GeorgePWood.com

Editor’s Note: This is my 900th post at GeorgePWood.com. In celebration of that achievement, I’m taking next week off to recuperate.

GPW

—–

When I perform marriages, I use the wedding service of The Book of Common Prayer. After addressing the congregation on the purpose of marriage, I turn to the bride and ask, “will you have this man to be your husband; to live together in the covenant of marriage? Will you love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, be faithful to him as long as you both shall live?” After the bride answers, I ask the exact same question of the groom. The answer is, invariably yes.

Sometime later in the service, I ask the groom to repeat the following words after me: “In the Name of God, I take you to be my wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.” When the groom finishes, I lead the bride in recitation of the same words.

Both the declaration of consent and the vow are a powerful statement of what Christians mean by marriage. Other than the decision to follow Jesus Christ, it is the only vow of unconditional love that Christians make in this life. As a father, I feel unconditional love toward my son, Reese. But I have only made an explicit vow of unconditional love to my wife, Tiffany. Tiffany and I made Reese. But first we chose one another.

The declaration of consent ends with the words, “as long as you both shall live.” The vow ends with the words, “until we are parted by death.” The net effect of these words is the same. Marriage is permanent. But the nuance is different. The declaration deals with the intention of marriage: a good life. The vow deals with the obligation of marriage: it is “until death.”

Both statements are rooted in the Bible, in passages such as 1 Corinthians 7:39-40:

A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is — and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

Through chapter 7, Paul has emphasized the mutuality of marriage. The wife is obligated to the husband in the same way that the husband is obligated to the wife. Though not explicit here, that mutuality is nonetheless implicit.

Of course, we live in a culture in which marriage is anything but “as long as we both shall live,” let alone, “until we are parted by death.” Indeed, divorce is common even within our churches. My point is writing this devotional is not necessarily to condemn anyone who has been divorced. It is simply to remind us all of what the Christian teaching on lifelong marriage is. And in giving that reminder, to encourage us all to work toward marriages that worth devoting our lives to.

—–

Earl Creps, Off-Road Disciplines: Spiritual Adventures of Missional Leaders (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006). $23.95, 240 pages.

The American church is in crisis. Sunday morning worship attendance figures are declining. But interest in God and spiritual matters is increasing.

A typical pastoral response to this crisis asks, “How should we do our worship services?” In Off-Road Disciplines, Earl Creps suggests a better question: “How can I be changed so that others will find me worth following in mission?” (3, emphasis in original). The former question focuses on technique, while the latter question focuses on spiritual formation.

For the rest of the review, click here.

My wife Tiffany and I met on a blind date. It was arranged by my pastor’s secretary, who also happened to be Tiffany’s parents’ next-door neighbor. For me, meeting Tiffany was a case of “love at first sight.” For Tiffany, it was “love at two- or three-weeks-later sight.”  Pretty soon into our relationship, we both knew we were headed for marriage.

In 1 Corinthians 7:36-38, Paul writes advice to a Corinthian man who was experiencing difficulty making up his mind whether see through his engagement all the way to marriage. The man’s difficulty was not related to issues of personal compatibility with his affianced, however. Instead, taking into account the overall context of chapter 7, the man’s difficulty was related to issues of theology.

To recap, many of the Corinthians were extreme ascetics who taught, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (7:1 TNIV). This led them to advocate, among other things, avoiding marriage entirely or, if married, abstaining from sex or divorcing one’s spouse. By way of reply, Paul stated his personal preference for celibacy (7:7) but went on to teach that marriage—contrary to the Corinthians’ asceticism—is not a sin (7:28, 36) and may be “the right thing” (7:37).

Applying these broad principles to the engaged man’s situation, Paul writes in verses 36-38:

If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin — this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.

I guess that most American Christians—excepting American Catholics, perhaps—read this passage with blinking incomprehension, not because the words don’t make sense, but because they describe a reality very different from our own experience. American evangelicals view celibacy as part of the journey toward marriage. We don’t view it as a destination in and of itself (unlike Catholics, for whom religious orders are an honored way of life). And from a cultural point of view, the biblical prohibition of sex outside of marriage is more honored in the breach than in the observance anyway.

So, what to do with Paul’s advice? Take it, obviously. If so inclined, one should marry. And toward this end, I believe churches can play a role in helping Christian singles meet and marry. Why can’t church also be a venue for dating? How else will Christian singles meet? By the same token, however, churches should honor those inclined to serve God with their singleness by honoring the choice not to date as well.

