suggests that others

were claiming the opposite.13 MacDonald suggests that women seem to have been among the main

supporters of this radically ascetic teaching. She argues that while Paul is addressing both men and

women he shows a special concern for women.14 Nevertheless, Paul’s special concern for women

did not necessarily come about because women were the main supporters of the ascetism in

Corinth. It may as well have been because Paul was insisting on the mutuality of marriage and

12
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 242.
13
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 243.
14
Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Women Holy in Body and Spirit: The Social Setting of 1 Corinthians 7,” New
Testament Studies 36, no. 2 (April 1990): 180.
sexual relations in a society in which mutuality was not the norm. Actually, it seems that these

ascetic ideas were being held by married people. Some were calling for celibacy even for married

ones and practicing abstinence at the expense of the spouse. Paul’s response is that spouses should

not abstain from sexual relations and his advices are for both the husband and the wife.

Furthermore, whether it was men or women, or most likely both, their ascetism had a spiritual

tone. In other words, some in Corinth argued that abstinence placed them on a higher spiritual

plane.15

Now, where did these ascetic ideas come from? Garland affirms that sexual asceticism was

in the air during this period and he mentions twelve forces in the context that might have caused

them to look for sexual ascetism. It would be beyond the purposes of this paper to examine each

of those options, suffice it is just to mention them: repudiation of the licentiousness of the culture,

gnostic dualism, the inheritance from Judaism, devotion to Sophia, the debate between Cynics and

Stoics, over-realized eschatology, divine men, eschatological women, Corinthian pneumatism, the

Corinthian’s cultural heritage, debates among physicians, and cataclysmic external

circumstances. 16 One of these forces that many commentators mention is dualism. Verbrugge

affirms that the Corinthian situation relates to the Greek philosophical dualism that seems to have

been prevalent in Corinth.17 Interestingly, dualism led to two opposite outcomes. On one hand, it

led to licentiousness. Some people claimed that since the body is unimportant, whatever one does

with it is of no concern for the spiritual realm. On the other hand, dualism can lead to ascetism.

Some argued that since the body is evil it is best to deny any physical needs and to avoid any

15
Vang, 1 Corinthians, 94.
16
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 263-66.
17
Verlyn D. Verbrugge, “1 Corinthians” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Revised Edition. Romans-Galatians,
eds. Tremper III Longman and David E Garland (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 2008), 314.
physical pleasure.18 Bailey calls one group the libertines, and the other the ascetics.19 Interestingly,

Paul’s sees the same risk in these two attitudes, sexual immorality.

Paul himself may have contributed to the ascetism of the Corinthians. His eschatological

emphasis and his own example of celibacy may have made some Corinthians wonder if that was

not the standard Christian way of living. Sampley notes that Paul’s free and frequent offering of

himself as an exemplar could easily have contributed to this misapplication.20 Additionally,

Sampley argues that the Corinthians were divided in their understandings of how the life of faith

bears on sexual matters, rather than affirming celibacy. For him, it is more a question than a claim.

Sampley does not see it as an “asceticism that has crept into the congregation, but a good-faith

effort on the part of some to respond to Paul’s call for holiness.”21 An examination of the passage

verse by verse will help to clarify the situation in Corinth, for now it is sufficient to say that it had

to do with an ascetic idea that spirituality and sexual practice were incompatible.22

The Context

Before examining the text itself it would be helpful to analyze some elements of the sociocultural

context in the time of 1 Corinthians, especially in regards to sexuality and marriage. In the ancient

world marriage was regarded as a duty for the procreation of legitimate Roman children, as only

they received citizenship.23 Sexual contact outside the marriage was permitted for a husband,

though not for a wife.24 Also, it was seen as a pleasurable experience that women provided for

men. Thiselton notes that Paul appears to be the first writer to suggest that such “pleasure” could

18
Verbrugge, “1 Corinthians,” 315.
19
Bailey, Paul through, 343.
20
Sampley, “1 & 2 Corinthians,” 869.
21
Sampley, “1 & 2 Corinthians,” 870.
22
Bailey, Paul through, 349.
23
Vang, 1 Corinthians, 97.
24
Gerald F. Hawthorne. “Marriage and divorce. Adultery and incest” in Dictionary of Paul and his letters, edited by
G. F. Hawthorne, R. Martin, and D. Reid, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 594.
be mutual.25 Actually, this is one of the most striking and countercultural elements in all the Pauline

letters. Male dominance was typical within the ancient patriarchal societies, in this case the Jew

and Gentile, where women had few rights.26 But for Paul, as we will see, marriage is a relationship

of equals.

