St Paul's views on sex according to 1

Corinthians 7:9 & 36‐38

Abstract
1 Cor. 7:36–38, one of the most debated passages in NT , is here seen against the background of problems arising for
new converts from paganism. These verses thus appear in new light. This also makes sense of verse 9. This interpretation
indicates that Paul discourages but does not disapprove of sex between unmarried couples

Dr Reidulf K. Molvaer
St Paul's views on sex according to 1 Corinthians 7:9&36‐38
The letters of Paul are not perfect reflections of his congregational teaching and preaching. In 1 & 2 Thess., the Last Days
and the Second Coming feature prominently , because he had not explained this point clearly during his short stay with
them, although the fact of Christ' s return was very important to Paul.
More surprising are some ‘ omissions’ during his long stay in Corinth. It was basic in Greek philosophy that the body was
inferior to the mind and the seat of evil and error. When Paul spoke in Athens, people sneered and scoffed when he
mentioned the resurrection of the dead (Acts 17:32). One could therefore
expect that Paul would emphasise this point in Corinth; but the detailed discussion of this in 1 Cor. 15 indicates
otherwise. No less surprising is it that Paul had not clarified his views on sexual relations, as we see from ch. 7. Corinth
consisted of a hotchpotch of races, and the city was known for its low morality , so much so that ‘to live like a
Corinthian’ meant to be sexually lax, lascivious. If Paul had not dealt fully with this matter there (although he repeatedly
speaks out against promiscuity and sexual laxity in his letters), it may be due to the embarrassment Christians always
(seem to) feel in talking openly and in detail about sex. Paul, who is so sure of himself in most contexts (cf. 5:4f, 6:18, Gal.
1:8f), is careful and modest in 1 Cor. 7 (‘I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish…’, v . 6f; ‘ T o the rest I say
this (I, not the Lord)’, v . 12; ‘Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by
the Lord's mercy is trustworthy ’, v . 25; ‘In my judgment, … and I think that I too have the Spirit of God’, v . 40). Paul is
here discussing questions no Christian had talked so fully about before (except vv . 10f & 39a), and he is trying to define
the limits for acceptable Christian sexual behaviour. His hesitation may be due to a fear that someone would misuse his
words to go further in Christian ‘freedom’ than he would allow (cf. 6: 12, ‘Everything is permissible for me’, where he
must be quoting the Corinthians; but the idea behind this statement they may have deduced from Paul' s teaching about
the freedom of a Christian, in fact from his emphasis on ‘justification by faith without works’).
 
In this article, only his views on sexual relations, with or without marriage, as they transpire from four verses in 1 Cor. 7,
will be discussed. Misrepresentations of Paul' s teaching about sex may have caused many to feel that they cannot
‘follow’ Paul, and may therefore have cooled in their allegiance to Christian faith and service. If my interpretation of Paul
is correct, his views may in fact have been too ‘ modern’ to have been palatable to Christian churches for many centuries.

Paul uses two methods in expounding a subject. In Rom. 12–15, both are illustrated. In 12:1 ff, he shows that Christian
ethics is based on God's mercy . Then he writes in detail about Christian living. He gives examples almost like a casuist;
but in 13:10 he sums it all up: ‘love is the fulfilment of the law.’ In other words, if they had understood the implication of
those words, all his specific exhortations would have been superfluous.

In 1 Cor. 7 he uses the latter method. In the first 16 verses of the chapter, he gives his views on four specific situations,
like a casuist. Then, in eight verses in the middle of the chapter (17–24), he sets out the principle behind his advice (so
he is not a casuist). Then, in the next 16 verses (25–40), he goes over the same four problems as in vv . 1–16 again; but
whereas the former section is addressed to people who are or have been married (which also applies to Paul himself, vv.
7a & 8b), he turns his attention in vv . 25–40 to people who have not been married before.
The principle guiding him is repeated three times in vv . 17–24: ‘ each one should retain the place in life that the Lord
assigned to him and to [or: in] which God has called him’ (v . 17); ‘Each one should remain in the situation which he was
in when God called him’ (v . 20); and ‘ each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to
[or: in]’ (v . 24). This is not invented just to answer the queries of the Corinthians: ‘ This is the rule I lay down in all the
churches’ (v . 17b).

Now we see from the 2 × 4 examples he discusses in vv . 1–16 and 25–40 that for each ‘ solution’, there is an exception.
It is likely that he follows the same pattern in vv . 17–24, and that v . 21 is also an exception to the ‘ rule’. The translation
of the New International Version, NIV (used here unless otherwise stated), is thus probably correct: ‘Were you a slave
when you were called? Don't let it bother you–although if you can gain your freedom, do so.’ Those who see theology
like one of the natural sciences, with rules without exceptions, think that Paul wants a slave who can gain his freedom to
continue as a slave (with frequent sexual abuse which that involved), as that would be consistent with his main ‘ rule’ in
this passage, vv . 17–24. But Paul argues rather like a social scientist: for every rule there is at least one exception. That
is the pattern all through this chapter.

