In defense of singleness
1 Corinthians 7 begins with "it is good for a man not to marry" (NIV). Is this the claim of some Corinthians?
Very possibly, because in other places it seems clear that he quotes a Corinthian proposal only to take issue with it (maybe 6:12 illustrates that). It could be that some fellows thought asceticism was the best option so that when it came to marriage they were saying: "Leave it alone!" This is the prevailing view among commentators.
And does Paul oppose that alleged Corinthian proposal? It's generally held that Paul takes pains to expose this ascetic view of things but if he opposes the proposal as stated he goes about it in a very strange way.
Look, suppose some ascetic type Corinthians with a little flavour of Platonism say, "It's good for a man not to marry." Suppose Paul wants to deny that proposal because it has some sinister elements in it, what will he say? We would probably expect him to mount a robust defence of marriage over against celibacy but that's not what what we find. Whatever we think he might have said we know what he actually didsay.
Corinthians say, "It is good not to marry" and Paul says, "it is good not to marry" (7:8). He agrees with the proposal. Again in 7:26 he agrees with 7:1 and advises virgins, "it is good not to marry." He goes on to say—in light of specific conditions and general considerations—that those who abstain from marriage are doing the right, even better, thing (7:26-40).
Instead of opposing celibacy so much of chapter 7 says that it's good "to be alone." It’s good for widows and widowers not to marry (7:8). He doesn't only say that they will have less trouble, he says it is "good" for them not to marry (7:8). Certainly he qualifies his opinions that celibacy is good. If a person has serious difficulty maintaining a chaste celibacy then marrying is the better way to go (7:2,9 and see 38) but aside from that he argues in favour of the opening proposal.
Maybe the opening proposal isn’t the word of an ascetic; maybe it’s Paul’s counter proposal. It could be that some were saying that in light of Genesis 2:18 it isn’t good for a person to be unmarried and Paul was saying, "Yes it is!" And if you add the prevalence of fornication there would be good reason for some Jewish members to harangue people with Genesis 2:18. Maybe some were saying with deep conviction that it is not good for a man to be single, that it is a Christian duty to marry. (For the majority of ancient Jews this was normative and while Greeks had their "evil matter" notions floating around there were still those like Demosthenes who insisted that men should marry to raise and guide families and use courtesans for pleasure. We hear of festal gatherings where unmarried men were pelted with rotten fruit and other things for being unmarried.)
If we take the view that there was a strong element in the Corinthian church that was vigorously proposing marriage as a bit more than normative then Paul’s talk about "the good" of singleness makes perfect sense.
7:3-5 is parenthetical and 7:6 takes up his remarks in 1-2 so I think we should read it this way. "It is good for a person not to marry but because of the prevalence of fornication let each man have his own wife and she her own husband [3-5] but this I say as a concession, not as a command."
What goes on within the marriage union if two people have decided on that is not the concession. They are one flesh and should treat one another in that fashion (7:3-5). To avoid fornication each one is to have his/her own husband/wife. This he says using an imperative but so that he won’t be misunderstood he returns to say he is not commanding marriage because, the truth is, he would rather that everyone was like himself (7:7). He was single and chaste and would be pleased if everyone could be like that (for reasons he would outline later) but he recognized that God hasn’t gifted everyone for that. But he does see singleness as a gift and insists that one who exercises that gift as unto God is doing a good thing.
Christians may not feel as strongly about marriage as most ancient Jews who thought it was normative and thought it strange that a person might not want to marry. But the currents that run in our Western culture encourage us to muse about unmarried people and wonder if there isn’t some homosexual leaning there. I would suppose (though I’ve taken no census) that the very idea that someone might freely choose singleness would seem strange. And if they chose it as an expression of their submission to God in Christ that would be thought to be even stranger. But it’s time we looked at these people and thanked God for them. Whatever else is true they're not inferior to us old married people. I think Paul said, "It is good for a person not to marry."
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.