To Give or Not to Give

1 Corinthians 7:36–38 AV

But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

According to the twenty-fifth verse of the chapter we’re currently studying, the second subject that the Corinthians asked Paul to address was virgins and whether or not they should marry. Today’s text focuses on a particular issue. In fact, most commentators believe that the grammar of verse 36 suggests that Paul had a specific situation in mind.

The basic circumstances that Paul described are easy enough to understand. A man in the church at Corinth had a virgin who was past the flower of youth. Not too long ago, she might have been called a spinster. Today we would say that she was beyond her prime. The man, however, didn’t know what to do with her. Should she get married or should she stay single? Paul’s response, if I may put it as briefly as possible, was, “That depends.” He defined the circumstances in which she should marry in verse 36, and the circumstances in which she should not marry in verse 37. In verse 38 he concludes by reaffirming the position that he had already stated several times, viz., that while marrying is good, not marrying is even better. But remember that this advice was still based on the fact that the Corinthians were going through a very difficult time, perhaps a period of persecution.

Although the basic picture is obvious, the details are not. So, let’s see if we can put it all together this evening.

Three Interpretations

Until recently — by which I mean within the last century or so — one interpretation of our text prevailed almost without question. But since then two new interpretations have come along. These new interpretations have found their way into most commentaries and new translations of the Bible. Because of this, I think it’s important to explain what these views are before returning to the tried and true.

One of the new interpretations is that this evening’s text is about a phenomenon that some call “spiritual marriage.” If you’re not familiar with the term, it means that a man and a woman are married spiritually but not physically. That is, they live together in the same house, but they do not engage in physical intimacy. So, the interpretation of our text would go something like this: the man and the woman tried spiritual marriage, but at some point they realized that one or both of them did not have the gift of abstinence. So, Paul advised them to marry. However, there may be other spiritually married couples that are better able to control themselves. In those cases Paul wrote that it was fine for them to remain as they are.

My opinion of this interpretation is that it is not even worthy of serious consideration. For one thing, it’s anachronistic. There is simply no evidence to suggest that spiritual marriage was practiced in the church in the mid-first century. For another, it’s based on the notion that the improper behavior mentioned in verse 36 is sexual sin. This doesn’t seem to be the case. It’s hard to believe that Paul would not have expressed greater indignation if it were. Earlier in this very letter he told the Corinthians not to keep company with fornicators (ch. 5:9–11). He explained that unrepentant fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God (ch. 6:9). And he added that the nature of fornication drives a wedge into a believer’s walk with the Lord (ch. 6:13). Paul’s conclusion then is, Flee fornication (ch. 6:18). But here there’s no outrage or call for repentance. He just left it up to the man to decide what to do.

Sexual sin is not something to play with it. It cannot and should not be managed. It must be ended. But that’s not what Paul wrote.

The second of the new interpretations claims that this passage is about betrothed couples who, because of the present distress, had decided not to marry, but were overcome by their own desires. Paul counseled them to marry. Again, this may not be case with other engaged couples who are better able to control their desires. Those who can control themselves should hold off getting married until the present distress has ended.

This view also assumes that the improper behavior of verse 36 is sexual sin, and is thus subject to the same criticism as the previous view. It also puzzles me why, if sexual were in view, that Paul would say, “If any man thinks he has committed it.” Wouldn’t a person who has committed sexual sin know that he had done so? Further, this interpretation also requires several words and phrases to be redefined. The word virgin (παρθένον), for example, which is the same word used to describe our Lord’s mother before she brought him forth and laid him in a manger, becomes “maiden” or “his betrothed.” Thus, it completely loses its specific meaning. Likewise, the idea of the woman being past the flower of her age becomes “if the man’s passions are strong.” And again, in verse 38 the verb translated giveth … in marriage (ἑκγαμίζων), which literally means “ to cause to marry,” becomes simply “marries.” The idea of the man giving the virgin in marriage disappears.

In my opinion, any interpretation of Scripture that requires us to twist the natural meaning of the words in an unnatural way must be suspect from the start. And that’s why I reject both of these newer interpretations.

