Affliction for Procreators in the Eschatological Crisis: Paul’s Marital Counsel in 1 Corinthians 7.28 and Contraception in Greco-Roman Antiquity

Introduction: The State of the Debate on Paul’s Preference for Celibacy and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7.28 ¹

According to the scholarly majority, in 1 Cor. 7.1b Paul cites a Corinthian axiom or summarizes a Corinthian view ² : ‘Now concerning the things you wrote, “it is (morally) better (καλόν) ³ for a man not to touch ⁴ a woman”’. ⁵ He then proceeds to qualify or correct their view: ‘On the contrary …’ (δέ; 7.2). It was the Corinthians, not Paul, who thought that sexual asceticism was ‘good’ or ‘better’ in a moral sense, in contrast to much previous interpretation of this verse and, indeed, the entire chapter. ⁶ Paul himself states that to marry is (morally) ‘good’ (7.38) and is not to ‘sin’ (7.28, 36), and that the widow is ‘free’ to remarry (7.40). ⁷ Departing from biblical/Jewish tradition, however, he does not advocate marriage, except (in agreement with that tradition) in the case of those who ‘lack self-control’ and engage in porneia. In order to avoid this they should marry and have sex with their own spouse (7.5, 9, 36-37). ⁸

Paul’s requirement of marriage and sex with one’s own spouse as an antidote to sexual immorality has been taken to imply a pejorative view of marriage and sex. For example, Martin refers to ‘Paul’s denigration of marriage and sex’ (1995: 210), for ‘in 7:2 marriage is merely a prophylaxis against porneia; in 7:3 it is a duty or debt owed by spouses to one another; and in 7:5 it is a prophylaxis against Satanic testing [to porneia]’ (1995: 209). Certainly, 1 Cor. 7 falls short of Musonius Rufus’s lofty depiction of the ‘perfect companionship and mutual love of husband and wife’ as a reason for marriage: ‘Where then this love for each other is perfect and they share it completely, each striving to outdo the other in devotion, the marriage is ideal and worthy of envy, for such a union is beautiful’ (The Chief End 88.17-23). Nevertheless, as Yarbrough has argued, Paul’s view of marriage in 1 Cor. 7 is to be interpreted in the light of 1 Thess. 4.3-5, where Paul instructs the Thessalonian male Christ-believers to ‘abstain from sexual immorality’ by obtaining or controlling their own ‘vessel’ (wife or male sex organ) so as to distinguish themselves from ‘the Gentiles, who do not know God’ (1985: 67-87). There marriage and sex with one’s spouse to avoid sexual immorality is seen positively in terms of a boundary marker between Christ-believing former Gentiles and the surrounding Gentile world. In 1 Cor. 12.2-3 Paul expresses a similar concern for a boundary marker between the Corinthians and Gentile idolaters in terms of their inspired speech. Paul’s instructions in ch. 7 to marry ‘if they are not practicing self-control’ and to have sex with one’s own spouse ‘on account of cases of sexual immorality’ thus imply a positive function of marriage and sexual relations in marriage as positive identity markers of Christ-believers (both women and men, in contrast to the exclusive focus on men in 1 Thessalonians).

In general, however, Paul prefers celibacy because it is ‘advantageous’ or ‘useful’, ⁹ and wishes that everyone had a ‘gift from God’ to enable them to practice celibacy, as he does (7.7-8).

The reasons why celibacy is practically advantageous, in Paul’s view, must be inferred from his discussion in 1 Cor. 7. Scholars agree that there are two such reasons. I will argue, however, that there is convincing evidence only for one, and that the other suggested reason is based on a misinterpretation of 7.28, which, I will argue further, should be taken instead to suggest why Paul does not require procreation as the purpose of marriage and sex.

There are good reasons for the scholarly consensus that Paul’s general preference for celibacy has to do with the greater freedom of the celibate to be engaged in the Lord’s work. As O. Larry Yarbrough states, ‘[Paul] is concerned primarily that all believers – both men and women – be free to serve the Lord with single-mindedness’ (1985: 110; cf. Fitzmyer 2008: 313). This view is clearly supported by 7.32-34, where Paul expresses his wish that the Corinthians might be ‘free from care [for a spouse]’, and contrasts the married man as one who ‘devotes care to what belongs to the world, how to serve his wife, and he is divided’, ¹⁰ with ‘the unmarried and chaste woman’ as one who ‘devotes care to what belongs to the Lord so as to be consecrated both in body and in spirit’ (to the Lord’s service). ¹¹ 1 Corinthians 7.35 also clearly suggests that celibacy is preferable ‘in the interests of what is fitting and constantly in service to the Lord in a way free from distraction’. With the Stoic term, ἀπερισπάστως (‘in a way free from distraction’), Paul draws on the philosophical ideal of being undistracted from the pursuit of a divine mission, which favored celibacy in the view of the Cynics and some Stoics (Balch 1983; Deming 2004). ¹² At the same time, Paul’s eschatological outlook that the ‘fixed time is shortened’ and that ‘the form of this world is passing away’ (7.29a, 31b; cf. 7.26) ¹³ led him to see celibacy as a practical advantage for doing the urgent work of the Lord in this crucial time (cf. Fee 1987: 269, 324; Witherington 1995: 175-76; Hays 1997: 127; Garland 2003: 317-18).

A second practical advantage of celibacy is suggested on the basis of 7.28, according to the scholarly consensus. Here Paul writes:

But if you should marry, you will not have sinned, and if the virgin should marry, she will not have sinned. But the ones like these will have affliction in their earthly life. But I am sparing you.

