NOTES for Co1 7:17-40

Returning again to the theme of marriage and celibacy, Paul says directly that he has no unambiguous solution to this problem: he apparently did not receive a revelation from God that would allow him to give a definite answer, and therefore he has to limit himself to his own experience as a servant of Christ (v. 25). The apostle's personal experience, as is well known, was precisely the experience of celibacy, and this is what he shares with his readers. Reflecting on the path of celibacy, the apostle starts from what the Savior evidently had in mind when He spoke of the Kingdom of heaven that "has drawn near." It was obvious to Paul that we live in the very last times of which the great prophets of Israel spoke, and therefore he considers the ideal state for spiritual life to be one that would not bind a person in any way to the life of the still not fully transformed world and to its laws (vv. 29-35).

The apostle understands perfectly well what real family life is, and in a fallen world it is in any case bound up with everyday and household problems that could otherwise have been avoided. There is no sin in family life, but in our still not fully transformed world it can become a source not only of joy, but also of suffering, and Paul urges those who desire family life not to close their eyes to this obvious fact (v. 28). That is why the apostle proposes that each person remain in the family situation in which he finds himself (vv. 26-27). What matters to him is only that both marriage and celibacy be not an accident, but a conscious choice by the one who decides on one path or the other (vv. 36-40).

No one is obligated either to marriage or to celibacy if he does not feel a calling to one or the other. But once they decide on marriage, future spouses will at some point inevitably face the choice about which Paul speaks with complete clarity: whether to fulfill the will of God, "to please God," or to prefer their own comfort to it, "to please the husband" or "to please the wife." Apparently this is exactly what the apostle has in mind when he speaks of the sufferings inevitable in family life, if the matter concerns a Christian family: the choice of God's will in such a situation often entails discomfort at the very least. But while warning about difficulties, Paul still does not dissuade anyone from family life and does not try to predetermine anyone's choice: each person walks the path into the Kingdom himself, and only the one walking is free to choose a life companion on that path.

Married life in Judaism was considered, in effect, a kind of religious duty; in the minds of believers it was connected with fulfilling the command, "be fruitful and multiply," which was given to people at the very beginning, immediately after the creation of the human person and before the fall. Therefore, avoiding married life was considered inappropriate and unworthy of a person seeking to keep God's commandments. Of course, all kinds of things happen in life, and not everyone succeeds in starting a family, but those without families, unless they were without a family through no fault of their own, were viewed as people deserving only sympathy.

This applied equally to priests, Levites, rabbis, and teachers of the Torah. It was considered that no service to God in itself could become an obstacle to family life. As for Paul himself, at the moment of his meeting with the Risen One on the Damascus road, he apparently had not yet married and started a family: he was then a relatively young man who had only just completed his rabbinic education. Or perhaps he had not quite completed it; it is not known exactly whether Paul, then still Saul, was continuing his studies with Gamaliel at that time or not.

But once Saul, the former student of Gamaliel, became Paul and an apostle, he could no longer live his former life. His new life was so filled with journeys and travels, and travels often far from safe, that he considered it better not to have a family at all, so as not to expose his household to all the hardships of his own life. This, as can be seen, is what Paul has in mind when he says that a family man is forced to think about his family, while an unmarried man can devote himself wholly to service, distracted by nothing else and looking back at no one.

But the apostle understands that such a path cannot be universal, that it is conditioned by the specifics of a particular calling and a particular service. Speaking of himself as a person "having the Spirit of God," Paul defends his right, as well as the right of any other person, if God calls him precisely to such a path, to remain without a family. He urges people not to look at the unmarried as unhappy people whose lives have failed, affirming that there can also be a conscious choice of the corresponding path.

Such an affirmation of the dignity of celibacy against the background of traditional disdain for it was absolutely necessary then. But the apostle also draws attention to the fact that in the present time, when the Kingdom has already drawn near according to the Savior's own word, and His return in glory can be expected every day, one must not become attached to family any more than to anything else in this world. There is, after all, family as marriage, as the depth and fullness of relationships which, when speaking of Christians, are rooted in the life of the Kingdom; and there is family as a social and everyday phenomenon. This everyday life and the society that produces it will not enter the Kingdom, but will remain in this world. Therefore, even family life must be lived in such a way that everyday life and society do not prevail over its spiritual component, as Paul reminds us.

The God-inspired nature of Scripture is an astonishing phenomenon. Where could people have gotten the absurd idea that God dictated it word for word, an idea that still appears now and then in discussions? In any case, there are several places in Scripture where it is obvious how far such a primitive notion is from the truth, and today's passage from the apostle Paul's letter to the Corinthians is one of them.

Reading what the apostle writes about the desirability or undesirability of marriage for a Christian, one clearly hears a certain tension in his words and thought. In the first century it was common among Christians to think that the end of the world would happen literally any day, and only toward the end of his life did the apostle Paul himself move somewhat away from this view. It is understandable that, in this perspective, marriage appeared rather unnecessary. Besides this, the apostle's own experience, apparently involving a painful break with his family, could serve as confirmation of the Savior's words, "a man's enemies are the members of his own household." According to his own understanding at the time he wrote the letter, the apostle would have recommended to his correspondents that they refrain from the bonds of marriage.

But in his words one feels that some power keeps him from expressing such a definite opinion. This is how the Spirit of God acts in His servants, and they must make an effort to overcome their attachment to what is merely human in order to serve God's work. Only in such rare places, where the author's personal opinion does not fully coincide with the opinion of the Holy Spirit, does this become noticeable.

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.