NOTES for Co1 7:1-16

Speaking about marriage and celibacy, Paul certainly had in mind situations in which marriage had either not yet taken shape or had ceased to exist, usually because one of the spouses had died (vv. 7-8). Judging by the meaning of the apostle's words, he either had not yet married by the time his apostolic ministry began, which is more plausible, or he had already been widowed. Looking at him, some people may have begun to think, as many Christians later thought, that celibacy is preferable to marriage for a Christian's spiritual life.

But the apostle himself clearly does not think so. On the contrary, he considers an orderly family life to be the best option for most people (vv. 2-5). On the other hand, Paul clearly predetermines nothing in this regard when the matter concerns a specific person in all his uniqueness. He understands perfectly well that every rule has exceptions, and if someone seeking the Kingdom is firmly convinced that he is such an exception, the path of celibacy is, of course, not closed to him (vv. 1, 6-7). The apostle only urges people not to regard widowhood, or more broadly, the impossibility of marriage, as in itself a sign of a calling to celibacy, as often happened in Christian circles in the Middle Ages (vv. 8-9).

He clearly understands that true celibacy is a spiritual choice, not a forced condition. Its meaning is not to reduce every manifestation of bodily life to the smallest possible minimum, as was typical of representatives of certain philosophical and ascetic schools of the pagan world, who acted this way out of a deep conviction that bodily existence itself is the source of evil from which the seeker of truth must be freed.

The meaning of Christian celibacy is inseparable from life in the Kingdom and from the search for its fullness. After the fall, nature often triumphs in a person's life over the spirit where it ought to be subordinate to it, and this fully applies to the sexual sphere. At the end of time, after the complete transformation of human nature, relations between men and women must change in a way we cannot now even imagine. They are so unlike the forms of marriage familiar to us today that the Savior refuses to call them marriage at all, saying that in the Kingdom people "neither marry nor are given in marriage." And when someone seeking the fullness of the Kingdom chooses celibacy, he is not rejecting marriage altogether, but rather postponing his choice until the moment when the Kingdom triumphs in all its fullness. Until the time when marital relations can be revealed in all their depth, free from the influence of the evil and sin in which our still-untransformed world lies.

In his letters, Paul discussed several times questions of the religion in its relation to the spiritual life. A summary of these discussions can be reduced to a simple formula: for the Kingdom, the religiosity of man has no basic value, and thus, it has either value also for the Church. And the religious man can take his religion with him in the Kingdom, if it is organic for him, quite as he can take it with him in the Church, provided that he will not set it up as a rule and impose it to the brothers. But it was impossible for the apostle not to see of course in religion the spiritual component.

In fact: there are people, for whom religion is inseparable of their relationships with God and with the neighbor, and consequently, and of the spiritual life in the proper sense of the words. And here everything is already defined by the measure of the sincerity of a concrete person. For someone religion is a means of spiritual self-affirmation, a means to influence the spirits and the souls, and sometimes also a means of manipulating others. Paul considers such a religiosity, what is not surprising, of completely unacceptable for the Kingdom, and thus, and for the Church.

If the religiosity of man is such, one cannot speak about a normal spiritual life. But what, if the religiosity is only a form, the protective shell of the spiritual life? Although it does not occur quite often, but it arrives all the same, and the apostle finds inadmissible to destroy this protective shell: because man can simply be still not firm enough, to do without it.

Such a religiosity is usually proper to people who have recently embarked on the spiritual way, and religious restrictions and prohibitions, remaining external and not replacing what was called in the time of Paul the internal Torah, are really necessary for them and allow them not to get lost on the spiritual way. The destruction of such a religiosity would still be one and, probably, useless experience for his owner.

Of course, sooner or later everyone, who goes on the spiritual way, the way of righteousness and the way of the Kingdom, should part with his religiosity if it is not for ever, then at least to push it to the second plan. But here, as in life in general, everything takes place at the appropriate time. And the apostle suggests not to precipitate things: because, for the one, who is not yet ready to part from the usual religious shell, its violent destruction can turn in a serious spiritual crisis. And the apostle suggests not to risk, but to give to each to grow spiritually until this stage, when the separation with his own religious form will become for him organic.