Against the traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, Ellis argues that Paul’s rhetoric

about marriage is entirely consistent with a “mindset that not only approves but celebrates

marriage, sex, and sexual pleasure.”27 He studies a series of Greek romantic novels that reflect a

general view of marriage and sex that celebrated it as a good and beautiful thing. Ellis finds

parallels of almost all the elements of Paul’s advices on marriage and sex in these ancient

documents. Thus, the Corinthians would have easily recognized that Paul’s advice was in harmony

with the stream of thought of the Graeco-Roman world and would have no reason to see in Paul's

words a disdain for marriage or sex. Ellis concludes that perhaps Paul is not outwardly celebrating

marriage in 1 Corinthians, but his advice is “in harmony with a body of thought that does celebrate

marriage and sex: that of the Greek romantic novels.”28

In a similar study, Brewer argues that virtually every facet of Paul's teaching about

marriage and divorce in 1 Corinthians 7 can be illustrated by parallels in the Jewish and non-Jewish

marriage and divorce papyri. The only facet which is not paralleled by the papyri is Paul's view of

equality and mutuality in marriage. Jewish marriages gave total security to men, but the woman

had no security and could be given a divorce certificate at any time. Moreover, the Corinthians

were facing the widespread of the Graeco-Roman practice of divorce-by-separation, a practice that

took marriage very lightly. Thus, Brewer argues that Paul leads believers “from a world of Graeco-

25
Anthony C. Thiselton, First Corinthians: a Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich:
William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006), 102.
26
Verbrugge, “1 Corinthians,” 313.
27
Ellis, “Controlled Burn,” 97.
28
Ellis, “Controlled Burn,” 98.
Roman morals, through to a world of Jewish morals, and beyond to a world of Christian morals.”29

He concludes that in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul has a positive approach to marriage throughout and that,

ultimately, Paul takes the Corinthians beyond the Jewish models to the teaching of Jesus, and at

significant points he stands in contrast to the practices shown in contemporary marriage and

divorce papyri.

In yet another similar study, Valentine interprets 1 Corinthians 7 in light of the ancient

rhetoric of self-control. She shows that the ancient Greek and Hellenistic Jewish texts express a

disapproval of the passions. Moreover, the Jewish texts associate self-control with covenantal

infidelity. For Valentine, this widespread suspicion of the passions “provides the backdrop for

Paul's comments regarding sexual fornication in 1 Corinthians 7.”30 Words like “self-control” (7:5)

and “burning” (7:9) were common in contemporary writings. Hellenistic Jewish texts used fire and

burning imagery to describe the passions associated with unfulfilled romantic love and with lustful

passions.31 And self-control was a virtue of value for the elite in the ancient world as a means to

control sexual desire.32 Thus, Valentine shows that Paul uses the rhetoric and the imagery of his

time to offer a Christian way to interpret the different situations in which believers are involved.

The text

Having introduced the passage, explored the occasion that produced it, and pointed out some

elements of the socio-cultural context, it is time to examine the text verse by verse from NIV.

7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with

a woman.” This verse alone has been interpreted in various way. Is 7b Paul’s words or a Corinthian

29
David Instone Brewer, “1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Jewish Greek and Aramaic Marriage and Divorce
Papyri” Tyndale Bulletin 52, no. 2 (2001): 243.
30
Katy E. Valentine, “1 Corinthians 7 in Light of Ancient Rhetoric of Self-Control,” Review & Expositor 110, no. 4
(Fall 2013): 579.
31
Valentine, “1 Corinthians 7,” 580.
32
Valentine, “1 Corinthians 7,” 582.
claim? Traditionally it has been interpreted as the words of Paul and, thus, it has been read as if

the apostle had a negative view of marriage and sex. However, as the NIV translation shows,

modern scholarship has tended to see 7b as the words of the Corinthians. Garland offers six

convincing reasons to conclude that Paul is citing a line from the Corinthians.33 Fee and Talbert

think the same.34 Vang affirms that the statement is a Corinthian slogan35 and so does

