Corinthians 7, part 1

(1Co 7:1) Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman."

(1Co 7:2) But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

(1Co 7:3) The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.

(1Co 7:4) For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

(1Co 7:5) Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

(1Co 7:6) Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.

(1Co 7:7) I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

My interpretation of this passage has changed multiple times over the past few years. I grew up in a conservative bible believing Southern Baptist church and was quite influenced by the wider Christian culture. One of these aspects of popular Christan culture is its emphasis of marriage and family. Sadly, many Christian teachers venerate marriage and family to such an extent that they either misinterpret or completely ignore the biblical teachings of singleness. Naturally, as I grew to better understand God's word and how to implement it in my life, I realized that much of what I had been taught about singleness did not line up with the whole of scripture. However, like the brilliant, prideful, rebel that I am, in my zeal to correct this overemphasis on marriage, I overemphasized singleness.

(It is a classic mistake that every young generation makes in some way or another. Some of the more popular issues recently would be alcohol, cussing, music, smoking, preaching, media, and church structure to name a few. Gone unnoticed, this over-correction causes many people to associate thoughts and words with either their own extreme view or the extreme view they oppose. Then, of course, people end up arguing against this perceived extreme rather than the literal thoughts and words that are expressed. Once this occurs, communication breaks down and all hope of objective reasoning and civil discussion is lost.)

When I first read 1Corinthians 7 I thought and was taught that, “Paul says Christians should get married unless their blessed with the gift of singleness. Since I very badly want to have sex then I must not have this supernatural gift of singleness. Therefore God has someone picked out for me to marry and its only a matter of waiting on God's timing until I get married.” I am confident that the majority of american Christians hold to this interpretation either explicitly or implicitly. That means, some people have this view because they have studied the scripture and reached this conclusion, but many have just accepted this as truth without realizing that other views exist. It wasn't until after high school that I realized how unbiblical my view was.

Then I discovered the joy and contentment of singleness. I learned that nowhere in Scripture are all Christians commanded or promised to marry. In fact, Paul uses a later part of 1Corinthians 7 to extoll the virtue and benefits of singleness.

(1Co 7:32) I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.

(1Co 7:33) But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife,

(1Co 7:34) and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband.

(1Co 7:35) I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

Match that with Paul saying in verse 7, “I wish that all were as I myself am.” and it seems like Paul is saying that singleness is better than marriage. If that is the case then what is he saying in verse 2? If singleness is superior to marriage then Paul is encouraging Christians to pursue their own fleshly desires (sex) over what is best (singleness). It is as though he is giving a concession for sin. But since Christians have the Holy Spirit living inside of them they have no excuse for pursuing anything other than holiness. Pursuing anything less than God's perfect glory is sin. Therefore, verse 2 simply cannot be a concession for sin. Rather than verse 2 being a positive affirmation of marrying for the purpose of sex, it must have been intended to reveal their sinful motivations and bring them to shame. An example of this teaching method can be found in how Jesus addresses divorce in Matthew 19:8. Jesus was not condoning divorce, but rather he was condeming those who wanted to divorce by telling them that their hearts were wicked. In the same manner Paul was not condoning marriage for the purpose of sex. Instead, he was revealing their shame in that they lacked sexual control so much that they saw marriage as the only alternative.

There are a few problems with his interpretation. First off, Paul never says that singleness is entirely better than marriage. He is simply stating in Chapter 7 that there are some advantages to singleness over marriage. The thrust of that whole chapter is that God can and will use you in whatever life situation you are in. Marriage is a gift just as singleness is a gift. Maybe God will see fit to change one's life situation or maybe He won't. That is not where our focus should be. Rather, we should focus on Him rather than focusing on changing our situation.

After the premise of singleness' superiority is removed, the rest of the logic crumbles with it. Since marriage is not inferior to singleness then Paul is not necessarily condoning sin by encouraging people to get married and have sex. In Matthew 19, Jesus was talking about an act that was always sinful (divorce) whereas Paul was talking about an act that is generally condoned (a married couple having sex). Jesus referenced an ACT that was sinful, but in Paul's reference only the MOTIVATION could be interpreted as sinful. It is still possible that Paul could be using the same teaching method as Jesus, but it is becoming less likely. After all, I am less interested in how it “could” be interpreted than how it “should” be interpreted.

Though I am willing to see certain passages of scripture as sarcastic or hyperbole, I am very hesitant to do so unless it is incredibly obvious within the context of the passage or if a very literal interpretation would contradict the rest of scripture. Otherwise it would become very easy to just write off tough passages of scripture as sarcasm rather than digging deep into the Word and determining what it actually says. The same danger applies with claiming that certain passages were only meant for certain cultures or contexts. Since God designed all of scripture with the purpose of spreading the Gospel to all of the world and all cultures He would not have included solely cultural specific instructions. It would be counterproductive and so I reject that premise outright. With that said, I don't think Paul was being sarcastic and I don't think he was talking only to the Corinthian culture. Instead, I think a very literal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, tempered with a proper understanding of temptation, marriage, and holiness, produces a far more glorious insight into the grace of God and his awesome design.

And i've written two pages and have yet to actually get to the actual interpretation of the text. Hopefully after clarifying what it does not say, I can more easily explain what it does say... in my next post.