The key thing: When it comes to dating and marriage, don’t force anyone to do what they don’t feel God has called them to do. Let them make up their own minds.

I have always been something of a worst-case scenario thinker. In other words, I instinctively imagine the worst thing that could happen to me and mine in any situation and plan accordingly. For example, during tornado season, I make sure the storm radio is operational, stash clothes in the safe room, clear a path between the master bedroom and the baby’s room so I can run and bring him quickly to the safe room at a moment’s notice. My wife Tiffany is responsible for bringing our idiot dog.

In some people, worst-case scenario thinking becomes pathological, a phobia of possible events that paralyzes engagement with the world. I’m not pathological. By the same token, you won’t see me bungee jumping off a bridge any time soon, either. What I am is realistic. Although I was never a Boy Scout, I think their motto is sound advice: “Be prepared.”

In 1 Corinthians 7:32-35, Paul offers Boy Scout-like advice to Corinthians contemplating marriage. His advice isn’t of the “Absolutely yes!” or “Absolutely no!” variety. Rather, it is worst-case scenario advice, appropriate to what Paul calls “the present crisis” (7:28). Here’s what he writes:

I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs — how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world — how he can please his wife — and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world — how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

The Greek word the NIV translates as “concerned” is merimna, which has both positive connotations (“care, concern”) and negative ones (“anxiety, worry”). The objects of merimna in these verses are both “the Lord’s affairs” and “the affairs of the world.” By the latter, Paul specifically means the desire a person has to “please” his or her spouse. It is tempting to treat the former as a positive concern and the latter as a negative anxiety, but grammar won’t allow us to make a neat distinction. Both objects of merimna are legitimate objects of concern.

Interestingly, Paul begins this paragraph by announcing that he wants the Corinthians to be amerimnous, literally, “without concern, care, anxiety, worry.” This seems contradictory. How can Paul wish the Corinthians to be unconcerned when concern for the Lord and one’s spouse are legitimate objects of concern. If nothing else, isn’t concern for “the Lord’s affairs” highly desirable?

The answer to that last question is yes. And the solution to the contradiction lies in the words divided and undivided. Celibate Christians—if that is their spiritual gift—can devote full attention to God. Married Christians must pay attention to both God and their spouse. In that sense, their interest is divided. The division of interest is not, however, sinful (7:28), even though undivided attention to God is preferable in Paul’s way of thinking.

When my wife and I moved from California to Missouri, we possessed 8 tons of stuff. At least that’s what the moving company told us. My books weighed 3.5 tons, almost half the weight of our entire shipment. Some people would say I own too many books.

Specifically, my wife says I own too many books. To which my reply is… Well, I don’t really have a good reply since I do, in fact, own too many books.

But I don’t want to part with what I call, borrowing a phrase from Gollum, “my preciouses.” Jefferson said, “I cannot live without my books.” I know what he meant. Then again, I doubt Jefferson ever had a few hundred pounds of books almost fall on top of him. Evidently, I cannot live with my books either.

I say that in order to ask this: In the short time we have on earth, are we living for the right things or are we living for the wrong dreams?

In 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, Paul writes:

What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

 My dad always jokes that he’d like to preach about the existential reality of eschatological hermeneutic. This would be a perfect text for that sermon. The eschatological hermeneutic is found in verses 29a and 31b: “the time is short” and “this world in its present form is passing away.”

The existential reality is verses 29b-31a. Paul talks about four things: whom we love, how we feel, what we buy, and what we use. We know Paul believes that marriage entails regular sexual intercourse (7:2-5) and is not a sin (7:28). We know he thought that a loving person “does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth” (13:6). We know he worked a trade to support himself (9:6). And we know that possessed and used stuff, including clothes and books (2 Timothy 4:13). In other words, we know that our relationships, feelings, possessions, and use of time are—or can be—both good and legitimate.

But Paul wants us to travel lightly anyway. His advice—mostly rhetorical in verses 29b-31a—drives home a point. Your spouse will die. Your emotions will fade. Your purchasing power will pay diminishing returns. And your stuff will lose its usefulness over time. In light of these facts, how will you live?

Grandma used to cite this poem:

Only one life

‘Twill soon be past.

Only what’s done

For Christ will last.”

 That’s as good a start to an answer as you’re likely to find, and the existential reality of an eschatological hermeneutic.

First Corinthians 7:25-40 is a difficult passage of Scripture to interpret. There are disputes about the meanings of specific words. And the cultural context in which Paul offers his advice is very different than our own.