Witherington.36 Verbrugge holds that those are not Paul’s words since “even though he will go on

to recommend celibacy, Paul clearly holds that getting married is not a sin, nor is it sinful to have

sexual relations within marriage.”37 Taylor points out that only five verses earlier (6:16) Paul drew

the attention to the one-flesh relationship by appealing to Gen 2:23, which follows closely upon

Gen 2:18 that says “it is not good for the man to be alone.” Also, Genesis 2 comes into play in

11:2-16 as a key passage in Paul’s discussion of husbands and wives. And in 7:12-16 Paul affirms

the sanctity of the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever.38 In conclusion, it is virtually a fact that

Paul is quoting what some Corinthians claim. Noting this is crucial for the interpretation of the

whole chapter.

The Greek literally says “it is not good to touch a woman”, what does touch a woman

mean? As the NIV shows, this phrase is a euphemism for sexual relations. Although it could also

refer to marriage, the context makes it clear that Paul is not discussing whether Christians should

get married but whether Christian spouses should abstain from sexual intercourse. Moreover, there

are two different readings of the whole quote, it could be read as a question or as an affirmation.

Whether it is one or the other is not crucial for the interpretation of the passage, but this paper will

33
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 248-52.
34
Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: a Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (New
York: Crossroad, 1987), 37. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Revised Edition, (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), 273.
35
Vang, 1 Corinthians, 91.
36
Ben Witherington, Women in the Earliest Churches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 40.
37
Verbrugge, “1 Corinthians,” 314.
38
Taylor. 1 Corinthians, 162.
take the position that the phrase is a claim, or even more, a slogan of some Christians in Corinth.

Vang affirms that some in the church of Corinth used the slogan to further a kind of sexual ascetism

that paralleled the cult of Isis, teaching of the cynics, or another popular movement in first-century

Corinth.39 Paul will push back to the Corinthian slogan but he will do it with care. Sampley points

out that the social conventions of Paul’s time did not encourage the rejection of another person’s

maxim; instead, one could amplify or qualify it, sometimes with the use of one’s own maxim.40

As we will see, that is what Paull will do in the following verses.

7:2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his

own wife, and each woman with her own husband. Paul begins with de (but) showing that he

does not completely agree with the Corinthians.41 As a response to their slogan, Paul will

emphasize that sex is good and, within marriage, it functions as an antidote against sexual

immorality.42 The Greek literally reads “to have his own wife”. As the NIV translation shows “to

have” is a euphemism for sexual relations. Some commentators have read this verse as an evidence

that Paul did not consider marriage and sex good but only allowed them in order to avoid

immorality. However, one should note that Paul is not arguing why marriage is advisable but why

it is inadvisable and impractical for married couples to practice sexual abstinence. Garland states

that it would be wrong to affirm that “Paul is implying that the only value of conjugal love is that

it averts fornication.”43 As it has been noted, some people in Corinth had become celibate, perhaps

at the expense of their spouses, and Paul wants to preempt the danger of immorality. He sees that

trying to remain celibate in a marriage relationship is a “recipe for sexual misadventures.”44

39
Vang, 1 Corinthians, 91.
40
Sampley, “1 & 2 Corinthians,” 871.
41
Verbrugge, “1 Corinthians,” 315.
42
Vang, 1 Corinthians, 91.
43
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 257.
44
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 255.
7:3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

Paul affirms marriage as a union in which sexual intimacy is not only advisable but required.

Actually, it is a duty. In this regard, Vang states that this refers to a relational duty rather than a

legal obligation.45 Other translations read “let every man…” but the NIV translates better the

phrase in the sense that in the Greek it is an imperative.46 Paul is commanding Christian spouses

to fulfil their obligation.47 Each spouse is responsible to fulfill the sexual needs of their own spouse.