ἐὰν δὲ καὶ γαμήσῃς, οὐχ ἥμαρτες, καὶ ἐὰν γήμῃ ἡ παρθένος, οὐχ ἥμαρτεν· θλῖψιν δὲ τῇ σαρκὶ ¹⁴ ἕξουσιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι, ἐγὼ δὲ ὑμῶν φείδομαι

‘The ones like these’ are taken to be the same virgins whom Paul says have not sinned if they marry. Nevertheless, they will incur ‘affliction in earthly life’ if they marry. To spare them, Paul advises against marrying, it is implied. ¹⁵

Many scholars appeal to 7.26 as stating the occasion which leads to affliction for the married, here formulated as a ground for Paul’s advice: ‘Now I think this to be advantageous διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην: it is advantageous to be so’ (i.e., to remain unmarried or a virgin). ¹⁶ It is debated whether Paul is referring here to a temporary crisis (‘the present pressure’) which causes difficulties for the married, leading to ‘troubles’, or to the eschatological crisis (‘the present [or: impending] tribulation’) which will bring great affliction, especially for the married. In support of the latter, apocalyptic texts are compared in which the married, especially fecund women, are expected to suffer greatly in the coming tribulation, thus suggesting a reason not to marry. In support of the former, evidence for famine conditions which may have affected the Corinthians is cited. Other scholars appeal to 7.32-34 as referring to the proverbial anxious ‘cares’ and ‘troubles’ of the married, and compare the ‘troubles’ predicted by Paul for those who marry to Hellenistic parallels which describe marriage as leading to troubles, which augurs for controlling passion and not marrying.

In this light, many scholars conclude that Paul’s pastoral concern and sympathy motivate him to advise the unmarried (widowers?), the widows and the virgins in the Corinthian community not to marry (if possible, without falling into sexual immorality). For example, Wolfgang Schrage comments: ‘V. 28e is especially important insofar as it is evident here that Paul in his preference for celibacy argues not simply from certain theological principles, rather, his concern for the community moves him to give advice not to marry’ (1995: II, 159, my translation). Similarly, Gordon Fee states: ‘This kind of argument [in 7.28] … reflects pastoral concern for [them], not principles that would make singleness a better option’ and ‘in their present situation [but not in general] celibacy is the better option’ (1987: 324, 333, my emphasis). ¹⁷ 1 Corinthians 7.28 thus plays a role in overturning the older view that Paul is a sexual ascetic, which is now construed in terms of imposing an unbearable moral ideal on others, who may not be suited to celibacy. Thus, some scholars take 7.35, ‘this I say for your own benefit, not to put a yoke on you’, to refute the impression that Paul is laying a restrictive burden on the Corinthians by advising them not to marry (although this is inconsistent with the reconstruction of 1 Cor. 7 as aimed against sexual ascetics in Corinth).

But is this interpretation of 7.28 convincing? Should we conclude that celibacy is not only good for the work of the gospel, in Paul’s view, but also good for the individual as a way of lessening the trouble or affliction which one must endure in this life? This interpretation has never been subjected to critical examination; it is accepted without question both by scholars who deny that Paul promotes an ideal of sexual asceticism and by those who affirm that he does promote such an ideal. ¹⁸

Nevertheless, it has been admitted that there is no clear explanation of the relationship between marriage and affliction, which is presupposed in 7.28, in the prevailing interpretation of this verse. For instance, Gordon Fee comments: ‘What there is about marriage that would cause such tribulation as is not true for the single, Paul does not tell them; and it would be idle speculation to try to read his mind at such a point’ (1987: 333). Similarly, Vincent Wimbush states: ‘[The] immediate meaning and import [of θλῖψιν τῇ σαρκὶ and ἀνάγκη in marriage in vv. 26 and 28] are unclear’ (1987: 22). Further, some scholars argue that 7.26 supplies the ground or occasion for advice to remain as one is, whether married or unmarried. If so, then 7.26 cannot also suggest a reason to prefer celibacy in order to avoid affliction in a crisis. Further, as I have argued elsewhere, 7.32-34 does not describe the married as having anxious cares and troubles but as having obligations toward a spouse, and as therefore ‘divided’ between such obligations and the obligations of each and every Christ-believer to the Lord. If so, 7.32-34 does not support the view that Paul is sparing the Corinthians from the everyday troubles of the married.

Finally, the following, important questions are ignored in scholarly discussions of 7.28. How convincing is the suggested parallel with Hellenistic texts on marriage as entailing troubles and hardships? What evidence is there that Paul subscribed to such a view? Is the suggested parallel with apocalyptic texts on the affliction of childbearing and nursing women and parents convincing? Do these texts envision affliction for all of the married, or only fecund women and parents? Do they support the assumption that marriage inevitably led to childbearing and thus to affliction in the eschatological crisis? Is it possible that Paul ‘spares’ the Corinthians in some other way than by advising them not to marry? Are ‘the ones like these’ (οἱ τοιοῦτοι) the same as the virgins who may marry, or are they a subset of the married? Is it consistent not to marry so as to avoid affliction and so as to have more freedom to do the Lord’s work and be ‘constantly in service to the Lord without distraction’? Or are these two practical reasons to prefer celibacy incompatible, and if so, which is more likely? Is Paul’s wish/appeal to ‘be as I am’ and ‘remain, as I [remain unmarried]’ consistent with advice to remain unmarried so as to avoid affliction?

After addressing these questions and concluding that there are no compelling grounds for the prevailing interpretation of 7.28, and that it is inconsistent with the immediate and wider contexts, I will develop an alternative interpretation of this verse, based on my reading of the early Christian and Jewish apocalyptic parallels. I construe these texts as contrasting the eschatological affliction of the childbearers, nursing mothers, and parents and the eschatological good fortune of the barren and childless, that is, as contrasting two different groups of married folk. I also argue that in these texts it is not assumed that marriage inevitably led to procreation and thus to affliction, but that procreation could be avoided by the married, and was sometimes recommended to be avoided for the sake of escaping a disastrous outcome in the form of suffering and grief.