Let’s try to interpret it anyway, beginning with 7:25-28:

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. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

First, note that this entire passage is a reply to issues raised in a no longer extant letter from the Corinthians  to Paul (cf. 7:1, 8:1, 16:1).

Second, the meaning of the term virgin is obvious enough, although the precise context in which it is used is not clear. The traditional answer is that it refers to virgin daughters whose fathers are deciding whether to give away in marriage. A more recent answer is that it refers to couples who have contracted “spiritual marriages,” in which they live together as husband and wife, though without sexual union. A third answer is that this refers to engaged couples. Each of these options has strengths and weaknesses, but on balance, we’ll proceed on the assumption that the third answer is correct. I’ll try to explain why as we work our way through the text.

Third, notice that Paul offers his personal “judgment” on this issue, not a “command from the Lord.” Even so, Paul’s judgment is “trustworthy” because of “the Lord’s mercy” to him.

Fourth, in Greek, Paul uses the language of “loosing” in 7:27. The TNIV translates this more literally: “Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.” “Loosing” is not standard terminology for divorce, as the NIV translates the term.

Fifth, as in 7:7, Paul states his personal preference for celibacy. On this one point, he was in agreement with the Corinthians. But their choice of celibacy was a principled (if extreme) asceticism.

 “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (7:1 [TNIV]). Paul’s choice of celibacy, on the other hand, was pragmatic, based on “the present crisis” and “troubles in this life” from which he wanted to “spare” the Corinthians.

Sixth, whereas the Corinthians’ asceticism seemed to have led them to view marriage as less spiritual and perhaps even sinful, Paul specifically says twice that individuals who choose to marry “have not sinned.”

In sum: this passage seems to address Christian engaged couples whom the Corinthians were encouraging not to marry. The Corinthians’ reasons were ascetic, however, and Paul was not an ascetic. He himself offered pragmatic reasons for celibacy. But he concluded that the either celibacy or marriage was a morally legitimate option for Christians.

The underlying message of 1 Corinthians 7:1-24 is that social status is irrelevant to spirituality. One can be celibate or married, and spiritual (verses 1-16). One can be circumcised or uncircumcised—that is, Jew or Gentile—and spiritual. And according to verses 20-24, one can also be enslaved or free and, and spiritual.

Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

Modern American readers of this passage often struggle with it, understandably. Our culture emphasizes action, but Paul says, “Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him” (verse 20, cf. verses 17 and 24). Our culture emphasizes freedom, but Paul says, “Were you a slave…? Don’t let it trouble you.” Our culture emphasizes independence, but Paul says, “each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.”

And—to be blunt—Paul seems nonplussed by the practice of slavery, which modern Americans shrink from in horror. Didn’t we fight a Civil War to end that practice? Why in the world, then, would the apostle be so casual about a slave purchasing his freedom? Shouldn’t he be demanding the man’s emancipation?

This passage, then, is both countercultural and controversial.

Before we get into a high dudgeon about Paul, we should remember his cultural context, as well as the point he’s trying to make. Regarding cultural context, slavery was a given in Paul’s culture. Indeed, given the brutality of Greco-Roman society, it’s unclear whether there was even a moral conscience regarding slavery’s wrongness. It would take centuries of Christian influence for that change of moral conscience to work its way toward the abolition of slavery in medieval Europe.

But we should also remember Paul’s point. For the ancients, only free men could be genuinely spiritual. Indeed, only men freed from the burden of manual labor could be genuinely spiritually free. Paul’s point in these verses is that such an idea is total rubbish. Obviously, from the standpoint of the slave, freedom is preferable to slavery, which is why Paul encourages slaves to “gain your freedom.” But if they can’t gain freedom and must remain a slave, “Don’t let it trouble you.” Why? Because in Christ, a slave is “the Lord’s freedman” and the free man is “Christ’s slave.”

Now, imagine the Corinthian worship service at which this passage is first read. The Christian slave owner, proud of his free status, learns that he’s no better in Christ’s eyes than his Christian slave. This is humbling. The Christian slave, ashamed of his chains, learns that he’s no worse in Christ’s eyes than his Christian owner. This is emboldening. Paul’s message, which modern readers consider retrograde, in its own day was downright revolutionary.

If only it could be revolutionary once again, against the social status markers we consider spiritual significant!

Is celibacy more spiritual than marriage?