Why does Paul insist that families in which one spouse is a Christian should, if possible, be preserved, even if the other party is far from faith? Of course, one could explain everything by the value of family as such and by the desire to preserve that very family, if there is even the slightest chance of doing so. One could also recall the prohibition of divorce spoken by the Savior himself. But that prohibition applies only to Christians themselves. Even the Torah, in principle, permits divorce, though only in special cases and without much enthusiasm. As for pagans, from the point of view of the Torah there is no problem here: although the Torah recognizes marriage between pagans as a fact, it naturally imposes no prohibitions or restrictions on divorce in that case.

Why, then, in spite of all this, does the apostle still insist that a marriage between a Christian and an unbelieving spouse, or the reverse, should be preserved if possible? Judging by his own words, the main task for the Christian in such a situation is to bring the other party in the marriage into participation in the life of the Kingdom.

Witness, of course, plays an enormous role here. But witness within the family turns out to be an extremely difficult task, and if, according to the Savior's word, it is especially hard for a prophet in his hometown and in his own house, then his words fully apply to Christian witness as well. Christianity, however, is not a religion into which someone must be converted, but a life into which someone must be brought.

The main thing here is not to change the worldview of one's husband or wife, but to let that person feel what the Kingdom is. It is that very Kingdom which, under normal circumstances, is always present in the life of a Christian, and which, again under normal circumstances, a Christian can always share with the one who is nearby. Then the result may be completely unexpected. And a family in which at first only one of the two was a Christian may become truly Christian.

In our time Paul's words about marriage are no less relevant now than they were in the first century AD. In modern society, being a believer is more laughable and strange than normal. And this can coexist quite well with formal respect for the Bible. Yes, sometimes one can refer to it on occasion and this will even evoke respect, but a person who builds his life in accordance with Scripture sooner or later will feel the puzzled looks, and that at best, of acquaintances and colleagues. Our faith still remains a stumbling block and foolishness even for the closest people, the members of our family. Unfortunately, sometimes this lack of understanding begins to destroy the family from within, and the believer's own role in this is not so small. At first we rush to convert our husband or wife, pouring out arguments and quotations from the Bible with all the heat of our heart, forgetting that each person's path to God is individual; there are no laws and rules here. It is a personal conversation, and even a husband or wife is superfluous in it. And then, if our close person is not converted that very second, we become angry with him, and then we wall ourselves off and withdraw.

But in fact these words about marriage are only part of the apostle's main appeal: "Let each one remain before God in the calling in which he was called." It is hard for Christians to live in this world; there are too many temptations and distractions. One very much wants to shut oneself up in a narrow circle of friends who understand and are close in spirit, to pretend that the world does not exist. But Christ, through Paul's lips, calls us to go into the world, not away from the world. So that we, remaining there, in that very place in life where we met God, may carry the Good News into the world, the News of the Resurrection. So that by our life we may bear witness that one can live differently, not competing and defeating, but loving and forgiving. And this includes our family.

Why Paul insists that families, where one of the spouses is Christian, should be by possibility saved, even if the other party is far away from faith? Of course, one could have been able to explain everything with the value of the family as such, and the will to save this very family, if only there is just a small chance. One could remember the ban of divorce, about which the Savior Himself speaks about. But indeed, this ban concerns only the Christians themselves. Even the Torah, in principle admits divorce, although in particular cases, and not too willingly. As for the gentiles, there are also no problems here from the point of view of the Torah: although the Torah recognizes as a reality the marriage between gentiles, it doesn’t impose in this case of course any prohibitions and restrictions on divorce. But why with all this the apostle all the same insists on the fact that it is necessary if possible to save the marriage between a Christian and a non believer (or the opposite)?