We shall first look at v . 9 (I quote AV , as it is closer to the Greek original than most modern versions): ‘If they cannot
contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.’ (‘Cannot contain’ means either ‘ cannot control
themselves’, as NIV translates it, or ‘ are not practising continence’, as G.D . Fee translates it, pointing out that ‘ do not
control themselves’ is a more accurate translation than ‘ cannot control themselves’; i.e., they do have sexual relations. )
 
There have been two main interpretations of what may be implied here.
1. Most commentators think that ‘to burn’ refers to ‘inner passion’, not so unlike 2 Cor. 11:29, ‘Who is led into sin, and I
do not inwardly burn?’ But the word there refers to ‘ righteous anger ’, not to irresistible sexual urges as 1 Cor. 7:9. Still, it
is common to explain the word ‘burn’ (Greek: purousthai) as NIV: ‘to burn with passion’, or ‘to be aflame with passion’
(Revised Standard Version, RSV), or NEB: ‘burn with vain desire’.

2. A few think that ‘burn’ refers to the last judgement, when sexual transgressors will burn in hell. They refer to 6:9–10
(‘Neither the sexually immoral… will inherit the kingdom of God’) and perhaps to 3:15, with less dire consequences (‘If
any man' s work shall be burned, he… shall be saved; yet so as through fire.’ AV). This interpretation of 7:9 seems forced.
Paul would hardly use such a mild expression as that it is ‘better ’ to marry than to burn in hell, or lose one' s heavenly
reward.

It is primarily the parallel development of Paul's argument in the first 16 and the last 16 verses in this chapter that
throws doubt on these interpretations. The thought of v . 9 has its counterpart in vv . 36–38. That is one reason for
Seeing something more, or something else, in the word ‘burn’ than to ‘burn, be aflame or consumed with passion, desire
or sexual lust’. Another reason is the context and internal logic of the sentence.

Paul has condemned ‘improper’ behaviour, such as marrying or living (having a sexual relationship) with one' s (widowed
or divorced) stepmother (5:1 ff), and going to prostitutes for sexual gratification (6:15–20). Then only two acceptable
options remain in his view: to marry or to burn (v . 9). The first, to marry , seems a straightforward proposition. But the
meaning of ‘to burn’ may be more difficult to grasp. ‘ T o burn’ is not as good a solution as to marry (the ‘better ’ choice),
he writes, but he does not condemn it. We shall try to show what it means, but we shall mention a few relevant points
before proceeding with the discussion of this verse.
First a few remarks about the word ‘better ’ (kreitton or kreisson in Greek), which occurs in both the passages under
discussion (vv . 9&38). It occurs very frequently in Hebrews: the new covenant and the sacrifice of Christ are much
‘better ’ than the old covenant and the sacrifice of animals in OT times. (The word occurs 12 times in Hebrews, otherwise
six times in NT , three of them in 1 Cor., and in Phil. 1:23, 1 Pet. 3:17 and 2 Pet. 2:21.) It is clear that Paul in each case
uses the word to compare something ‘ good’ to something ‘better ’, and not something good to something bad.

So also in 1 Cor. 7:9&38. Even if one choice is ‘better ’ than the other, the alternative is not bad but good, as he states in v
. 38: ‘he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.’
In vv . 9 & 36–38, we thus have two choices that both are good, and none involves any sin, 7:36; the ‘better ’ choice may
expose them to fewer problems (‘I want to spare you’, v . 28), and it involves greater (i.e., total) commitment.

We shall also say a few words about the verb used for ‘ contain’ or ‘ control themselves’ (‘If they cannot control
themselves, they should marry , for it is better to marry than to burn with passion’, NIV version of 7:9; ‘with passion’ is
absent from the Greek text; and, as mentioned, ‘ do not’ is a more precise translation than ‘ cannot’ contain themselves;
thus it could be translated: ‘if they are not living continently ’).

In Gal. 5:23, ‘ self‐control’ (egkrateia) is mentioned as one of the fruits of the Spirit. But here (1 Cor. 7:9) he writes about
those who do not or cannot control themselves (ouk egkrateuontai) as being Christians, and who therefore have the
Spirit. The same is true of those who lack self‐control (akrasia) in v . 5. In 6:12, he writes: ‘I will not be mastered by
anything.’ Neither 6:12 nor Gal. 5:23 thus relates to total abstinence from natural things, such as food and sex, as we see
both from the continuation (1 Cor. 6:13), where food and sex are mentioned, and from 7:9. Those who are ‘ mastered’ by
a desire for food are in fact those who go hungry , and those who are most strongly tempted to sexual immorality
are those who are deprived of sex without having the gift of abstinence (v . 2). But neither the desire for food nor for sex
should ‘ master ’ us and be out of control (v . 13). They should be satisfied in acceptable ways so as not to ‘ master ’
us.
 