Furthermore, the emphasis on the mutuality between husband and wife is striking. In this regard,

Garland notes that “Paul addresses the wife as directly as the husband, contrary to the usual pattern

in the ancient world of addressing men and instructing women indirectly.”48

7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same

way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. This advice,

is the most striking passage in the chapter because of its countercultural emphasis. The Corinthian

slogan was concerned with men, their practices and rights, but Paul emphasizes the mutuality in

marriage and sexual relations. This is why he seems to have a special concern about women, and

not because women were particularly practicing a kind of radical ascetism. In this regard, Sampley

holds that Paul is “evenhanded about what both men and women should do.”49 Both husband and

wife are called to voluntarily yield their own rights for the sake of each other. Bailey points out

that “the granting of these gifts, rights and powers to each partner (on an equal basis) is truly

amazing to discover in a first-century document!”50 As Garland does, one can extrapolate from

this Pauline advice that marriage should be governed by mutual love and spouses should not treat

each other as objects for sexual self-gratification but someone with whom practicing self-giving.51

45
Vang, 1 Corinthians, 92.
46
Verbrugge, “1 Corinthians,” 315.
47
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 258.
48
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 258.
49
Sampley, “1 & 2 Corinthians,” 872.
50
Bailey, Paul through, 345
51
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 260.
7:5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may

devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because

of your lack of self-control. The main advice here, and even command, is not to deprive each

other. The verb “to deprive” has connotations of defrauding. This shows that Paul is really serious

when he is talking about the importance of sexual relations within marriage. Here, Paul is willing

to agree partially with the Corinthian slogan. He concedes that there might be times for sexual

abstinence within marriage; however, some conditions must be met. There has to be a mutual

agreement, otherwise refusal of sexual relations is a form of defrauding.52 It has to be temporal. It

would be impossible to know exactly how long a period of time did Paul have in mind. But what

it is certain is that it has to end at some point, and the sexual activity must be resumed lest they

fall into temptation. Vang affirms that sexual intimacy functions as a guard against “Satan’s

attempt to devastate their unity with Christ by leading them into sexual immorality.”53 And, finally,

temporal abstinence in marriage has to have a spiritual purpose. This does not mean that sex is a

hindrance for prayer. Paul expects Christian spouses to maintain sexual activity and, at the same

time, he expects them to pray without ceasing (1 Thess 5:17). It only means that Christians may

decide to be devoted to prayer for a certain time and abstain from sexual activity meanwhile. Vang

points out that Paul concedes that periods of intense spiritual devotion may require a short period

of sexual abstinence.54 But they must come back together because long periods of abstinence

heighten the risk of falling into sexual temptations. In this regard, Taylor states that “Paul is not

against sex he is against immorality.”55

7:6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. The difficulty to interpret this verse is to decide

what does touto (this) refer to. Some commentators say “this” refers to the previous verse, Paul’s

52
Verbrugge, “1 Corinthians,” 315.
53
Vang, 1 Corinthians, 93.
54
Vang, 1 Corinthians, 93.
55
Taylor. 1 Corinthians, 167.
concession that spouses may abstain from sexual activity for a period of time, after mutual

agreement, and for spiritual purposes. And other commentators affirm that “this” refers to Paul’s

wish that everyone was celibate as he is but he concedes that not everyone has the same gift.

Although a definitive answer is not possible, it seems more likely that Paul is referring to verse 5

as the concession. As it has been shown, Paul’s main advice in these verses has been that Christian

spouses should fulfill their marital duties by satisfying each other’s intimacy needs. And he has

advised it against the Corinthian slogan that it is better not to have sexual intercourse. Thus, Paul

allowing them to abstain for a period of time is precisely that, a concession. Vang notes that Paul’s

teaching about abstinence is only a concession and that he even seems hesitant to encourage this

exemption.56 Along the same lines, Sampley argues that Paul “grants them a concession only after

he has distanced himself from their slogan.”57 It is important to note that the concession is not

marriage itself but abstinence within marriage.58

7:7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has

this gift, another has that. Here, Paul is referring to his own celibate state. He is not saying that

celibacy is the highest good, but affirming it good too.59 As Taylor notes, it does not follow that

the marriage is not good but that the unmarried state is commendable too.60 In this sense, Paul may

agree with the idea that celibacy is good, and with the Corinthian sentiment, but he “sharply

qualifies their position”61 because, although he agrees celibacy is good, he does not agree with the

theology behind the slogan that it is a higher spiritual state. Garland argues that “in his attempt to

dampen the Corinthians’ enthusiasm for ecstatic speech, he diplomatically agrees with them about

this value, and he reminds them that he is celibate.”62 But then he disagrees with any “effort to