I then argue that Paul himself assumes that marriage and procreation can be separated in the context of the last days, drops the obligation of procreation as a reason to marry and have sex, and permits sexual abstinence by the married ‘for a period [fitting for conception] (πρὸς καιρόν) so that you might devote yourselves to prayer’ (7.5). On the basis of parallels in Soranus and Philo – referring to the ‘time (καιρός) fitting for conception’ as the time to abstain as a means of contraception, or to have sex in order to avoid non-procreative sex – I argue that the unstated purpose of abstaining in 7.5 is for contraception. In 1 Cor. 7.28, then, Paul expresses sympathy with the procreators, not with the married in general.

Celibacy, Serving the Lord without Distraction, and Suffering

As noted above, most scholars agree that the main advantage of celibacy, in Paul’s view, was greater freedom to serve the Lord. But this would seem to imply that the unmarried man or woman will have more affliction as one more involved in the Lord’s work and thus more vulnerable to suffering for his sake. ¹⁹ Paul is a case in point. In fact, his claim to have ‘far more’ afflictions than his fellow ‘servants of Christ’ in 2 Cor. 11.23-29 – ‘Are they servants of Christ? … I far more (ὑπὲρ ἐ??γώ)! In far more (περισσοτέρως) labors, far more (περισσοτέρως) imprisonments, countless (ὑπερβαλλόντως) beatings, often (πολλάκις) near death’ – can be explained, at least partly, on the basis of his celibate status and thus greater engagement in the Lord’s work. Conversely, his colleagues’ comparatively fewer afflictions can be explained, at least partly, on the basis of their married status, on the assumption that they were married, as implied by 1 Cor. 9.5-6: ‘Do not we [Paul and Barnabas] have the right to take along a sister as a wife, as even the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?’ ²⁰ That is, marriage was the norm for apostles and gospel workers; Paul and Barnabas were exceptions.

The Corinthians, of course, were well aware of Paul’s greater afflictions in comparison to other gospel ministers. Paul notes his comparatively greater sufferings in 4.8-13 and his extraordinary physical deprivations in 9.1-27. It is thus hard to imagine how the Corinthians could have construed his wish that they might ‘be even as I am’ (εἶναι ὡ?ς καὶ ἐμαυτόν, 7.7) and appeal to ‘remain, even as I [remain unmarried]’ (μείνωσιν ??ὡς κἀγώ, 7.8) as anything other than implying imitation of his celibacy despite the associated greater afflictions of the celibate gospel worker – rather than to avoid affliction!

Paul thus certainly would have expected the Corinthians to suffer affliction as celibate gospel workers. But did he perhaps at the same time want to spare them affliction peculiar to marriage? Did he think that suffering went hand-in-hand with marriage, or that in particular circumstances the married would have unusual suffering? If so, is he suggesting in 7.28 that the Corinthians will avoid this kind of ‘affliction’ by remaining unmarried – though not the affliction of celibate gospel-workers?

Everyday Troubles for the Married?

Some scholars think that θλῖψις in 7.28 denotes the everyday troubles (‘Sorgen im Alltagsleben’) of the married (Lindemann 2000: 177-78). Paul warns that the Corinthians ‘will have trouble in earthly life’ in the light of ‘the troubling and worrisome lives that many people lead in this world, with a spouse and children’ (Fitzmyer 2008: 315-16). ²¹ A parallel is drawn to Hellenistic texts which describe marriage as ‘a great struggle’ (Antiphon, On Harmony 357.15-16) and ‘full of care’ (Antiphon, On Harmony 360.1) ²² and those who marry and produce children as those who have ‘troubles’ and ‘hardships’ (Epistle of Diogenes 47). ²³ The Cynic advises against marrying and having children for this reason:

One should not wed nor raise children, since our race is weak and marriage and children burden human weakness with troubles (ἐπιφορτίζει … ἀνίαις). Therefore, those who move toward wedlock and the rearing of children on account of the support these promise, later experience a change of heart when they come to know that they are characterized by even greater hardships (πλειόνων ὀχληρῶν). But it is possible to escape (πεφευγέναι) right from the start. Now the person insensitive to passion, who considers his own possessions to be sufficient for patient endurance, declines to marry and produce children (Epistle of Diogenes 47; translation by Malherbe 1977). ²⁴

Barrett argues that Paul’s eschatological perspective leads him to advise the Corinthians to avoid marriage as fraught with cares and troubles: ‘In view of [the eschatological woes that are impending over the world] men have already troubles enough, and will have more, without allowing themselves to enter into domestic tangles of one kind or another … marriage can only have the effect of multiplying affliction’ (Barrett 1968: 174-76; cf. Schrage 1995: II, 159-60; Zeller 2010: 261; Ciampa and Rosner 2010: 341).

Against this interpretation, however, there is only one possible echo of this sort of view of marriage in 1 Cor. 7. In 7.32-34, according to the regnant view, Paul wishes the Corinthians to be free from the typical ‘problems, difficulties, and anxieties, which married people incur’ (Barrett 1968: 182; similarly, Lindemann 2000: 181):

I want you to be free from anxious care (ἀμερίμνους). The unmarried man is concerned (μεριμνᾷ) about the Lord’s things, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious (μεριμνᾷ) about worldly things, how to please his wife, and he is divided. And the unmarried and chaste woman is concerned (μεριμνᾷ) about the Lord’s things, so that she is consecrated both in body and in spirit. But the married woman is anxious (μεριμνᾷ) about worldly things, how to please her husband.