Some Corinthians evidently thought so. They argued, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1 TNIV). In consequence, they urged married Christians to practice celibacy within marriage, widows and widowers not to remarry, Christian spouses to divorce, and Christians to divorce unbelieving spouses. None of this advice makes sense unless the Corinthians believed that marital status and sexual activity were spiritually inferior to celibacy.

In reply, Paul argued that if married, Christian spouses should maintain regular sexual relations with one another (verses 2-6). If widowed, marriage is permitted, although Paul stated his personal preference for celibacy (verses 8-9). Christian spouses should not divorce one another (verses 10-11). And Christian spouses should not divorce unbelieving partners, although the unbeliever may initiate divorce (verses 12-16). None of this advice makes sense unless Paul believes, as he states in verse 7, that both celibacy and marriage are spiritual gifts and that one should live as one is gifted.

Underlying the debate between some Corinthians and Paul is the assumption that certain social statuses are more spiritual than others. This is a recurring argument in Christian history, where celibacy and poverty have often been viewed as more spiritual than marriage and relative wealth. Having dealt with the specific issue of celibacy versus marriage in verses 1-16, Paul now turns to other markers of social status—specifically, circumcision and slavery—in verses 17-24. The thread tying the entire argument of verses 1-24 together is simply this: Social status is irrelevant to spirituality.

Consider what Paul writes in verses 17-19:

Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

In the ancient world, circumcision marked the difference between Jews and Gentiles, both religiously and ethnically. Jews practiced it. Gentiles did not. Indeed, they considered it barbaric. But Jews were so committed to the practice—it was part of the law (Genesis 17), after all—that many Jewish Christians required it as part of Gentile conversion to Christianity.

Paul’s “rule” was that “each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him.” A Christian, in other words, can be genuinely spiritual whether their social status is “circumcised” or “uncircumcised.” Either status is “nothing.” Paul’s rule agreed with the ruling of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-35). For Paul, moral behavior rather than social status is a sign of genuine spirituality. “Keeping God’s commands is what counts.”

Does this have contemporary application? Yes. Most American Christians aren’t concerned about marital status or circumcision, but we routinely assume that “real Christians” will look like us, spend like us, be educated like us, and choose political parties like us—whatever “like us” may mean.” But are demographics, socioeconomics, education, and party affiliation any more reliable indicators of authentic spirituality than marital status and circumcision? No.

Now, as in Paul’s day, social status is irrelevant to spirituality.

In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, Paul offers this command to Corinthian believers who are married to nonbelievers:

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Notice several things:

First, the context of these verses indicates that Paul is talking about mixed marriages, i.e., one in which a believer is married to an unbeliever. This differentiates it from verses 10-11, in which Paul spoke directly to Christian couples.

Second, this Paul’s command, not Jesus’. In verses 10-11, Paul appealed specifically to the commandment of Jesus regarding divorce in believing marriages. Jesus did not explicitly address the issue of divorce in mixed marriages, so Paul issues this command on his authority as Jesus’ apostle.

Third, notice that Paul explicitly addresses the believing spouse directly. Though an apostle of Jesus, Paul has no authority over nonbelievers. This commandment applies to believers. And notice that it applies to them whether they are women or men. Indeed, notice throughout this chapter how Paul demonstrates the mutuality of Christian marriage by balancing his remarks to women with similar remarks to men.

Fourth, the most difficult part of this passage has to do with the words “sanctified” and “holy,” which Paul applies to unbelieving spouses and the children of mixed unions, respectively. What Paul is not saying is that unbelieving spouses or children of mixed unions are saved or made holy simply because of their believing parent. This would be contrary to his consistent teaching of salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Rather, the general idea seems to be that by remaining married to an unbeliever, a believing spouse puts his or her unbelieving spouse and children in the position of hearing the gospel and potentially coming to faith themselves. He makes this idea explicit by asking in verse 16 whether a believing wife will “save” her unbelieving husband, and a believing husband his wife.

Finally, Paul allows an exception. A believer may not initiate a divorce simply because of the spouses lack of faith. But if the unbelieving spouse leaves, Paul says this frees them from their marriage vows.

Even in mixed marriages, Paul sees the potential for God to work. If you’re in such a marriage, take heart!

—–

P.S. Check out my review of Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith.

In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul offers a commandment against divorce between Christians.

