What is the relationship between the man and the unmarried woman?

Explanation:

Beginning with 1 Corinthians 7:25 Paul offers his apostolic instruction and wisdom to those who are unmarried. He explains that it is fine for a person to remain unmarried, but if one marries, they do not sin (1 Corinthians 7:26–28). Paul goes on to explain that those who are married have divided interests because they have to please their spouse and the Lord, while those who are single only seek to please the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32–33). Still, although singleness is good, if one is engaged to marry and has a strong sexual desire for his fiancée, let them marry, it is no sin (1 Corinthians 7:36). Thus, the notion that Paul has in mind a man and his fiancé in 1 Corinthians 7:36 fits well with the preceding context.⁴

Counterargument:

While it is true that Paul has been speaking to the unmarried, this does not mean that he has a man and his fiancée in mind. It could be that some of the Corinthians lived in spiritual marriages.⁵ These spiritual marriages are couples who vowed celibacy but otherwise lived as married people by sharing accommodations and the rest. Now Paul says that if these spiritual marriages have strong sexual desires for each other, let them consummate the marriage.⁶

Response to counterargument:

There are several problems with the notion that Paul has in mind spiritual marriages rather than a man and his fiancée. First, we need evidence that there was such a thing as spiritual marriages in first-century Corinth, but this argument offers no such evidence. Second, we must consider Paul’s instructions in context, and when we reach 1 Corinthians 7:37 Paul says that whoever is firmly established should not feel compelled to marry. If the above interpretation is right, then Paul is saying that whoever is firmly established should not feel compelled to consummate their spiritual marriage. Of course, this is counter to Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:2–5 where Paul says that because of the temptation, a man and woman should not refrain from sexual relations, except for a time and only for prayer.⁷ Third, Paul does not say that if a man feels strongly toward his spiritual wife let them consummate the marriage. Rather, he says that if a man feels strongly toward his betrothed, let them marry. In other words, Paul has in mind unmarried people, not people who were spiritually married but had not yet consummated the marriage.

Of course, if Paul has a man and his fiancée in mind, then his instructions fit adequately with the broad and immediate context.

Explanation:

Paul says that if anyone thinks to act improperly toward his betrothed, let them marry. It is not clear who anyone refers to in this case. Does Paul refer to the father of the betrothed or her fiancé? We can deduce that Paul has the fiancé of the betrothed in mind by considering the meaning of the verb to act improperly. For the subject of whoever it is who acts improperly toward the virgin/girl is the party Paul has in mind.

A wide survey of the uses of the verb for to act improperly suggests that in the majority of cases, the verb has to do with sexual misconduct.⁸ And if the verb has to do with sexual misconduct, it only makes sense that Paul has a man and his fiancé in mind, not the father of a betrothed. Of course, this does not mean that the man had sexual relations with his fiancé before they were married. Rather, Paul likely means that if the man’s thoughts and feelings toward his fiancé are not up to the standard of one who can remain celibate, in the man’s mind, he acts improperly toward his fiancé.⁹ In this case, Paul suggests, let them marry; it is no sin.

Counterargument:

While it might be that to act improperly often carries a sexual connotation, it can also denote general dishonour.¹⁰ Specifically, the verb has to do with an act of public dishonour.¹¹ In first-century Corinth, a father would have to give permission for someone to marry his daughter. And of course, if his daughter reached an age where she was getting beyond child-bearing years, and someone offered to marry his daughter, it would be a public disgrace for the father not to agree to the marriage.¹² Thus, Paul is saying that if a father feels the pressure of society so that he acts improperly toward his daughter, let them marry.