Yet, I have one other criticism of second interpretation that I think makes it completely unacceptable, and it’s this: it interprets the text from the perspective of modern American culture and practice, not the practices of the first century. It assumes that men and women just get together and decide to get married all on their own without any input from their families. This was not how marriages came about in the first century, either in Jewish or Roman culture.

This takes us to the third interpretation — the one that was pretty much universal until a century ago. Now, to be perfectly honest, this view is not completely without problems. However, its problems are fewer and easier to answer. In interpreting Scripture it’s usually a good idea to choose the interpretation that promises more answers rather than less.

So, what is the third interpretation? It is this: that our text concerns the relationship between a father and his unmarried, virgin daughter. The father wanted to know whether he should give his daughter in marriage or not? Paul answered his question. Let’s see what he said.

A Virgin Daughter

It’s obvious in verse 36 that the father in question thought that he might have behaved improperly toward his virgin daughter. But what was his improper behavior?

One of the reasons why many modern commentators assume that the behavior Paul had in mind was sexual is that the word used here can mean that. In fact, a related word is used in chapter 12 to designate a person’s private parts (v. 23), and another denotes homosexual activity in the book of Romans (ch. 1:27). But it doesn’t have to mean sexual misbehavior. Literally, it refers to anything that deviates from a standard form. It describes any kind of behavior that would be considered nonstandard or inappropriate. In 1 Corinthians 13, the famous “love chapter,” the same word is translated as Doth not behave itself unseemly. In other words, true Christian love is not rude.

In our text the father thinks he may have behaved improperly toward his virgin daughter only because he, concerned about the present distress, had not allowed her to marry. Most women have strong nesting and nurturing instincts. They want to have their own homes and their own families. By not allowing his daughter to marry, even though he had a good reason for doing so, this father made her feel like she was standing out on the street completely naked. She may have felt like everyone was staring at her, wondering what was wrong with her that made her unfit for marriage.

But note this: although Paul addressed the father in our text, it does not seem to have been him who pushed this issue. It’s true that he was concerned that he had withheld his daughter beyond her prime, but note that Paul specifically mentioned in verse 36 that there was a necessity of some kind behind his concern. Paul wrote, And need so require. But what could this necessity possibly be? I, along with many other commentators, believe that it was the daughter’s anxiety. She wanted to be married. She realized that her most productive years were slipping away. If she didn’t move forward soon, it would be too late.

The important thing here is that daughter expressed her concerns to her father, and her father took her concerns into consideration as he tried to figure out what to do.

Too often the idea of Biblical courtship is caricatured as if it were just a baptized version of arranged marriage. In many cultures parents seek out suitable spouses for their children even before their children are old enough to know what marriage is. That’s not what we see here. The father is not taking it entirely upon himself to give his daughter in marriage. He’s doing it because his daughter has convinced him that that’s what she needs. She understands the danger of starting a family in a time of distress or persecution, but she wants the opportunity to do so anyway. Her father agrees.

Apparently, the only thing that had prevented the father from giving his daughter in marriage up to this point is whether it would be sin to do so. Paul answered this for him at the end of verse 36: Let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. It wasn’t sin because Paul had never forbidden the Corinthians to marry. He had only stated his sanctified opinion that marriage was ill-advised under the present circumstances. Therefore, the daughter’s spiritual welfare (relieving her anxiety and allowing her to fulfill her calling in marriage) must take precedence to her physical welfare (the possibility of suffering for the gospel).

Paul addressed a different set of circumstances in verse 37. In this scenario, the father stood stedfast in his heart. That is, he had decided that he would continue to guard his daughter’s virginity and not give her away in marriage for the time being. But note also that in this instance there was no necessity. His daughter was not concerned that she had passed her prime, that her life was slipping by without so much as a “How do you do?” To the contrary, she fully embraced her father’s wisdom. She was content to wait.

You can see Paul’s assessment of this situation in the last two words of the verse. He wrote that this man, just like the man who wanted his daughter to marry, doeth well. There’s no sin in giving in marriage, and there’s no sin in withholding marriage, as long as the father takes his daughter’s wishes and concerns into account.

