Paul now passes to the case of virgins, on which the church had invited his judgment. The section is one of peculiar difficulty. It is generally thought that Paul is dealing with the relations of a father (or guardian) to the marriage of his daughter (or ward). The decision whether the maiden should be married, and if so to whom, rested with the father. In that case his general principle holds good that in view of the impending distress it is better for no new ties to be created. But if any father (or guardian) thinks that he is acting in an unseemly way towards his daughter (or ward), she being of an age to marry and her nature imperiously demanding it, he is at liberty to carry out his desire, he does not sin in doing so, let the maiden and her suitor marry. But if there be no such compulsion in the case, and he has made up his mind not to give her in marriage, his decision is to be commended. He does well if he gives her in marriage, but better if he does not. But this interpretation is exposed to serious objections. (a) Paul is dealing with the case of virgins; but he begins by saying what is good for a man (1 Corinthians 7:26-28 a), and reverts to this in 1 Corinthians 7:32 f. (b) It is curious that he should twice assert that the marriage is not sinful (1 Corinthians 7:28; 1 Corinthians 7:36): since marriage was not regarded as sinful in itself, the case in question seems to have had exceptional features which made the view that sin was involved plausible. But on the usual interpretation the marriage was quite normal. (c) If Paul had in mind the relationship of a father to his daughter, it is strange that he does not speak of father and daughter. This difficulty is mitigated but not removed by the reply that his language is indefinite because he wishes to include the relationship of guardian and ward. Since the father was the usual guardian, it would have been proper to speak simply of that relationship, leaving the other case to be understood. (d) The phrase act unseemly, while possible, is not a natural one to use of the father's conduct. (e) If Paul has been speaking of father and daughter, let them marry is harsh, since the antecedent has to be supplied. (f) Daughter is not expressed in the Gr., which is literally his virgin in 1 Corinthians 7:36, his own virgin in 1 Corinthians 7:37 and 1 Corinthians 7:38. The former is a remarkable, the latter an amazing, expression for his unmarried daughter. These difficulties disappear if Paul is dealing with a spiritual marriage in which a man and woman united in taking a vow of continence. This practice is known as far back as the second century, and at a later period gave rise to serious scandal, since the man and woman often lived in the same house. Paul favours the fulfilment of the vow, but advises marriage in case the man's weakness in self-control is likely to precipitate moral disaster. This gives a coherent interpretation of the passage. It is exposed to two difficulties. One is that it requires the rendering marry instead of give in marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:38. Achelis accepts the usual rendering, but supposes Paul to advise that the man in the condition described in 1 Corinthians 7:36 should determine the situation by giving the virgin in marriage to someone else. This is wholly unnatural; the obvious and proper advice would be that the man and his virgin should marry, which is indeed suggested by 1 Corinthians 7:36. If the usual rendering is necessary, we must either set aside altogether the reference to a spiritual marriage, or suppose that 1 Corinthians 7:38 is a later insertion, for which we have no warrant. But it is not improbable that the rendering marry is legitimate. The other objection is of a more general character. We have no evidence that the custom originated so early, and, if it had, would Paul have sanctioned a relationship so fraught with possibilities of moral peril? Our ignorance as to the origin of many things should make us chary of pressing the former point. As to the latter, we must beware of viewing the institution through the scandals which later discredited it. With Paul's strong preference tor celibacy, pledges to observe it might seem praiseworthy, and that a man and woman should combine for mutual encouragement in such a pledge would seem perhaps not unfitting. The moral peril would be met by the possibility of marriage in case the strain on continence became too severe. And we must not underrate the elemental force of primitive enthusiasm, or too hastily apply to the church of the first century our own standards of what is fitting.
Paul has no word of Jesus to settle the matter, but gives his opinion as one endowed through Christ's mercy with a judgment worthy of trust. The impending trouble, the woes of the Messiah which are to usher in the new era, makes any change of state undesirable. Let the married and the single remain as they are. It is accordingly best that the intention to continue in the relationship in question should be carried out. Still, if the man marries, he has not sinned, nor yet the virgin. They will suffer in the troubles that are coming, and he would guard them from this. The interval that will elapse before the Second Coming is cut short, so that all human ties and relationships should be held with indifference marriage, mourning, merriment, purchase; the world must be used, but not to the full, for it is a fleeting show. In such a situation they should be free from distractions. In the unmarried state interest can be concentrated on the Lord's affairs, but the married man is preoccupied with secular matters and consideration for his wife and is distracted. The unmarried woman and the virgin are preoccupied with the things of the Lord, to maintain body and spirit holy alike; the wife is preoccupied with secular affairs and the pleasing of her husband. Paul says this for their advantage, not to put constraint (mg.) upon them, but to secure what is seemly, and undistracted concentration on service for the Lord. However, if in any instance the man feels that he may be guilty of an offence against the virgin's chastity, if he is troubled with excess of virility and his nature demands marriage, he may carry out the desire without sin, let them get married (1 Corinthians 7:36). But if he is firm in purpose and driven by no such necessity, and is gifted with self-control and resolved to keep his virgin partner intact, he will do well (1 Corinthians 7:37). If he marries her he will do well, if he refrains from marriage he will do better still (1 Corinthians 7:38). Finally, a word as to widows. A woman cannot marry a second husband till her present husband is dead; then she may marry any man she likes, provided that he is a Christian. His judgment, however, as one who possesses the Spirit (as much as those who lay claim to it) is that she would do better to remain as she is.
1 Corinthians 7:33 f. The text is very uncertain. Probably we should accept the second mg.; divided means distracted between the two claims. The unmarried woman is distinguished from the virgin, the latter meaning one dedicated to the celibate life.