56
Vang, 1 Corinthians, 92.
57
Sampley, “1 & 2 Corinthians,” 872.
58
Talbert 38, Witherington 41
59
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 243.
60
Taylor. 1 Corinthians, 163.
61
Taylor. 1 Corinthians, 163.
62
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 269.
coerce others to conform to what one may regard as ideal.63 Paul presents his celibate state as a

good one but does not make it a requirement for everyone. In sum, celibacy is good but not

everyone is called to be celibate. In the same way that marriage is good but not everyone is called

to get married. Both marriage and celibacy are a gift. Here gift is not used in a technical sense, as

an extraordinary work of the Spirit for the advancement of the church, but rather as a calling into

a particular state.

7:8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

Although there is not a complete agreement among scholars, there is a tendency to affirm that the

word agamois (unmarried) is a reference to widowers. There was a word in classical Greek for

widowers but it was out of use during this time. Thus, Paul could use “unmarried” to address

widowers. The fact that Paul directly addresses the never married later in the chapter, and the fact

that he mentions here both groups, the unmarried and the widows, makes it likely that he is

referring to widowers. Paul calls widows and widowers to remain unmarried, is he considering

celibacy a better state? No, “good” must not be interpreted as “better” nor as “the highest good.”

The fact that it is good to remain unmarried does not mean that marriage is bad.64 Garland argues

that “Paul backpedals a bit and cautiously agrees with the Corinthians’ preference for celibacy for

the unmarried.”65 It seems that Paul does not want to reject the Corinthian slogan altogether, and

he has a number of reasons. First, his own preaching and example may have led the Corinthians to

claim such a thing. Second, the social conventions of their time did not encourage to reject other’s

slogans. Third, Paul’s pastoral sensitivities move him to consider carefully the needs and situation

of his audience. Fourth, in order to persuade them, Paul is willing to show them that he partly

agrees with them. And fifth, Paul is writing a document that will be read publicly and he is

63
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 269.
64
Thiselton, First Corinthians, 104-105.
65
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 267.
addressing the issue diplomatically. At the same time, Paul qualifies the Corinthian slogan and

does not let his approval of celibacy to make it a requirement for everyone. For widows and

widowers, the best option is to remain unmarried, but marriage is not a bad choice if they have

sexual desires. As the rest of the chapter shows, Paul’s preference for celibacy is not because he

thinks it is a higher spiritual state or because he considers marriage and sex morally inferior. Rather

it is for practical reasons given his eschatological expectation of a near end.66

7:9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to

burn with passion. This is one of the verses that has raised more diversity in its interpretation. To

begin with, it should be noted that the NIV does not make the best choice by including the word

“cannot” which is not present in the Greek. A better translation for enkrateuontai is “if they are

not having self-control.” Barre insists that “the gratuitous ‘cannot’ already prejudices the

interpreter with regard to the second half of the verse. [The interpreter] is led to expect an allusion

to some sort of condition or situation which makes it impossible for the parties in question to

maintain continence.”67 Moreover, Fee and Verbrugge suggest that the reference to lack of self-

control means that some widowers are going to prostitutes or practicing another kind of

immorality.68 In contrast, Garland observes that here Paul does not censure them for a behavior of

that kind and he does not necessarily assume they are guilt of sexual immorality.69 As Taylor notes,

one would expect a sterner response from Paul if some were practicing immorality.70 Thus, Vang’s

interpretation is preferred, he reads it in this way: “those whose minds continue to be occupied by

the desire to marry should marry. For it is better to marry than to be distracted by passion.”71 Paul

is showing the Corinthians that there is no point in requiring celibacy when the sexual desires are

66
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 244.
67
Barré, “To Marry,” 199.
68
Fee, The First Epistle, 289. Verbrugge, “1 Corinthians,” 317
69
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 273.
70
Taylor. 1 Corinthians, 171.
71
Vang, 1 Corinthians, 98.
still present, it is better to marry and satisfy them. Again, Paul insists that marriage is good, and

sex is good within the context of the marital union. Finally, most scholars interpret pyrousthai (to

burn) as “to burn with passion.” Few have suggested that it is a reference to the fire of the

eschatological judgment.72 While it is a possibility, the context and the use of the word in the

Graeco-Roman context makes the former option more likely.