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Notice several things about these two verses:

First, they state a commandment. Paul writes, “I give this command” (regarding divorce), then he immediately qualifies it by saying, “not I, but the Lord.” As “an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” (1:1), Paul has authority to command the consciences of followers of Christ, if for no other reason than because his life is lived in imitation of his Lord’s (4:16, 11:1).  But on the issue of divorce, he need not appeal to his own authoritative teaching because Christ’s teaching was well known to the Corinthians: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her” (Mark 10:11; cf. Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Luke 16:18). According to the Matthean passages, divorce was permissible in case of adultery. And 1 Corinthians 7:15 also seems to allow divorce in case of abandonment. Aside from these exceptions, however, and especially in marriages between Christians, divorce is not an option.

Second, these verses are countercultural. In its 2007 report, The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America, the National Marriage Project reports: “For the average couple marrying for the first time in recent years, the lifetime probability of divorce or separation remains between 40 and 50 percent” (page 18). The divorce statistics for Christians are not much better. According to the Barna Group, “when evangelicals and non-evangelical born again Christians are combined into an aggregate class of born again adults, their divorce figure is statistically identical to that of non-born again adults.” Unfortunately, the Christian norm of lifelong fidelity within marriage is countercultural to both our society and the church.

Third, these verses are contextual. We must remember that in these verses Paul is dealing with extreme ascetics at Corinth who advocate celibacy even within marriage (see my comments on 7:1). Evidently, some of these people even went so far as to advocate divorce as an aid to ascetic practice. Because in marriage, each spouse possesses, has obligations to, and holds authority over the other’s body (see my comments on 7:2-5), divorce in itself was a sin, a breach of marital mutuality. But if Christians separated or divorced (in Greco-Roman culture, these terms were functional equivalents), they should not compound the original sin with remarriage. Rather, they should remain celibate or reconcile with their spouses, for remarriage was tantamount to divorce.

Extreme asceticism is not a temptation in modern America. Extreme libertinism is, however. When couples divorce, there is little sanction against extramarital sex or remarriage. But Christian marriages should be different. As Gordon Fee asks: “If the Christian husband and wife cannot be reconciled to one another, then how can they expect to become models of reconciliation before a fractured and broken world?”

If—on divorce or any other issue—Christian behavior is indistinguishable from non-Christian behavior, is it really Christian?

For Christians, the rule of sex is this: fidelity within marriage, chastity without it. Against extreme ascetics among Corinthian Christians, who encouraged celibacy even within marriage, Paul encouraged Christians to maintain regular sexual relations with their spouses. And yet, he also reminded them that lifelong celibacy was a viable option, one that he himself had chosen based on his spiritual gifting. See 1 Corinthians 7:1-7.

Now, in verses 8-9, Paul goes on to apply the Christian rule to sexual relationships among de-married Christians, that is, men and women who had been married but are now widowed.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

In Greek, the word for “unmarried” is agamos. Broadly speaking, it refers to any person who is not presently married, regardless of whether they ever have been. But in the context of 1 Corinthians 7, it likely refers to de-married persons generally and, in verse 8, widowers specifically, as Gordon D. Fee argues in his commentary on 1 Corinthians. He offers three reasons: (1) In koine Greek, agamos was sometimes used for “widowers.” (2) Paul pairs husbands and wives twelve times. This man/woman pairing makes sense in verse 8, especially since “widows” would be redundant if “unmarried” referred to all unmarried people rather than a specific subset of unmarried people. (3) Paul uses agamos of de-married people, not never-married people. The word refers to a divorced (separated?) woman in verse 11, and stands in contrast to “a virgin” (i.e., never married persons) in verse 34.

If Fee is correct, then Paul is counseling widows and widowers “to stay unmarried, as I am,” or more literally, “to remain as I am.” (The word unmarried does not appear a second time in Greek.) By saying “as I am,” is Paul implying that he is de-married, whether through the death of his spouse or divorce? Perhaps.

So, celibacy is Paul’s preference for widowers and widows. But verse 7 is still in force. If the de-married are now gifted for lifelong celibacy, then that is the lifestyle they should choose. If not, they should choose marriage. Sexual immorality in general, and consorting with prostitutes in particular, is not a viable option for Christians—even de-married ones.

Paul’s final statement—“it is better to marry than to burn”—is somewhat controversial. For one thing, it makes it sound like marriage is a begrudged concession to persons who can’t keep their clothes on, rather than the creation and gift of God. For another thing, it is unclear whether the burning refers to divine judgment on sin or to intense desire. In favor of the former, see 3:15; in favor of the latter—the NIV adds “with passion” to the Greek text—see 2 Corinthians 11:29.

Either way, marriage and celibacy are still the Christian’s options, whether never married or de-married.