This translation, however, is theologically freighted and problematic on exegetical grounds, and leads to a skewed interpretation of these verses in terms of avoiding anxiety, as I have argued elsewhere. ²⁵ Here Paul instead characterizes the married man or woman as one who ‘devotes care to what belongs to the world (τὰ τοῦ κόσμου)’ – referring to fulfilling, rightly, spousal obligations – in contrast to the unmarried man or woman, who ‘devotes care to what belongs to the Lord (τὰ τοῦ κυρίου)’. The married person is not troubled with anxiety but ‘divided’ (7.34), obligated to pursue two good objectives at once: serving a spouse and serving the Lord. But since marriage and spouses are transitory, in that they belong to this world only, whose ‘form is passing away’ (7.31b), it is better to be undivided in the pursuit of serving the Lord. This is the ‘benefit’ which Paul wants to bestow on the Corinthians through his advice to remain unmarried (7.35: ‘this I say for your own benefit [τὸ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν σύμφορον]’). There is no reason to construe the benefit as being spared ‘troubles in this life’ (pace Ciampa and Rosner 2010: 354).

Unlike Epistle of Diogenes 47 and similar texts, 1 Cor. 7 contains no negative statements about children and parental responsibilities. Rather, Paul points to parents’ roles in the salvation of children: ‘Your children are consecrated (ἅγια)’ (7.14). Nor do we find any negative statements about spousal obligations, even in a mixed marriage. Instead, Paul refers positively to the attempt to ‘serve his wife’ or ‘serve her husband’ (7.33-34; cf. 7.2-5) and highlights the positive role of the Christ-believing spouse toward the unbelieving spouse in a mixed marriage: ‘The unbelieving husband is consecrated (ἡγίασται) by his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated (ἡγίασται) by the brother’ (7.14); ‘How do you know, wife, whether you will save (σώσεις) your husband, or how do you know, husband, whether you will save (σώσεις) your wife?’ (7.16).

Paul thus gives no indication of agreeing with the view that marriage is characterized by everyday troubles and hardships, and is thus best avoided. Whether or not the Corinthians themselves subscribed to such a view, and Paul tries to disabuse them of it, is a matter for speculation.

Affliction for the Married in a Crisis/the Tribulation?

A great many scholars think that Paul wants to spare the Corinthians not affliction generally associated with marriage, but affliction which the married will have in a crisis, either a temporary crisis or the eschatological crisis itself. This suggestion does not depend on the grim view of marriage for which there is no clear evidence in 1 Cor. 7 (or elsewhere in Paul). Rather, it depends on (1) 7.26 as referring to a crisis of some sort that leads to affliction for the married, or (2) apocalyptic parallels on the affliction of the married, or (3) both of these.

In 7.26 Paul states:

I think this (τοῦτο) to be advantageous (καλόν ²⁶ διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην): it is advantageous for a person to be so (ὅτι καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι; 1 Cor. 7.26).

The key phrase, διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην, can be translated, ‘on account of the present pressure’, ²⁷ and taken to refer to a temporary crisis, either famine conditions (Winter ²⁸ ) or ‘some immediate economic or political crisis’ (Deming 2004: 174-83), which makes it difficult to fulfill marital obligations, such as feeding a family, and thus leads to ‘trouble in earthly life’ (see also Blue 1991: 221-39; Lindemann 2000: 177; Rosner 1999 [1994]: 162-63). Ciampa and Rosner conclude that, in Paul’s view, ‘the unusually difficult circumstances in Corinth mean that staying single is advisable, at least for the time being’ (2010: 337, 342). Deming similarly describes 7.26 as Paul’s ‘argument against marriage by reason of adverse circumstances’ and insists that celibacy is merely an ‘interim ethic’. Once the crisis blows over, Paul will again advise marriage. Marriage is the norm.

This interpretation, however, is vulnerable to criticism. First, there is no compelling evidence for famine conditions or another temporary crisis affecting the Corinthians at the time of writing. Second, Paul’s main reason for preferring celibacy, namely, in order to serve the Lord without distraction (7.32-35), hardly suggests an interim ethic of celibacy. Third, nor is this suggested by Paul’s own example, to which he explicitly appeals in 7.7-8, and to which the Corinthians themselves appealed, according to some interpreters (Hurd 1965: 167). Fourth, it is difficult to find evidence for a norm of marriage in Paul (pace Barrett 1968: 177). 1 Corinthians 11.7-9 does not necessarily imply that marriage is the norm (pace Garland 2003: 242). The closest we come to such a norm is Paul’s command in 1 Thess. 4.4, εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι, which may mean either, ‘to know how to obtain your own wife (lit. “vessel”)’ (so Yarbrough 1985: 7-29) or ‘to know how to control your own male sex organ (lit. “vessel”)’. In any case, the point is ‘to abstain from sexual immorality’ (1 Thess. 4.3).

The key phrase, διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην, in 7.26 can also be translated, ‘on account of the present (or: impending ²⁹ ) distress ³⁰ ’, and taken as a reference to the expected eschatological crisis. The eschatological references in 7.29a, 31b – ‘the fixed time is shortened … the form of this world is passing away’ – support such an eschatological reference in 7.26. Hans Conzelmann concludes that 7.26 ‘at last explicitly affords the long-awaited eschatological grounding [for celibacy]’ (1976: 132). He also avers: ‘θλῖψις, “trouble” [in 7.28], is synonymous with ἀνάγκη [in 7.26]’ (1976: 132 nn. 13, 14). ³¹ Taken together, these verses suggest that Paul expects affliction for the married in the eschatological crisis, which is a practical reason for the Corinthians not to marry. ³²

But this interpretation is also vulnerable to criticism. For it is not clear that in 7.26 Paul is giving advice to prefer celibacy. As Conzelmann himself notes, the syntax is difficult: ³³

