(1Co 7:36-8:1 ESV) 36 If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed [or virgin], if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry — it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.
The translation of this passage is difficult and controversial. As the NET Bible translators explain,
There are two common approaches to understanding the situation addressed in these verses. One view involves a father or male guardian deciding whether to give his daughter or female ward in marriage (cf. NASB, NIV margin). The evidence for this view is: (1) the phrase in v. 1Co 7:37 (Grk) “to keep his own virgin” fits this view well (“keep his own virgin [in his household]” rather than give her in marriage), but it does not fit the second view (there is little warrant for adding “her” in the way the second view translates it: “to keep her as a virgin”). (2) The verb used twice in v. 1Co 7:38 (γαμίζω, gamizo) normally means “to give in marriage” not “to get married.” The latter is usually expressed by γαμέω (gameo), as in v. 1Co 7:36. (3) The father deciding what is best regarding his daughter’s marriage reflects the more likely cultural situation in ancient Corinth, though it does not fit modern Western customs. While Paul gives his advice in such a situation, he does not command that marriages be arranged in this way universally. If this view is taken, the translation will read as follows:
“1Co 7:36 If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his unmarried daughter, if she is past the bloom of youth and it seems necessary, he should do what he wishes; he does not sin. Let them marry. 1Co 7:37 But the man who is firm in his commitment, and is under no necessity but has control over his will, and has decided in his own mind to keep his daughter unmarried, does well. 1Co 7:38 So then the one who gives his daughter in marriage does well, but the one who does not give her does better.”
The other view is taken by NRSV, NIV text, NJB, REB: a single man deciding whether to marry the woman to whom he is engaged. The evidence for this view is: (1) it seems odd to use the word “virgin” (vv. 1Co 7:36, 1Co 7:37, 1Co 7:38) if “daughter” or “ward” is intended. (2) The other view requires some difficult shifting of subjects in v. 1Co 7:36, whereas this view manages a more consistent subject for the various verbs used. (3) The phrases in these verses are used consistently elsewhere in this chapter to describe considerations appropriate to the engaged couple themselves (cf. vv. 1Co 7:9, 1Co 7:28, 1Co 7:39). It seems odd not to change the phrasing in speaking about a father or guardian. If this second view is taken, the translation will read as follows:
“1Co 7:36 If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his fiancée, if his passions are too strong and it seems necessary, he should do what he wishes; he does not sin. Let them marry. 1Co 7:37 But the man who is firm in his commitment, and is under no necessity but has control over his will, and has decided in his own mind to keep her as his fiancée, does well. 1Co 7:38 So then, the one who marries his fiancée does well, but the one who does not marry her does better.”
In an age when there are few arranged marriages, I’m not sure it’s worth the trouble to work through the question any further here. The point is that being single is better than being married for the reasons previously stated — in either case.
(1Co 7:39-40 ESV) 39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
Finally, Paul concludes with regard to widows, making it clear that a woman is free to remarry after the death of her husband but “only in the Lord.” This is surely not true solely for widows. Rather, Paul must be speaking of a principle application to marriage by Christians in general.
Compare 2 Cor 6:14 and God’s requirement that the children of Israel marry within Israel (Deut. 7:3; Josh. 23:12; Ezra 9:1-4; Neh. 13:23-27). In Rom 16:11, Paul also uses “in the Lord” to mean “those who are Christians.”
On the hand, it’s been argued,
One thing that 1 Corinthians 7 definitely shows is that in many areas of sexual ethics Paul’s teaching cannot be reduced to ‘following orders.’ Elliptical expressions like “only in the Lord” need something to be supplied to be accurately understood; in this case, “my advice would be …” fits the tenor of Paul’s instructions.
Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Pillar NTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 365.
Whatever logic leads Paul to command (or advise in the Spirit) that believers remarry in the Lord when widowed surely applies equally to the divorced and widowers.
In the Churches of Christ, sadly, it’s necessary to note that “only in the Lord” does not mean “only in the sound Churches of Christ.” Christendom is not nearly as narrow as we sometimes pretend. We are just not as special as we wish to claim. This is not about marrying outside one’s denomination. It’s about marrying outside the Lord. They are not the same thing.
Something important has been bypassed in these discussions about the general lessons from the text. In I Cor 7, I find something very interesting that relates to the inspiration of scripture– or how we see inspiration, anyway. In this chapter, Paul writes of four different sorts of “authority” in his instructions. In verse 10, he writes: “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):” In verse 12, he writes: “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):” In verse 25, Paul writes: “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.” And in verse 40, we read: “In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.”
Now, for those who read “biblical authority” by traditional interpretation methods, this creates a logical paradox. That is, if Paul writes in inspired scripture that an instruction is NOT the Lord’s words but his own, then are those words really inspired? BUT, if we open our minds to Paul’s actual words, a broader picture emerges. Paul shows great humility and wisdom in his words to the Corinthians. He has one directive from God, and he offers counsel in three other matters, NOT claiming divine imprimatur but reminding his friends that his counsel has worth. I suggest that this bit of light is retained for us in scripture for the very purpose of reminding us not to make claims for God’s speaking beyond that which He makes.
If we read I cor.7 in the context of Jesus and Mary it makes perfect sense as all of I Cor.7 was dealing with those who were man and wife, but possibly not married. Mary was betrothed to Joseph and yet they were not married and she was yet a virgin still. Marriage was the sexual union of those who were betrothed (or were man and wife). Paul is expressing that if you are betrothed and have a wife, but have not had relations with her because you can control your passions, then this is good, but it is definitely not a sin to do so, becuase this is a Godly answer to the passions. It is moot to replace betrothed with fiancee, as betrothed indicates a state where marriage has not taken place and yet they are bound as husband and wife, even though the wife is a virgin. This is according ot Jewish Law.