It is worth noting that in the first verses of this chapter, Paul talks about only two categories of people: those who have
the gift of abstinence and those who do not. Later, he mentions a third group: those who want to marry and do not
have the gift of abstinence, but still can control themselves enough to abstain from sex, at least until they marry , but
whom Paul tries to dissuade from marrying (vv . 25–35).

Paul gives two reasons why he thinks it is better not to marry: ‘the present crisis’ (v . 26) and ‘that the time is short’ (v .
29). The whole passage, vv . 29–31, stresses his eschatological expectations, which may be the main reason why he
seems rather negative to marriage. He lived in permanent expectation of the speedy return of Christ, as did the whole
first generation of Christians. Marriage would in his view distract people from turning their minds fully towards this
event, the parousia.
 
It should also be mentioned that from the 4th century, when the Church was favoured in the Roman Empire, a watered‐
down version of Christianity and a way of life only slightly touched by it became common. Then the ideals among those
who wanted a stricter way of life, more in line with what they thought was the original Christian ethic, gradually
absorbed more and more Stoic, Neoplatonist, and perhaps Gnostic ideas. The result was that an ethic partly
contrary to what God had permitted in man' s ‘ state of innocence’ (before the Fall) gained ground among them: Gen.
1&2 says that (1) God thought that it was not good for man to be alone; (2) He permitted man to eat of all the trees in
the garden (except one, which we do not have access to, nor do we know what it is); and (3) He wanted man to have sex
and multiply . Not least after Athanasius wrote the Life of Antony the hermit, the ideals among Christians gradually
became the opposite of what God had permitted and ‘ ordered’ in Paradise: the ‘best’ Christians should separate
themselves from society as far as possible (preferably as hermits or monks), live as frugally as they could (in poverty ,
prayer and fasting), and abstain totally from sex. Also Augustine shared such views, and they were passed on by him to
the whole of Christendom. The first two of these points were largely ‘ corrected’ with the Reformation, and partly
also the third (celibacy was not regarded as morally surperior to marriage by the Reformers). But the biblical, or Pauline,
view of sex still remains to be clarified.

In 1 Cor. 7: 9 it is, then, the word ‘burn’ which is the crux. Do the common interpretations of it do justice to the word in
its context? Probably not.
 
If the meaning is ‘to burn with passion’ or ‘to be aflame with sexual desire’, etc., Paul would in fact be saying: if you
cannot control yourselves and abstain from having sex and if you do not marry , you must control yourselves and
abstain from having sex, even if you cannot control yourselves and abstain from having sex. In other words: if you cannot
abstain from sex and do not marry , you must still abstain from sex, even if that will give you such pain that it can be
compared to being aflame or burning. In short: if you cannot control yourselves, you must control yourselves; if you
cannot abstain from sex, you must still abstain from sex.

This does not make sense and cannot be Paul' s meaning. He gives Christians who ‘ cannot control themselves’ two ‘
good’ choices: to marry or to burn.

What does he mean then by ‘to burn’? Since this is said about people who ‘cannot control themselves’, who cannot or do
not abstain from having sex and who choose not to marry , he must refer to a sexual relationship that excludes both
marriage and relations that defy socially accepted norms (5:1) and non‐committal sex with prostitutes, however much
that is sex between ‘consenting adults’, as the saying goes among those who defend casual sex
(6:15–18).

Is there another alternative? In ancient Greece (as in much of the world, then and now), people did distinguish between
three kinds of sexual relationship: 1. marriage, 2. fornication (casual, non‐committal sex or prostitution), and 3. a
love‐relationship (partnership based on mutual love) without the formal ties involved in a marriage contract. It becomes
even clearer when we shall discuss vv . 36–38 that it is this last (third) kind of relationship Paul has in mind in
v . 9.

This interpretation goes against the view prevailing in the churches today, which is that sex belongs exclusively to
marrige, and that sex before and after marriage (i.e., apart from marriage) is sinful. That sex outside marriage for
married people (adultery) is prohibited in Christian ethics we see from many other passages in OT & NT . But in 1 Cor.
7:9&36‐38, Paul permits sex between partners committed to each other, even if they are unmarried and have not
promised each other marriage.

Paul addresses ‘the unmarried and the widows’ in the passage we have just discussed (cf. v . 8, where ‘ unmarried’ most
likely refers to widowers; the word means something like ‘ ex‐married’, i.e., previously married, rather than ‘unmarried’
in the sense of ‘ one who has never been married’, as in v . 11, where the same word, agamos in Greek, is used ). In vv .
36–38 he turns his attention to people who are not married and who have not been married before.
 