Does τοῦτο, ‘this,’ point backwards or forwards, scil. to the conjunction ὅτι, ‘that…’? … The unclarity exists also in the ὅτι-clause. Does οὕτως εἶναι mean ‘remain as one is’ or ‘remain as I am, or as the virgins are’? (1976: 132). ³⁴

‘This’ (τοῦτο) may refer back to 7.25, ‘now concerning the virgins’, or to 7.7, ‘I want all people to be even as I am’, i.e., celibate/endowed with a ‘gift from God’. If so, Paul is saying that ‘this’, namely, being a virgin or unmarried, is ‘good’ or ‘useful’ ‘on account of the present/impending distress’. Then in the ὅτι-clause he spells out what is ‘good/useful’ as ‘being so’ (τὸ οὕτως εἶναι), namely, ‘being a virgin’ or ‘being unmarried’ or having a ‘gift’ for celibacy. ³⁵ The reason why being a virgin is expedient due to the eschatological crisis is that – as suggested in 7.28 – virgins will not have as much affliction as the married.

The alternative is to take ‘this’ (τοῦτο) to refer to one or all of the preceding exhortations in 7.17, 20, 24 to remain in the state in which one was called: ‘Each as God has called, so let her walk … each in the calling in which she was called, in that [calling] let her remain … each in [the state in which] she was called, brothers and sisters, in this [state] let her remain, before God’. In that case, Paul is saying that ‘this’, namely, remaining in one’s present calling/state, being so or as one is, is ‘good’ or ‘useful’ ‘on account of the present/impending distress’. Then in the ὅτι-clause he spells out what is ‘good/useful’ as ‘being so’ (τὸ οὕτως εἶναι), namely, remaining as one is, without any preference for one state over the other on the ground of ‘the present/impending distress’. This alternative seems preferable for several reasons. First, the article in τὸ οὕτως εἶναι (‘being so’) in 7.26 is probably anaphoric, referring back to 7.17, οὕτως περιπατείτω (‘let him/her walk so!’; with Fitzmyer 2008: 315), which links 7.26 syntactically with the argument in 7.14-24 to ‘remain before God in this [state] in which one was called’. As Jean Héring explains, ‘since the maxim of 7:20 [“in the calling in which each was called let him/her remain!”] may have been lost sight of the author repeats it [in 7.26]: “I mean, that it is advisable not to change the state in which one finds oneself”’ (1962: 57). Second, taking 7.26 as an echo of the exhortations of 7.17-24 avoids an interruption in the argument of 7.17-27. For in 7.27 Paul brings the argument for remaining as one is to a climax: ‘Are you bound to a woman/wife? Do not seek release. Are you released ³⁶ from a woman/ wife? Do not seek a woman/wife’ (cf. Klauck 1984: 55). There is no preference for celibacy here. Third, the asyndeton at 7.27 supports taking this verse as spelling out the maxim in 7.26 on remaining as one is. Fourth, since Paul’s argument for ‘remaining so’ runs throughout the chapter (see also 7.8, 40) and is not a digression (with Fee 1987: 268-69, 333; Yarbrough 1985: 94; Rosner 1999 [1994]: 147; Wimbush 1987: 16), there is no reason simply to assume that Paul’s advice in 7.26 concerns a preference for celibacy.

Thus, with Schrage, it is better to paraphrase 7.26 as follows: ‘This [remaining as one is] is καλόν, to be precise, on account of the present ἀνάγκη …’ (Schrage 1995: II, 157; my translation; cf. Yarbrough 1985: 102 et al.). ³⁷ Paul leaves unexplained why it is better to remain in one’s current state on account of the present/impending distress (but he has given other arguments for remaining as one is in 7.17b, 19, 22, 23). Is it because the ‘shortened’ time remaining before the end augurs against such change? ³⁸

In conclusion, since 7.26 is not (or not clearly) advice to prefer celibacy ‘on account of the present/impending distress’, but rather advice to remain as one is for this reason, this verse should not be conflated with 7.28 in the sense that the married will have affliction in the present or impending ‘distress’ or tribulation, such that it is expedient not to marry.

Apocalyptic Parallels on Affliction for Procreators in the Coming Days

An apocalyptic topos on the afflictions of the married is frequently cited in support of the prevailing interpretation of 7.28. According to Hans-Josef Klauck, this verse reflects ‘an established Lehrtopos of Jewish apocalyptic’ that ‘the married will have double the tribulations in the end-time’ (Klauck 1984: 55, my translation; similarly, Schrage 1995: II, 159-60 with n. 621, et al.). Examples are Mk 13.17 [Mt. 24.19; Lk. 21.23]; Lk. 23.27-30; 1 En. 99.5; 2 Bar. 10.13-16; 4 Ezra 5.8; 6.12; Apoc. El. 2.35-38. When one takes a closer look at these texts, however, one sees that they refer almost exclusively to childbearing and nursing women as objects of woe, that is, to only some of the married as doomed to affliction in the last days. Is this mismatch between the apocalyptic parallels and the seemingly broader focus of Paul on the married per se, however, mitigated by Roy Ciampa’s and Brian Rosner’s comment that ‘in the absence of effective contraception in the ancient world, marriage inevitably led to having children’ (2010: 335)? ³⁹ That is, does Paul assume that those who do marry will have children and thus that all of the married will have (eschatological) affliction in earthly life? In the following, I will argue against this view and propose a different interpretation of 7.28 on the basis of the apocalyptic parallels.

In Mk 13.14-20 Jesus says to his disciples:

And when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be … then let those in Judea flee to the mountains! Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak! Woe to women who are pregnant and who are nursing infants in those days (οὐαὶ δὲ ταῖς ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσαις καὶ ταῖς θηλαζούσαις ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις)! Pray that it may not happen in winter! For in those days there will be affliction (θλῖψις) such as there has not been from the beginning of creation, which God created, until now, and never will be. And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would have been saved (parr. Mt. 24.19-22; Lk. 21.23-24).