According to his own words, the main task of the Christian in such situation is to introduce the other partner in marriage to the life of the Kingdom. Of course, witness plays here an immense role. But witness in particular in the family turns out the most complex task, and if, according to the words of the Savior, it is sometimes particularly difficult for the prophet in his home town and in his own house, then His words are completely also applicable to the Christian witness. But indeed, Christianity is not a religion, to which it is necessary to turn, but the life, which it is necessary to join.

The main thing here is not to change the conception of the world of the husband (wife), but to make him (her) feel what that is the Kingdom. This very Kingdom, which in normal case is always present in the life of the Christian. And which in the normal case Christian can always share with the one who is near. Well then the result can turn out the most unexpected. And the family, in which a Christian was initially one of the two, can become really Christian.

For Paul, Christianity is above all life in the Kingdom and witness to the Kingdom. Therefore he does not give decisive importance to the external conditions and circumstances of a person's life. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, and being in it does not depend on a person's status in this world. Only the external forms in which the life of the Kingdom is manifested change; the possible ways of witness change, but the life of the Kingdom itself in a person remains the same.

Of course, if there is an opportunity to change one's social position by adding external freedom to oneself, it is never superfluous to do so. But one should not consider such changes in themselves the goal and meaning of life. To use every opportunity that presents itself for witness to the Kingdom, however, is not only possible but necessary. Including, and even first of all, in one's own home. It is no accident that the apostle advises not to hurry with divorce even when only one of the two in the marriage is a Christian: who knows whether married life itself may not become the witness that will lead the husband or wife to Christ?

Of course, in all times, and the first Christian times were no exception, a spouse who had turned to Christ had the desire to begin all of life, including family life, from a clean slate. Divorce then seemed, and still seems to many, the simplest solution, especially since misunderstanding between a believing husband and an unbelieving wife, or the reverse, arises quite often, especially at first, immediately after conversion.

But the apostle proposes something else: to begin a new life not with divorce, not with the breaking of relationships, but with an attempt to renew these relationships and make them part of that life of the Kingdom which has become a reality for the converted spouse. Paul remains an apostle here too: the main thing is to open the reality of the Kingdom to as many people as possible. Including those who live with you in the same house.

Reflecting on the life of the Kingdom, Paul comes to the conclusion that everyone is fit for it, regardless of social status (v. 24). Such a conclusion is natural: if the Kingdom, according to the Savior's word, is "not of this world," then neither a Christian's material nor social position can in any way affect his life in this Kingdom. But it can affect the possibility of bearing witness to the Kingdom. If, for example, one spouse, after conversion, considers it possible to break off relations with his or her other half simply because relations with him or her have stopped being important, such a breakup will naturally become not witness but anti-witness: the rejected husband or rejected wife in that case may reasonably conclude that the new life of the converted spouse is not for them. That is why the apostle apparently considers it necessary for the convert to remain in the family, provided the other spouse does not object and does not demand divorce (vv. 12-16).

For one who has turned to Christ, the family should, as far as possible, be a place of witness and not anti-witness. In the same way, any other human position can become either witness or anti-witness. Thus, for example, the apostle urges both Jews ("the circumcised") and recent pagans converted to Christ to remain what they are, and to do so quite openly (vv. 18-20). The religious differences between Jews and recent pagans were often striking, but their spiritual unity within one community could become the best witness to the reality of the Kingdom, for which religious differences are secondary. The impossibility and absence of this unity, by contrast, would become anti-witness, only confirming that Christianity is not life in the Kingdom at all, but merely one more new religion, no better, though perhaps no worse, than any other.

Of course, there can also be situations in which it would be worth trying to change the position in which one finds oneself. Paul, for example, is firmly convinced that legal dependence is not the best option, and he suggests that slaves free themselves from the condition of slavery if possible (v. 21). The point is not that, being a slave, a person cannot be a resident of the Kingdom (vv. 22-23), but that a free person has more opportunities to bear witness to this Kingdom than a slave does. Of course, a slave can sometimes have more spiritual freedom than someone who is legally free, but formal legal freedom can nevertheless become an earthly image of the spiritual freedom of the residents of the Kingdom, and the apostle suggests not missing the chance to obtain this outward freedom if such a chance appears.