Those who have never been married, Paul refers to as ‘virgins’, and these he addresses in the whole second main section
in this chapter (vv . 25–40; the last two verses must be a ‘warning’ to those who choose to marry: they cannot opt out of
the marriage as long as the spouse lives). The word ‘virgin’ had a wider meaning than it has today , referring to any
young unmarried woman, whether she was ‘technically ’ a virgin or not. If it also comprises young unmarried men
need not occupy us here.
 
Several interpretations have been given of vv . 36–38. It is in fact one of the most controversial passages in NT , reflected
in various translations and discussed in detail by commentators. Disagreements concern the subjects of the verbs in v .
36, the meaning of ‘virgin’ and of the Greek word huperakmos, and the implication of the verbs used for ‘to marry ’.
There have been three main interpretations of the passage.
1. Some think that ‘he’ in verse 36 is a father, stepfather or guardian who has a girl of marriageable age. She is then
thought to be the subject of huperakmos, and the second phrase should read: ‘if she is getting on in years’, ‘if she is fully
mature’, ‘if she has passed the bloom of youth’. The situation is thought to be that the man responsible for her may feel
he is ‘acting improperly ’ in restraining or forbidding her marriage. Paul would then be commending one who can use his
authority over her to do that; it is not ‘improper ’ (v . 37); but he should not feel guilty if he permits her to marry (v . 38).
In this interpretation, ‘is huperakmos’ has an unstated female subject, which does not apply to any of the other verbs in
v . 36. Paul would be encouraging a man to refuse to let a girl marry , v . 37, contrary to vv . 2, 7 & 9.

2. Others think that the subject (tis, ‘he’) is the fiancé of the girl. This is more logical, as there is only one stated subject
(tis) in v . 36 (hos in v . 37 and ho in v . 38). Huperakmos could then refer to the man, and mean ‘if his passions, instincts,
are too strong (for him)’, or perhaps ‘if he is fully mature’. Paul would thus be commending a person who is engaged to a
girl but refrains from marrying her, and he would think well of a person who can do as he wants in this respect
(presumably without regard to the wishes of the girl). He is not ‘ acting improperly ’ towards her, although he does no
wrong if he marries her either. This is also difficult to harmonise with vv . 2, 7 & 9. And why should he remain engaged to
a girl if he does not intend to marry her?

3. A more recent interpretation is that the passage may refer to a ‘spiritual marriage’, where husband and wife live
together without having sexual relations. This makes it hard to explain huperakmos and the following phrase, ‘ and it has
to be’. It would also contradict Paul' s advice in v . 5 (and since the decision seems in vv . 36–38 to lie exclusively with the
man, it would contradict vv . 2–4 as well). The custom of ‘spiritual marriage’ is not known from the history of the Church
until the end of the 2nd century, which makes such an ascetic advice from Paul unlikely .
There is another way of interpreting vv . 36–38 which differs from those mentioned so far, and which makes good sense
of both the words, the grammer and the context.
 
In v . 36, Paul may be addressing the situation of unmarried people (not necessarily engaged) who had a sexual
relationship prior to their conversion, and now wonder whether they can continue this relationship (cf. v . 20: ‘Each one
should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him’), or if they have to desist from sex. V . 36 could be
translated: ‘If someone thinks that he is behaving improperly towards his virgin, and his sexual feelings are beyond his
control and it has to be, let him do as he wishes; he does not sin; let them marry .’
 
The sense may be easier to grasp if we have the situation in Corinth of old in mind. Sex was a free and easy matter, and
this ‘free’ attitude also influenced many church members, 5:2&6. Many couples who had been lovers were certainly
among those who joined the local church. It is not hard to understand this passage if it is the problem posed for such
couples that Paul addresses in 7:36–38: can they be together as before, or must they stop having sex? His answer would
then mean: they can go on as before if need be, it is no sin; but it is better if they can desist (until they are married), vv .
37&38b, which can be translated: ‘But he who stands firm in his heart, and who does not have this need but has power
over his own will and has decided in his own heart to keep her as a virgin, does well… He who does not marry does
better’ than the one marrying. This Paul may be saying because he wants to ‘ spare’ them (v . 28), probably of possible
consequences of sex between unmarried partners; but clearly, he does not want the couple to interrupt their
relationship in other respects, even if they stop having sex, or to break the tie between them; this must be the
implication of v . 27: ‘Do you have ties to a woman? Do not seek to be untied. Are you without ties to a woman? Do not
seek (to be tied to) a woman’ (literal transl.). The word translated ‘woman’ can equally mean ‘wife’, but as Paul dedicates
this section, vv . 25–40, to the situation of the unmarried, it is probable that he has those primarily in mind, although he
can of course be thinking of those who are married as well, in which case the first part would mean that married couples
should not seek a divorce; but that meaning is rather out of context, and he has dealt with that question in the first part
of the chapter, vv . 10 ff.
 