Jesus’ pronouncement of ‘woe to women who are pregnant and who are nursing infants in those days’ reverses their present status as ‘blessed’. ⁴⁰ The immediate context suggests a logical explanation for this reversal: Jesus says to flee to the mountains without delay when the telltale sign of the destruction appears in the city, ⁴¹ but this will be hard or impossible for pregnant and nursing women (Marcus 2009: 895-96). Likewise, this will be hard for any and all in heavy weather, thus explaining Jesus’ admonition to ‘pray that it may not happen in winter’. Sudden death will be inevitable for those who cannot flee. Assuming this logic, there is no reason to suspect that the married in general will endure more suffering than others in the coming days. It is only the married pregnant or nursing woman who will be subjected to such suffering.

The same is clearly implied in 1 En. 99.5, where ‘those who are in need’ (because they are pregnant or nursing infants at the time of the apocalyptic crisis) will abort or expose their offspring (both of which were methods of birth control or family planning in antiquity) in order to escape the vulnerability to suffering that comes with these:

And in those days those who are in need will go out, seize their children and cast out their children. And their offspring will slip from them, and they will cast out their children while they are still sucklings, and will not return to them, and will not have mercy on their beloved ones (1 En. 99.5).

Since abortion and exposure of infants were abhorrent to Jews, these women are ‘sinners’ in the apocalypticist’s view (1 En. 99.3-4); ⁴² no sympathy is expressed for them in their unenviable state. The salient point for our purposes here, however, is that procreation, not marriage, is associated with suffering in the coming days, and that procreation can be avoided, though here not by acceptable methods, in order to escape such suffering.

In Lk. 23.27-30 we encounter a similar expectation that women with children will die in the coming days, which is here paired with the expectation that barren women will be fortunate in the coming days. Or in other words, there will be an eschatological reversal of the fecund and the barren woman. On his way to Golgotha, Jesus says to the women who are mourning him in anticipation of his untimely death:

Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and your children! For, behold, the days are coming in which they will say: ‘Fortunate are the barren and the wombs which did not give birth and the breasts which did not suckle.’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’ (Lk. 23.27-30).

Jesus is speaking to mothers, for he refers to ‘your children’. His admonition to ‘weep not for me, but … for yourselves’ presupposes their present blessedness as mothers, as well as pointing to their future doom as mothers. It is precisely because they are pregnant, nurse infants and have children that they will be hindered in fleeing the city when the telltale sign of the distress comes. Jesus’ instructions to flee hastily, which appear in Lk. 21.20-24, are presupposed here, as suggested by the statements ‘then they will begin to say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!”’. That is, those who encounter obstacles when attempting to flee and are trapped in the city, in particular, the mothers, will try to ‘move mountains’ in order to save themselves and their children. ⁴³ Being unable to do so, ‘they will say: “Fortunate are the barren, the wombs which have not given birth and the breasts which have not suckled” (αἱ στεῖραι καὶ αἱ κοιλίαι αἳ οὐκ ἐγέννησαν καὶ μαστοὶ οἳ οὐκ ἔθρεψαν)’. The very physical state of barrenness – as stressed by the double synecdoche – which is now a reason to be sad and disgraced will morph into a reason to be glad and exalted, namely, when it comes time to flee for one’s life. The curse of barrenness will be reversed. ⁴⁴

By distinguishing in this way between mothers with children, on the one hand, and the barren without children, on the other, Lk. 23.27-30 surely points to the expectation that only some of the married, namely, fecund women, will suffer and die in the coming days and be objects of woe. Others, the barren, will escape the worst fate and be considered fortunate. This implies that only if accompanied by procreation will marriage lead to eschatological affliction, but not otherwise.

2 Baruch takes this one step farther and calls for the abandonment of procreation in the time of the destruction so as to avoid the suffering expected for procreators. This apocalyptic writing, probably composed soon after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce, ⁴⁵ reflects on the suffering of the Jews in that crisis, and formulates a response to it. In 2 Bar. 10.9-16 the apocalypticist calls the entire creation to mourn instead of continuing to produce and reproduce: ‘Wake up and prepare yourselves for mourning, and take up the dirges with me, and mourn with me …’ (10.9). The farmers are to stop producing food. The sun is to stop giving light. The vineyards are to stop supplying the fruit of the vine. And so on. For this labor is now futile. The fruits of one’s labor can no longer be brought to the Temple and offered to God. For the Temple has been destroyed.

So also the bridegrooms and the brides are to stop trying to reproduce, which has become both futile and counterproductive:

And you, bridegrooms, do not enter, and do not let the brides adorn themselves with garlands. And you, women, do not pray to bear children. For the barren will rejoice above all, and those who have no sons will be glad, and those who have sons will mourn. For why should they give birth in pain, only to bury in grief? Or why should men have sons again? Or why should the seed of their kind be named again, where this mother is desolate, and her sons are taken into captivity? (2 Bar. 10.13-16).

No longer will procreation result in joy over a newborn child that replaces the intense ‘pain’ endured in childbirth (cf. Jn 16.21 passim) as a result of the punishment for sin (cf. Gen. 3.16). No longer will sons be a source of blessing and hope to mothers and fathers. Rather, for one’s ‘labor’ in producing offspring, one will be ‘rewarded’ with grief and desolation. When children are killed or taken captive, a mother will ‘bury in grief’ and be left ‘desolate’. ⁴⁶ A father will lose an heir. It is the barren who will rejoice, namely, over having no sons, having escaped a double dose of pain and suffering.