The Father

This takes us to verse 38, which is a conclusion to the whole discussion. In it Paul reaffirmed his earlier advice: during the present distress, the man who gives his daughter in marriage does well, but the man who does not give her in marriage does even better. It’s just a matter of practical wisdom.

But that’s not the only point that can and should be made here. Throughout this passage and particularly in this verse, it has been assumed that the father has authority over his unmarried daughter. It’s not a tyrannical authority that allows him to do whatever he wants regardless of his daughter’s wishes or needs, but a loving authority that invites her to participate in the decision. But it is authority nonetheless.

I want you to consider this in two ways with me.

First, note that in our text Paul twice referred to the daughter as his virgin, i.e., the father’s virgin. In fact, the pronoun in verse 37 (ἑαυτοῦ) is slightly emphatic. Some translations and commentators render it “his own virgin.” I’m not suggesting by this that the father owns his daughter. That notion should be as repugnant to believers as the idea that white cotton farmers could own African slaves. But it does indicate clearly that the father has a unique and special relationship toward his unmarried daughters. They are his in a special sense.

Second, we learn what that authority is in verse 38. It’s the authority to give his daughter in marriage. As I said before, the verbs in this verse are causative: the father causes his daughter to be married. He gives her to her husband.

This verse, among others, is the basis for two customs that once prevailed in our culture but are quickly disappearing. One is the practice of young men asking his sweetheart’s father for her hand in marriage. The other occurs in the wedding service. When the minister asks, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?” it’s becoming more common for the father to say, “Her mother and I do” or “Her family and I do.” The correct answer is, “I do.” The father gives his daughter in marriage.

Why is this important? Because marriage illustrates the relationship between Christ and his church. God the Father gave the church to his Son. He had promised him a church in the eternal Covenant of Redemption; and when the Son finished his work, the Father kept his Word. If we want our marriages to display the great love of Jesus, they have to display that love from beginning to end, starting with a recognition of a father’s authority over his daughters.

Now, as we wrap up this discussion today, there’s one more point that should be made. Our text speaks about the relationship between fathers and daughters in regard to marriage. But what about sons? Does a father relate to his unmarried sons the same way he relates to his unmarried daughters?

Two stories in the Bible might seem to suggest that the relationship is the same. In Genesis 24 Abraham was concerned that Isaac had not taken a wife, so he sent his servant to find one for him. Abraham gave his servant very specific instructions about what to look for, and the servant showed tremendous wisdom and faith as he fulfilled his mission. Later, when he returned with Rebekah, Isaac took her into his mother’s tent and she became his wife. And in Judges 14 Samson, having become infatuated with a Philistine woman, asked his parents to get her for him.

Even so, there are other passages that make it clear that there is a difference between a son’s relationship to his father and a daughter’s. Nowhere is this spelled out more clearly than in Genesis 2:24. Moses wrote, Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. A man must leave his father’s home before he takes a wife. That is, he must come out from under his father’s authority in order to establish his own home. Because he is to be the head of his new family, he must take the initiative. But a daughter remains under her father’s authority until her father gives her in marriage. At that time she comes under the authority of her new husband.

So, was Abraham wrong to have sent his servant in search of a bride for his son? Was Samson wrong to have asked his parents to assist him in securing a wife? Of course not. A good father will continue to advise his sons about marriage. He will do whatever is appropriate to help them fulfill their calling. And although sons must leave their father’s home, they never cease to be their father’s sons.

Although the relationship is different, the goal is the same. The father of an unmarried women helps her serve the Lord to her fullest, and the father of an unmarried man helps him serve the Lord to his fullest. Doesn’t this remind us of God’s love for us? He was so intent on securing our salvation and fellowship that he sent his only Son to bear our punishment, to die under a sentence of condemnation, so that we wouldn’t have to. And by this great act of love he brought us into his family and assures us that he’ll fellowship with us forever.

Marriage is a precious gift. Everyday it reminds us of the gospel message. Let us hear its glorious proclamation! Amen.