As noted, there has been much discussion of who the subject of the singular verbs is: is ‘he’ (tis) the fiancé or the father
(or stepfather or guardian) of the girl? None seems to have thought of a lover or ‘boyfriend’. Since there is only one
stated personal subject (tis) for the verbs in the singular, the whole of verse 36 most likely refers to the same person. If it
had referred to anyone else than the one who was together with the girl, Paul would be very inconsistent and contradict
most strikingly what he has been saying i v . 9, where he recommends marriage for those who cannot control
themselves, and whom Paul clearly has in mind also here, as ‘he’ (tis) is opposed to the one who can control himself in v .
37. Should he then now advise a father or guardian to withhold his consent to a marriage, against the will of (any of) the
partner(s) involved? The person referred to in v . 36 is contrasted to the one mentioned in v . 37; the latter verse talks of
one who ‘has control over his own will’, whereas v . 36 talks of one who is in a different situation (one who does not have
control over his own will in the matter of sex), and who therefore is in the same situation as those mentioned in v . 9
(those who ‘burn’): both verses talk of persons who cannot control themselves, who cannot abstain from sex.
 
The fact that Paul uses two verbs, or two forms of one verb, for ‘to marry ’ has given rise to much debate. Classical Greek
had only one of these verbs, gamein, whereas NT also has gamizein. The latter ending would conform to a classical
distinction that would make the first form mean ‘to marry ’ and the second form, if it had existed then, to mean ‘to give
in marriage’ or, in a passive sense, ‘to be married’. But in NT times, the distinction between these two endings had
largely vanished. Practically all interpreters today agree that the two forms of the verb used (in vv . 36 & 38 respectively)
have the same meaning. But since Paul shifts from one form to another, it is likely that he intends a special meaning with
the word(s) and therefore hesitates about which form is most suitable. Since he has used forms of the verb gamein in the
ordinary sense, ‘to marry ’, several times earlier in the chapter, it is also likely that he changes the
form of the verb because he now uses it with a new, special meaning. The most probable explanation is that he uses the
verb in a meaning that is attested already in the oldest Greek literature (by Homer) and later, and which is the
normal meaning today. In modern Greek, the noun gamos means ‘wedding, marriage (transaction)’, and the verb (gamô
in the dictionaries) means ‘to have sexual intercourse’. It is probable that this is the meaning Paul gives to the
verb(s) here, and that he uses it (or them) as a euphemism for ‘having sex’. How could he otherwise say in v . 38 that it is
‘better ’ not to ‘ marry ’ (‘he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better ’) when
he has said the very opposite in v . 9 (‘it is better to marry ’)? In both cases he writes about people who cannot control
their sexual urges.
 
It is also very significant that Paul uses the form gamizôn in v . 38 (positively and negatively). This is a continuous form of
the verb, which implies that the ‘act’ of ‘ marrying’ is lasting, repeated, continuous or permanent. A wedding cannot be
continuous in this sense (and the verb ‘ marry ’ is not used of marriage as a continuous state, only about the event of
contracting marriage); but a sexual relationship can be continuous, lasting, repetitive, and permanent. It must be this
latter situation Paul has in mind when he uses this continuous (or progressive) form of the verb. That fits also the
context; actually , it is the only meaning that fits the context.
 
With the situation in Corinth in mind, it is not so hard to see what vv . 36–38 mean. A couple of lovers have been
converted, and they are in a quandary: can they continue as lovers (and take v . 20 seriously), or do they have to stop
having sex? The young man may be under pressure from the ascetic section of the church, which urges him to choose
the latter course; but he finds this hard to accept and comply with, and he probably has the support of others in the
church, the ‘liberal’ party , cf. 5:2&6. Paul has set a limit to the ‘liberals’ in chs. 5 & 6, but here (7:36–38) he accepts their
view, as he did in v . 9. If ‘it has to be’ (as most likely the words in v . 36 should be translated), and the man cannot
control himself (which is obviously implied, as he is contrasted to the one who can control himself in v . 37), then he
should not feel guilty about his relationship to ‘his’ girl (‘his’ implies more than a casual relationship), or think that he is
‘behaving improperly ’, v . 36; he should go on as before. But if he is able to abstain until he is married, he should do so, v
. 37. In v . 38 Paul calls this the ‘better ’ way . T o have sex before marriage is thus not in itself condemned, it is no
sin (‘there is nothing wrong in it’, NEB), no more than sex between true lovers who have been married before, but not to
each other, v . 9. But abstinence is ‘better ’, v . 38.
 