Response to counterargument:

Several problems with the interpretation that Paul has in mind a father giving away his daughter in marriage will be offered below (see Interpretation 2, counterarguments). Even so, one point to be made here is that it is baffling for Paul to move from instruction to married and unmarried couples to fathers of virgins, before instructing widows.¹³ If Paul were to make such a distinctive move, we should expect him to use the term father or daughter in 1 Corinthians 7:36. Instead he uses the generic anyone and betrothed. It is unlikely that Paul would introduce the father-daughter relationship in the middle of his instruction to married and unmarried couples without pointing this out.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that Paul never actually says that he has a man and his fiancée in mind. Added to this, Paul has already explained that some are called to singleness (1 Corinthians 7:8), but if one cannot exercise self-control, he should marry (1 Corinthians 7:9). It seems redundant for Paul to repeat this same advice to a man and woman who are engaged.

Explanation:

Paul says that if anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately, let them marry. Unfortunately, Paul does not explain who anyone refers to. Does it refer to a man and his fiancée, or a father and a daughter? We can craft an argument ad absurdum to show that Paul has a father and daughter in mind. In other words, if we assume that Paul has a man and his fiancée in mind, this will lead to an absurd result, so Paul must have a father and daughter in mind. The reason it is absurd to think that Paul has a man and his fiancée in mind is that it does not make sense for a man to think about acting improperly toward his fiancée if he did not marry her, when the point of the engagement is to get married.¹⁴

Counterargument:

It is difficult to understand the meaning of this argument. Paul does not say that the man is acting improperly toward the fiancée because he does not marry her. Rather, he says that the man, who is engaged, acts improperly toward his fiancée. There is nothing absurd about the notion that a man who is engaged and has strong sexual desires for his fiancée ought to marry her. In fact, such instruction is coherent, and consistent with Paul’s earlier comments when he says that it is better to marry than to burn with sexual passion (1 Corinthians 7:9). There may be a question here over what it means that Paul a man acts improperly toward his fiancée. In other words, is Paul advising that if a man has had sexual relations with his fiancée, he should marry her? Not necessarily. It could be that the man has suggestive thoughts toward his fiancée, which would be characterized as improper if the man were not to marry the girl. As it stands, Paul says, Do not burn with desire for your fiancée; marry her, and then share the conjugal rights that he has already explained (1 Corinthians 7:2–5).

Explanation:

In 1 Corinthians 7:37 Paul says that if someone is under control, let him keep his παρθένος (virgin) and he will do well. It hardly makes sense for Paul to advise a man to keep a virgin for himself when he has no plans to marry her.¹⁵ Thus, it is absurd to think that Paul has a man and his fiancée in mind. Therefore, he must have a father and his daughter in mind.

Counterargument:

There are two problems with this argument. In the first place, it is not absurd for Paul to have a man and his fiancée in mind. While we must admit that it strange for Paul to say that the man does well to keep his own virgin, just because a phrase is strange does not mean it’s absurd. For example, by saying a man does well to keep his own virgin, he may mean that he does well to keep her as a virgin. What does it mean for a man to keep a woman as a virgin? It means that a man does well not to marry and have sexual relations with her. Whether she marries someone else or remains friends with the man is not in Paul’s purview. His point is simply that they remain as they are (1 Corinthians 7:20).

The second problem with this argument is that, based on the context of 1 Corinthians 7:37, it is far less likely that Paul has a father and daughter in mind. For Paul says that whoever is firmly established in his heart, not under necessity, having his desires under control, will do well to keep her as his virgin. If Paul is referring to a father and his daughter, then what sort of necessity and desire does the father need to control as it relates to handing his daughter over for marriage? On the other hand, if Paul has a man with his fiancée in mind, the desire that the man is able to control is the desire for sexual relations. If the man has this desire under control, then Paul suggests singleness is a good option.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that if it were right, it would be a significant interruption of Paul’s train of thought. Interruptions in one’s train of thought are no problem in and of themselves, but we expect an author to signal such an interruption. Paul has been addressing married and unmarried people. If he were to suddenly address fathers and daughters, this would be an interruption to his train of thought, and we should expect him to identify this interruption by using the term father, or daughter. Since Paul does not signal such an interruption, it is favourable if there is a way to interpret 1 Corinthians 7:36 that is consistent with the broader context. In fact, there is, if Paul has in mind a man and his fiancée.