Theological insights

These nine verses are a rich mine for a theology of sex and marriage. Paul is not presenting a

systematized thinking, but the principles that lie behind his reasoning are to be grasped by

Christians today in order to formulate a biblical ethic for our own time. Paul insist that sex is good

within marriage. First, since humans are spiritual and physical beings, sexual intercourse is much

more than just a physical act, it creates a spiritual connection. Moreover, sexual immorality is

pervasive today as it was in Paul’s time. In that sense, marital sex is a protection against sin.

However, as Garland notes, “Paul does not devaluate marriage only as a venereal safety valve for

incontinent, non-charismatic people, providing them a lawful outlet for expressing their sexual

urges.”73 Rather, Paul assumes marriage is a joyful union of self-giving and mutual love. As it has

been shown, it is striking that Paul says something like “the husband does not have authority over

his own body but yields it to his wife” (7:4b). Marriage is not a relationship of hierarchies and

power, it is a union in which each partner freely yields their rights out of love for the sake of the

fulfilment of the other.74 Against the current of his own time, Paul presents marriage as a

relationship of equal partners in which men are not the decision makers with regard to sexuality.

Also, it is interesting that Paul mentions nothing about procreation. In his context, the main

72
Barré, “To Marry,” 200.
73
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 243.
74
Thiselton, First Corinthians, 104.
purpose of martial sex was procreation, but for Paul it is about fulfilment. In this regard, Verbrugge

holds that Paul implies that “one of the main purposes of marriage is so that one can find sexual

fulfillment in a God-glorifying context.”75 That does not mean that procreation is not important,

but it certainly is not the only function of marital sex.

This passage offers a good example of decision making for Christian ethics and pastoral

guidance. Paul does not display narrow legalistic approach but a process of discernment. A process

that is to be grounded on Jesus’ teachings, life, and work. He applies the teachings of Jesus in a

new context and in situations that were not considered before. And Paul offers a variety of

acceptable responses. As Garland points out, Paul does not offer a one-size-fits-all guidance. 76

Rather, he expects Christians to discern and to be faithful to God in their own situation.77 Paul

follows Jesus’ teaching on marriage in the sense that he considers it a union between a man and a

woman for life that must not be broken except in extreme cases (Mt 19:1-12; Mc 10:1-12; Lk

16:18). As Jesus, Paul knows that in the present fallen world Christians will experience situations

that will keep them from living the ideal picture of marriage and sexuality. Thus, in their decision

making there is not one single legalistic option but a calling to be faithful to God and stay away

from immorality through whichever circumstance they may face.

As Jesus too, Paul relativizes marriage. When Jesus was asked about resurrection and

marriage he said “at the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage” (Mt

22:30). In this saying, Jesus states that marriage is an experience for this side of eternity. That does

not diminish the importance of marriage. Actually, the Bible exalts the marital union to the point

of comparing it to the relationship of God and his people, and Christ and the church. But it means

that God’s love and plan for humanity is not predicated upon their marital status. Garland affirms

75
Verbrugge, “1 Corinthians,” 317
76
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 244.
77
Sampley, “1 & 2 Corinthians,” 874.
that Paul relativized the significance of marriage too. In his case, Paul did it “in the face of the

nearness of the coming kingdom and the new estimation of the earthly life coupled with it.”78 As

important and good as marriage is, the marital status of a person does not define their identity in

Christ nor their suitability for receiving God’s salvation.

Homiletical notes

Paul’s advice to the Corinthians in the first century speaks loudly to Christians in the 21st century.

As the Corinthians, Christians today face a world were sexual temptations are pervasive. Although

the context is completely different the calling is still the same, to be faithful to God by staying

away from sexual immorality. The trends of our surrounding culture push us into practices that are

against the clear testimony of Scripture and even to call evil good, and good evil. As Paul did,

Christians are called to discern what is good, grounded on the teachings of Jesus and being faithful

to our Lord by avoiding porneia.