This is not double morality , accepting two seemingly contrary ways of acting,
calling one ‘better ’ than the other; but the fully committed relationship is less
filled with problems, and Paul may be recommending marriage to ‘ spare’ them
troubles that may arise for unmarried lovers (they may for example have
children together). Even more important: true love calls for total commitment,
which is a greater ‘virtue’ than gratification without such commitment; that is
why it is ‘better ’.
 
It is significant that Paul recommends people to take the step all out and
marry in both these cases, without, however, condemning the less committed
relationship. When he so strongly stresses that a marriage cannot be dissolved
(except in special circumstances) after both these passages (vv . 10f&39f), some
may react as the disciples of Christ: ‘If this is the situation between a husband
and a wife, it is better not to marry ’ (Mt. 19:10). So there must be a special
reason or reasons why Paul so strongly recommends binding, insoluble
marriage, rather than a lovers' union. One reason is precisely that the latter is
not so binding as marriage; it is less committed, it can end, be dissolved,
although this is against his advice in v . 20. But it may also have other reasons: it
causes heartache and may give a feeling of betrayal. However, by stressing the
binding nature of marriage as a reason why it is better than a lovers' union, he
does indirectly admit that the latter may be ended without marriage. Some
couples may after a time as lovers find that they are not suited for each other,
and thus break off the relationship, which may be preferable to lifelong
marriage of partners who later find out that they do not fit together.
 
A lovers' union based on romantic love may end with the death of the
emotions, whereas marriage should persist regardless of changing feelings of a
romantic nature. That is why Paul recommends marriage as ‘better ’ than a
union based on feelings only (although marriage should of course also start and
be associated with ‘feelings’ of love). It may , however, be worth noting that
Paul does not talk explicitly about (mutual) love in this connection (except for
what is implied in the word ‘burn’ in v . 9), but about sexual need and how this
may legitimately be satisfied without sinning. For a lovers' union to be
legitimate according to Paul' s argument in chs. 5–7, it must of course be
understood in the same way by both partners. If one who is seeking marriage is
exploited by one who only wants sex, it is likely that Paul would count this as
fornication and something close to prostitution, which he has already
condemned.
 
A pious conclusion: It may well have benefited women and children in the
past that this interpretation has been ‘ concealed’ for so long. But today many
Christians practise sex before marriage without the ‘ risks’ involved earlier
(diseases and pregnancies). The traditional teaching about this matter may give
such feelings of guilt that it ‘ cools’ the zeal of the faith of many because they
think that they cannot be ‘ genuine’ or ‘fully committed’ Christians if they are
unable to check their sexual impulses. Some may even turn their backs on
Christianity altogether because of presumed demands which they are unable to
conform to.
 
People who feel guilty about impulses that are so strong that they are unable
to check them, may also be more likely than others to give in to temptations to
secret or non‐committal sex in casual affairs. It is better to try to establish
loving relationships involving sex than to surrender to momentary urges that
mean nothing beyond the act itself. Some find out about their own feelings, and
whether they are ready for marriage, in loving unions that do not last. The
ultimate aim (not only for Christians) should, however, be to find ‘true love’ that
leads to a lasting, binding relationship in lifelong marriage.

Notes
Corinth was destroyed by Romans in 146 BC and rebuilt by them 100 years
later. The first inhabitants of ‘ new’ Corinth were freed slaves from Rome, but
soon people from east and west flocked there, bringing a variety of beliefs and
attitudes with them, making them prone to form factions (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11f and 1
Clement, c. AD 96). They came from Hellenized areas, and Greek attitudes
predominated, with the addition of eastern mystery cults, etc. Probably
Epicureans and Stoics, whom Paul met in Athens (Acts 17:18), were the most
influential also in Corinth. Most church members there were former pagans,
and they had brought Hellenistic views and attitudes into the church. The
conflict between ‘libertines’ and ‘ ascetics’ is reflected in the letters to them; so
also in 1 Cor. 7.

In ch. 7, Paul addresses questions raised by the Corinthians (v . 1a), but he deals
with them so systematically that it is likely that he has made his own outline. He
must also be building on firsthand knowledge from his long stay with them. Vv .
17–24 put it all in proper perspective.

People were more strongly attatched to a position (e.g., of employment) once

chosen in those days than today . It is probably correct to add: one should not
normally change one' s position in life just because one becomes a Christian, but
if one would change one' s position anyway , the fact that one is a Christian
should not bind or force one to pursue an unsuitable or unwanted course at all
costs. Paul and the other apostles did change their positions in life when they
became Christians.