In the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem, procreation as the goal of the married and the means of obtaining blessing and honor appears manifestly false, just as other, central obligations in the life of the people of God have simply lost their purpose and meaning, under the new circumstances. Thus, despite the fact that marriage is not one of those obligations to be abandoned, pace Deming, ⁴⁷ its central purpose, viz., procreation, is to be abandoned as futile and counterproductive: ‘Do not enter … do not let the brides adorn themselves … do not pray to bear children’. Whether this applies only to the period of mourning and seeking God’s mercy is not stated, but perhaps implied. ⁴⁸

In conclusion, the notion of an apocalyptic topos on the married as having to suffer twice as much in the last days is false and misleading. For it is only fecund women (childbearing, nursing women and mothers) and fathers among the married who are expected to suffer, whether because they will be unable to flee to safety and will die, or because they will see their children die or be taken captive and will have to endure grief and desolation as a result. By contrast, the barren and childless among the married will be considered fortunate and will rejoice for having escaped these afflictions of the procreators. For this reason, some of the married will try to avoid procreation, even by means which were rejected by Jews as incompatible with God’s will. And in 2 Baruch the married are instructed not to try to procreate, implying the abandonment of procreative sex (though not necessarily of non-procreative sex).

In the light of an apocalyptic topos on the procreators as just described I will suggest a new interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.28.

A New Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7.28

Verse 28 is composed of two parallel conditional sentences followed by two contrasting independent clauses:

ἐὰν δὲ καὶ γαμήσῃς, οὐχ ἥμαρτες (7.28a-b)

καὶ ἐὰν γήμῃ ἡ παρθένος, οὐχ ἥμαρτεν (7.28c-d)

θλῖψιν δὲ τῇ σαρκὶ ἕξουσιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι (7.28e)

ἐγὼ δὲ ὑμῶν φείδομαι (7.28f)

But if you should marry, you will not have sinned,

and if the virgin should marry, she will not have sinned.

But the ones like these will have affliction in earthly existence.

But I am sparing you.

Scholars have assumed that ‘the ones like these’ (οἱ τοιοῦτοι), who ‘will have affliction in earthly life’ (7.28e), are the same as the persons addressed in the preceding conditional sentences, namely, ‘you’ or ‘the virgin’ whom Paul allows to marry (7.28a-d). After ruling out that marrying results in sin, Paul goes on to rule in that marrying results in affliction. For example, Schrage comments: ‘V. 28e announces in the future θλῖψις δὲ τῇ σαρκί for the married (οἱ τοιοῦτοι)’ (1995: II, 154, my translation). ⁴⁹ The reason not to marry is thus to avoid affliction – not to avoid sin (in contrast to the Corinthians’ view, apparently). Thus Paul can insist that by advising them not to marry he is not putting a restrictive ‘yoke’ (βρόχον) around their necks but helping them: ‘This I say not in order to put a yoke on you but for your own benefit’ (7.35).

But, as seen above, the apocalyptic parallels do not support such a blanket statement about the married as doomed to affliction in the days to come. Nor does Paul’s syntax require us to adopt this interpretation. Verse 28e, ‘but the ones like these will have affliction’, is not an apodosis dependent on the preceding protases, ‘if you should marry (γαμήσῃς)’, and ‘if the virgin should marry (γήμῃ)’, and parallel to the preceding apodoses, ‘you will not have sinned (ἥμαρτες)’ and ‘she will not have sinned (ἥμαρτεν)’. Rather, 7.28e is an independent clause, as indicated by the switch to a third person plural subject (οἱ τοιοῦτοι) and a plural verb (ἕξουσιν). Rather than stating a further result of marrying, then, 7.28e makes a different point, which I suggest can be paraphrased as follows: Nevertheless, some who marry, if they also procreate (in line with the traditional purpose of marriage), will have affliction in earthly life (in accordance with an apocalyptic tradition).

On my view, the switch to a different subject, οἱ τοιοῦτοι, in 7.28e, is significant. It avoids a simple identification of those who will have affliction with the aforementioned virgins who may marry. That is, 7.28e illustrates that, as stated in BDF §304, ὁ τοιοῦτος ‘is weakened here and there to a less definite designation for οὗτος’ (examples cited are 1 Cor. 5.5; 2 Cor. 2.6, 7; 12.2, 3, 5). Here the ‘less definite designation’, viz., ‘the ones like these’, allows for a simple overlap with the virgins who marry, rather than a strict identification. For presumably only if they procreate will they have affliction in the eschatological crisis. In other words, it would have been an overstatement, had Paul written, ‘you will have (ἕξετε) affliction’ or ‘the married (οἱ γεγαμηκότες; 7.10) will have affliction’.

‘But I am sparing you’ can thus be taken to refer, not to Paul’s advice to remain unmarried, but to his silence about procreation as the purpose of marriage. ⁵⁰ Paul requires marriage only ‘if they are not practicing self-control’ (7.9) and ‘if he thinks he has (sexual) shame toward his virgin’ (7.36), so as not ‘to burn’ out of control in sexually immoral behavior (7.9; cf. 7.2). Paul does not require marriage for procreation, or sex for procreation, which sets him apart from both biblical/Jewish tradition and Greco-Roman moral teaching.