Another area in which 1 Corinthians challenge our day is in recognizing that every

Christian has their own calling. Paul does not seek to make everyone conform to his celibate way

of living. In the same way, Christians today have their own calling either to marriage or singleness.

Marriage is a gift from God and it is good. However, the church should not try to make everybody

conform to this standard. There are people that, because of different circumstances in life, are

unmarried and our pastoral task is to affirm their calling and value them as much as we value

married people. At the same time, it is important to insist that sex is a good creation of God reserved

for the marital union. Which means that, within the Christian faith, remaining single also means

remaining celibate.

78
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 243.
 Finally, in teaching and preaching, Paul’s advice is helpful to call Christians into

relationships of love, respect, equality, and mutuality. For couples, it is important to understand

that a Christian marriage is one in which the decisions are made in mutual agreement. Sex in

marriage is not for self-gratification but for self-giving. But not only in matters of sex, the

mutuality and love have to be real in decision making, daily conversations, planning, and every

element of the relationship. Moreover, this advice does not have to be limited to marriage,

Christians are called to practice self-giving, love, respect, and equality in all our relationships.

Conclusions

In contrast to a traditional interpretation, 1 Corinthians does not show that Paul holds a low view

of sex and marriage. Actually, quite the opposite is true. Paul affirms marriage as a joyful union

that glorifies God. While the Corinthians were affirming that abstaining from sexual activity is

better and celibacy is a higher spiritual state, Paul defends the goodness of sex within the marital

bond. Marital sex is an antidote against sexual immorality but it also works for the fulfilment of

husband and wife when it is practiced in mutuality, equality, and self-giving. If Paul prefers

celibacy at some point it is not because he considers it holier than marriage but for a number of

other reasons. He is conceding some agreement with the Corinthian slogan for the sake of

communication, he is affirming the goodness of celibacy as much as he affirms the goodness of

marriage. and he considers celibacy a better state for practical reasons considering the imminent

coming of the end. Ultimately, the real risk is sexual immorality and whether one is married or

single the call for Christians is to avoid porneia and to be faithful to God by applying the teachings

of Jesus in whichever circumstances one face.

Bibliography

Bailey, Kenneth E. Paul through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians. Downers
Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2011.

Barré, Michael L. “To Marry or to Burn: Pyrousthai in I Cor 7:9.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36, no.
2 (April 1974): 193–202.

Brewer, David Instone. “1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Jewish Greek and Aramaic Marriage and
Divorce Papyri.” Tyndale Bulletin 52, no. 2 (2001): 225–43.

Ellis, J Edward. “Controlled Burn: The Romantic Note in 1 Corinthians 7.” Perspectives in Religious
Studies 29, no. 1 (Spr 2002): 89–98.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. “Marriage and divorce. Adultery and incest”. In Dictionary of Paul and his letters,
edited by G. F. Hawthorne, R. Martin, and D. Reid. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

MacDonald, Margaret Y. “Women Holy in Body and Spirit: The Social Setting of 1 Corinthians 7.” New
Testament Studies 36, no. 2 (April 1990): 161–81.

Sampley, J. Paul. “1 & 2 Corinthians” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary. Volume IX. Acts.
Introduction to Epistolary Literature. Romans. 1 & 2 Corinthians. Galatians, edited by Leander E.
Keck. Nashville; Abingdon Press, 2015.

Talbert, Charles H. Reading Corinthians: a Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2

Corinthians. New York: Crossroad, 1987.

Taylor, Mark. 1 Corinthians. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman, 2014.

Thiselton, Anthony C. First Corinthians: a Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary. Grand Rapids,
Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006.

Valentine, Katy E. “1 Corinthians 7 in Light of Ancient Rhetoric of Self-Control.” Review &

Expositor 110, no. 4 (Fall 2013): 577–90.

Vang, Preben. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2014.

Verbrugge, Verlyn D. “1 Corinthians” in Tremper III Longman and David E Garland (general editors).
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Revised Edition. Romans-Galatians. Grand Rapids, MI;
Zondervan, 2008.

Witherington, Ben III. Women in the Earliest Churches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.