“At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Ps. 16: 11)
The Basket Case Chronicles #77
“But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better” (1 Cor. 7:36-38).
The two ways this passage is usually taken are, in my mind, highly problematic. In one instance, the man is the young girl’s father, but the language Paul uses here has to do with that same man’s ability to control himself. This makes the situation at worst incestuous, and at best kind of creepy. Clearly, given Paul’s understanding of biblical law, and the fact that he is an inspired apostle, that option should be excluded. The other interpretation is that the man he is talking about is the girl’s betrothed. But this collides with our unwillingness to actually put Paul’s advice into practice—when there is pending distress, stay engaged without marrying as long as possible? Why be engaged at all? And to attribute the whole mess to a Pauline pronoun confusion creates problems for our doctrine of inspiration.
My take is that it would be better to look for a solution in certain first century practices that we have no experience with. That is what I think is happening here. We will work through the verses in subsequent installments, but a little background is necessary first.
It is a fact that the early church experimented with a form of celibate marriage, and the experiments began pretty early. The subintroductae were celibate wives who lived with clerics, and a Greek name agapetae was applied to women who lived with laymen under a strict vow of celibacy. Cyprian discourages the whole thing, and the practice was finally condemned at the Council of Elvira (305 A.D.) and Nicea (325 A.D.). I would argue along the lines of good riddance, but Charles Williams was more defensive of the idea, and called these condemnations one of the first triumphs of the “weaker brethren.” He calls them the “innocent sheep who by mere volume of imbecility have trampled over many delicate and attractive flowers in Christendom” (Descent of the Dove, p. 13). I would actually put Paul in the neighborhood of Cyprian—he provides a standing escape clause in the vows. If this practice is what Paul is regulating (and cautioning against), then I think the passage makes a good deal more sense.
You can get a good grasp of the actual problem by reading Lattimore’s translation of the passage.
“But if a man thinks he is acting shamefully toward his girl if he becomes too impassioned, and it has to be so, let him do what he wants. He is not sinning, let them marry. But the man who stands firm in his heart, and is not constrained, but has control over his will and decides in his own heart to keep his girl a virgin, will be doing well. Thus the one who marries his girl does well, and the one who does not marry does better” (1 Cor. 7:36-38).
If he is having trouble? But if he is not having trouble, is the apostolic instruction to just string her along?
Here is the rendering of the New English Bible.
“But if a man has a partner in celibacy and feels that he is not behaving properly towards her, if, that is, his instincts are too strong for him, and something must be done, he may do as he pleases; there is nothing wrong in it; let them marry. But if a man is steadfast in his purpose, being under no compulsion, and has complete control of his own choice; and if he has decided in his own mind to preserve his partner in her virginity, he will do well. Thus, he who marries his partner does well, and he who does not will do better” (1 Cor. 7:36-38).
Some Protestants might be skittish at the notion that Paul could be in any way good with such experiments in what might be called “extreme celibacy.” On the contrary, I think this actually provides us with direct apostolic justification for the Westminsterian position on the breaking of vows of celibacy by monks and nuns. “No man may vow to do any thing . . . which is not in his power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God” (WCF 22.7). If this reading is correct, Paul is assuming the prior existence of a vow of celibacy, one which events are proving to be outside the ability of the man under the vow to perform. Paul says, “Go ahead and marry her, man. Quite all right. Forget that vow. If you marry her ‘there is nothing wrong in it.’ If you marry her, you are “doing well.’” In other words, Paul refuses to allow man-made vows and traditions to threaten obedience to the law of God.
At the same time, I do like the implication of the wording of the NEB. “Something must be done. I mean, she is right there.”