The four pairs are: 1. Celibacy is preferable, BUT marriage is no sin (1f&7 and
25–31). 2. Married people should satisfy or ‘ please’ each other so as to forestall
temptation to fornication, BUT mutually agreed shorter separations are
acceptable, and the unmarried are freer to please the Lord, rather than the
spouse, ‘in undivided devotion’ (3–6 and 32–35). 3. The unmarried who cannot
control themselves should marry , BUT to ‘burn’ is also acceptable (8f and 36–38:
see the comments below on these passages). 4. The married should not
divorce, BUT if they do so, they should stay unmarried; however, a believing
spouse cannot hinder a non‐believer from leaving the marriage, and may then
be free to marry again; this is the so‐called ‘Pauline privilege’, not accepted as a
correct interpretation by all (10–16 and 39f).

Those who favour this view, translate the last words of the verse accordingly .
This seems to be the sense of the Authorized Version (AV): ‘if thou mayest be
made free, use it rather.’ The Italian translation of 1974 is more explicit: ‘…
anche se puoi diventare libero, profitta piuttosto della tua condizione!’ The New
Revised Standard Version goes further: ‘Even if you can gain your freedom,
make use of your present condition now more than ever.’ Most modern
translations take the same view as NIV , the New English Bible (NEB): ‘if a chance
of liberty should come, take it’, and the Good News Bible (GNB): ‘if you do have
a chance to become a free man, use it.’
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1991, pp. 286 & 289.

Not even 1 Cor. 11:17 is an exception, where Paul writes that they ‘ come
together not for the better, but for the worse’ (AV). The comparison is not
between the beginning and the end of the meeting, but to how they were when
they entered.
See M. Hill' s article, ‘Paul' s Concept of ‘Enkrateia’ ’, in Reformed Theological
Review, Vol. 36 (1977).
Uta Ranke‐Heinemann, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Catholic
Church and Sexuality, Garden City , New Y ork: Doubleday 1990; Henry Chadwick,
The Early Church, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967, ch. 12 (‘ The Ascetic
Movement’).
From verse 7b we see that sexual abstinence requires a special ‘ gift’; but those
who ‘ cannot control themselves’ also have a ‘ gift’: ‘ each man has his own gift
from God; one has this gift, another has that’ (i.e., from God), which may imply
that those who have a strong sexual urge have it as a gift; it is part of God's
creation. But some think that it refers to ‘ some other compensating gift or gifts’,
not mentioned in this verse; cf. Charles K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, London: A&C Black, 1976, pp. 158f. That Paul mentions only strong
sexual urges as good reasons for marrying in v . 9 has puzzled many . Cf. K. C.
Russel' s article, ‘ The Embarrassing Verse in First Corinthians’, The Bible T oday,
Vol. 18 (1980), pp. 338‐41.
Cf. LXX translation of Sirak 23:16b (v . 17b in LXX): ‘ The soul heated like a burning
fire (pur) will not be quenched until it is consumed’ (RSV). The continuation
makes it clear that this concerns sexual relations.

The Greeks often combined all these three kinds of relationship. In the speech
Against Neaera (1386), attributed to Demosthenes, the common Greek view and
attitude are expressed like this: ‘We keep mistresses for pleasure; we keep
prostitutes for the day‐to‐day needs of the body; we keep wives to bear our
legitimate children and to be the faithful guardians of our homes.’ In Greece, as
elsewhere, it was not uncommon for people who were not married to be lovers;
it must be this situation that meets us in 1 Cor. 7:9&36‐38. William Barclay
writes in considerable detail about Jewish, Greek and Roman attitudes to sex
and marriage in The Plain Man' s Guide to Ethics, London: Collins, 1980, pp. 61‐
93.

Ex. 20:14, ‘Y ou shall not commit adultery .’ Adultery is violation of the marriage
vow; fornication is ‘ casual sex’ of any kind. Churches have used the words
without defining them precisely (e.g., Mt. 5:28) in order to maintain their own
views on sex.

Probably all commentators dispute this interpretation. Anthony C. Thiselton,

The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and Carlisle: The
Paternoster Press, 2000, pp. 516‐9 & 593–602 discusses practically all known
interpretations of these verses in great detail.
‘… several items favor the suggestion that agamos should be translated
‘widower ’: First, since being ‘widowed’ in antiquity created special problems for
women, most cultures had a word for widows; however, they did not always
have a word for the male counterpart. Greek has such a word, but it appears
seldom to have been used, and never in the koine period, in which agamos
served in its place. Second, since throughout the entire passage Paul deals with
husbands and wives in mutuality (12 times in all), it would seem to fit naturally
into the total argument to see that pattern here as well. After all, if agamos
refers to all the unmarried, then why add widows? Third, this word appears
again in v . 11 for a woman separated from her husband, and in v . 34 in contrast
to the ‘virgin’ (one who was never married before), indicating that in his regular
usage it denotes not the ‘ unmarried’ in general, but the ‘demarried,’ those
formerly but not now married. On balance, ‘widower ’ seems to be the best
understanding of the word here. That would also help to explain the presence
of these verses in this context, where all of the cases in vv . 1–16 deal with those
presently or formerly married, while vv . 25–38 take up the issue of the never‐
before married.’ G. D. Fee, op. cit., pp. 287f.