Furthermore, he makes an exception to his prohibition of sexual abstinence in marriage: ‘Do not deprive one another, except by agreement for a period fit(πρὸς καιρόν) [for something], in order that you might devote yourselves to prayer, and then be together again’ (7.5). ⁵¹ Πρὸς καιρόν, ‘for a period fit [for something]’, can be construed as ‘for a period fit for conception’. Soranus, Gyn. 1.61 refers to sexual abstinence ‘at periods suitable’ (καιρούς) for conception as a means of birth control:

For if it is much more advantageous not to conceive than to destroy the embryo, one must consequently beware of having sexual intercourse at those periods which we said were suitable for conception

… [ἀναγκαῖον] δεῖ τοίνυν οὓς εἰρήκαμεν ἐπιτηδείους εἶναι καιροὺς πρὸς σύλληψιν φυλάττεσθαι [χρὴ] πρὸς συνουσιασμόν (Soranus, Gyn. 1.61). ⁵²

Philo too uses καιρός in the sense of a ‘fit time’ for conception, although Philo is interested not in avoiding conception but in avoiding non-procreative sex. He considered the latter to be a waste of generative seed, exhibiting excessive passion, which was bad:

Whenever the menstrual issue occurs, a man must not touch a woman, but must during that period (τὸν χρόνον ἐκεῖνον) refrain from intercourse (ὁμιλίας ἀνεχέτω) and respect the law of nature … that the generative seeds should not be wasted fruitlessly for the sake of a gross and untimely (ἀκαίρου) pleasure … Since the fields should become dry before the seed is laid in them … like a good husbandman, he must watch for the right time to arrive (τὸν καιρόν). So while the field is still inundated he will keep back the seed, which otherwise will be silently swept away by the stream … but if the menstruation ceases, he may boldly sow the generative seeds, no longer fearing that what he lays will perish (Spec. Leg. 3.32-33). ⁵³

Just like Soranus and Philo, Paul, I suggest, in 7.5 refers to ‘the fit time’ or ‘the right time’ to abstain from sex, in the light of the likelihood of conception. In Paul’s view, abstaining from sex at the fit time, when conception was likely, was allowed as a means of avoiding conception, leading to procreation, leading to affliction in the eschatological crisis (which Paul thought was imminent, cf. 7.26, 29a). Thus, despite requiring the Corinthians to have sex in marriage, he allows them to abstain from sex in order to avoid conception. This is how he ‘spares you’, even if the Corinthians marry, which he advises is inexpedient.

This suggestion also explains why Paul adds that sexual abstinence in marriage is to be ‘by agreement (ἐκ συμφώνου)’ (7.5). For how else would a married couple determine the ‘suitable period’ to abstain from sex in order not to conceive? This suggestion also explains why Paul omits to mention for how long sexual abstinence is allowed, in contrast to some rabbinic texts which permit husbands to abstain from sex for the purpose of studying the Law for set periods (see, further, Schrage 1995: II, 67-68, who notes the differences from 1 Cor. 7.5).

While Ciampa and Rosner simply assume ‘the absence of effective contraception in the ancient world’ and thus that ‘marriage inevitably led to having children’, Paul and Soranus apparently did not. Further, as Keith Hopkins has shown in his discussion of contraception in the Roman Empire, the Romans kept their families small by both the will to do so and the knowledge and use of contraceptive methods and birth control (1956: 134, 140). Hopkins concludes that ‘the effect [of a number of ancient methods of contraception] upon [Roman aristocrats’] fertility would have been considerable … it would … be rash to claim that the effect of contraception on Roman family limitation was negligible’ (1956: 135, 142).

If it is correct that Paul spares the Corinthians by not requiring them to marry and have sex in order to procreate, and by permitting sexual abstinence during periods fitting for conception, why then does Paul not explicitly say so? Why does he instead identify the purpose of temporary sexual abstinence in 7.5 as ‘in order to devote yourselves to prayer’ (ἵνα σχολάσητε τῇ προσευχῇ)? ⁵⁴ Why not also ‘in order to avoid conception’?

Was it too politically and socially risky to advocate contraception openly? The earliest evidence for the use of contraceptives in the Roman Empire is condemnatory. Musonius Rufus states, probably referring to the Augustan legislation on marriage and procreation:

The rulers forbade women … to use contraceptives on themselves and to prevent pregnancy; finally they established honours for both men and women who had many children and made childlessness punishable. ⁵⁵

Even though this regulation would have only been relevant to the social elite, and thus only to a minority of the Corinthian Christ-believers, Paul may have thought it best to omit a socially and politically controversial reference to sexual abstinence for the purpose of contraception, in order to avoid ‘raising Cain’. ⁵⁶

Further, ‘in order to devote yourselves to prayer’ parallels 2 Baruch’s admonition to ‘mourn’ and ‘not pray to bear children’ (10.9-16). That is, for the Corinthians as well extraordinary times called for devoting themselves to seeking God’s mercy rather than devoting themselves to procreation. ⁵⁷

Conclusion

I have argued that the prevailing interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.28 as pointing to a practical reason not to marry (avoiding affliction) is problematic and without persuasive support. It is not supported by 7.26, which is best construed as advice to remain as one is, whether married or unmarried. It is not supported by the apocalyptic parallels, which do not depict the married per se as examples of the eschatological woes, but only the procreators. The barren or the childless, not the unmarried, avoid affliction in the ‘distress’. The immediate context does not support a parallel with Hellenistic texts that portray the married as beset with troubles and regret for having married. The scholarly consensus that Paul prefers celibacy ‘to promote what is constantly in service to the Lord without distraction’, which implies more affliction for the unmarried, goes against the prevailing interpretation of 7.28. So also does Paul’s explicit appeal to his own example, since he was the suffering apostle par excellence. Paul thus advises the Corinthians not to marry despite expecting them to have more affliction as a result of being more devoted to the Lord’s service in the crosshairs of the end-times. Yet Paul has sympathy for childbearing and nursing women, and parents in general, who will have great affliction in the coming days. So he spares those who marry by omitting procreation as the purpose of marriage and sex and by defining their purpose rather as avoiding sexual immorality. Further, he spares the married by permitting sexual abstinence at times when conception is likely. If my interpretation is found to be persuasive, the real significance of 1 Cor. 7.28 lies in its implications for Paul’s views on procreation and (in connection with 7.5b) contraception – implications which have lain dormant for centuries as interpreters have feuded over whether Paul advocates a moral or spiritual ideal of sexual asceticism in 1 Cor. 7.