The context makes it likely that he uses the word to comprise both sexes in v .
25, but probably only young women in v . 28, and certainly so in vv . 36–38.
Cf. Claude J. Peifer, The First and Second Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians,
Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1960, p. 30: ‘ There is no agreement
as to what this section refers to or how it should be translated. It has been
proposed that it treats of a father and his virgin daughter; a guardian or master
and his female ward or slave; a man living chastely in a spiritual marriage with a
virgin; or a man who had entered a fictitious marriage with a Christian girl to
protect her virtue.’ The author adds: ‘We may accept as probable the
interpretation which holds that the passage treats of a man betrothed to a
virgin before his conversion.’

This is important also for the proper understanding of the word huperakmos.
The various views are discussed in Barrett, op. cit., pages 182‐4, Leon Morris,
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, London: The Tyndale Press, 1960, pp.
120‐2, and Thiselton, op. cit., pp. 594‐8. In case a change of subject (from ‘he’ to
‘ she’) were correct, it could be a denunciation of sex with minors (and the
continuation could then read: ‘ and thus [i.e., sexually mature] she must (or:
ought to) be)’; but the Greek text does not warrant such a change of subject. As
the stated subject does not change, the translation of, e.g., RSV , NEB or GNB
must be accepted: ‘if his passions are strong, and it has to be’ (RSV), ‘if … his
instincts are too strong for him’ (NEB), or ‘if his passions are too strong’ (GNB).
Huperakmos has also been translated ‘ excessively virile’ and ‘ over‐sexed’.
Those who think that ‘he’ in v . 36 is not the girl' s ‘ man’ but a father or guardian,
see in v . 37 a commendation of one who can and does arbitrarily use his
authority over her. If this means that he can disregard her wish, it would
contradict v . 9.

‘There is sufficient evidence that the classical distinction betwenn ‐eô and ‐izô
verbs had broken down in the koinê period.’ Fee, op. cit., p. 354; cf. J. H. Moulton
and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New T estament, London: Hodder &
Stouton, 1930, p. 121. John Ruef, Paul' s First Letter to Corinth, Harmondsworth:
Penguin, p. 68: ‘ The Greek word gamizein, which normally means ‘ give in
marriage’, could in this later period of language have taken on the meaning
‘ marry ’. There are analogous cases of other Greek words with the causative
ending izein which took on the other root meaning.’ Cf. F . Blass and A.
Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New T estament and Other Early Christian
Literature, transl. & ed. by R. W. Funk, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1961, §101, p. 51.

Hans Lietzmann, in Handbuch zum Neuen T estament, T übingen: Mohr, 1907,

may have been (one of) the first to point this out, but today almost all
dictionaries of the Greek NT accept this as axiomatic.
C. Berg, Græsk‐Dansk Ordbog, København: Gyldendal, 1950, on gameô. In
addition to the more common meaning ‘to marry ’ in Classical Greek, he
mentions also the (euphemistic?) meaning ‘to have sexual intercourse without
or outside of marriage’ (‘Om Samleie udenfor Ægteskab’), with reference to The
Odyssey.

Even the smallest dictionaries show this; it is the ordinary meaning of the verb
in Greek today . In fact, it has gone so far in this direction that gamó to is
modern Greek for ‘the f‐word’ in English. See A. Fiada, The Greeks, London: Oval
Books, 2000, p. 42. (Cf. p. 37: ‘Modern Greek … has retained unchanged more
than 80% of its original vocabulary .’)

It is not certain that Paul would consider a marriage contracted in traditional

ways, even without mutual love (which did happen), as invalid, since he accepts
marriages contracted in ‘ pagan’ ways as valid; cf. his argument in 7:12–16.
Some may interpret this exposition as accommodation to the times. It should
rather be a challenge to rethink what is distinctive and essential in Christian
ethics. Cf., e.g., D. Martyn Lloyd‐Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount,
Leicester: Inter‐Varsity Press, 1959‐60, and several reprints. The common view
on sex held by the churches can be compared to a stone in a pair of shoes that
fit perfectly .

Even Jesuits, favourable to celibacy , see the danger in this. In an annotated

edition of Le Lettere di Paulo, Milano: Piemme, 1990, p. 39, they write in the
introduction to 1 Corinthians: ‘Per esaltare meglio la vita dello spirito,
disprezzano facilmente ciò che spetta al corpo; ma poi diventano schiavi più
facilmente.’

The views on sex before formal marriage have not always been as they are
today in the churches. Great changes took place at the end of the Middle Ages
and in the 16th century . Before that, greater ‘freedom’ existed among
Christians. Cf. Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation, London: Allen Lane, 2004, ch.