"But if you can gain your freedom" (1 Corinthians 7:17-24)

GREGORY W. DAWES
St Francis Xavier Parish Dunedin New Zealand

I. Introduction
AMONG THE VARIOUS TOPICS dealt with by the writers of the NT, there are some which have remained of vital interest to the men and women of every age. And certainly to be counted among these is the NT's treatment of sexuality, marriage, and celibacy, which is to be found at its most fully developed in 1 Corinthians 7. From earliest times 1 Corinthians 7 has not lacked commentators. And in recent years Paul's views on marriage and celibacy have been frequently examined, from a variety of points of view. Very often the chapter has been considered against the background of the problems in the church of Corinth.1 The apostle's thinking has been compared with Greek and Roman (and especially Stoic) beliefs2 and has been contrasted with the attitude of the rabbis.3 His argumentation has been compared to that of the Jewish apocalyptic writers4 and has been studied for its contribution to the development

1 See, e.g., H. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (MeyerK 5; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 31-35; . Baumert, Ehelosigkeit und Ehe im Herrn: eine Neuinterpretation von 1 Kor 7 (FB 47; Wrzburg: Echter V, 1984) 18-19. 2 See, e.g., O. L. Yarbrough, Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of St. Paul (SBLDS 80; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985) 107-8; W. Schrge, "Die Stellung zur Welt bei Paulus, Epiktet und in der Apokalyptik," ZTK 61 (1964) 133-38. 3 See, e.g., Yarbrough, Not Like the Gentiles, 107. 4 See, e.g., Schrge, "Die Stellung," 147-54.

681

682 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 52, 1990 of Christian thought in general.5 Not even the archaeological evidence from Corinth has escaped the attention of modern commentators.6 And yet the results of all this study cannot be said to be entirely satis factory. If commentators are interested in the situation being addressed in Corinth, then for the most part they must reconstruct this from a careful reading of the letter. And if they are interested in comparing Paul's thinking with that of his contemporaries, then they must have at least a provisional idea of just what it is the apostle is saying. In fact, however, many seem to be baffled by the nature (and by the subtlety) of the argumentation found in 1 Corinthians 7. Regarding the first seven verses, for example, one writer says: It is a curious passage. On the one hand, Paul is evidently anxious to safeguard the permanence and even to assert the positive value and obligations of the married state; on the other hand, he is equally anxious to assure the Corinthian ascetics that at heart he stands with them and deprecates marriage.7 The same author claims that Paul "lays himself open to some misunder standing" by not directly challenging the Corinthians' ascetic ideals: in this way (we are told) he made it possible for what he said to be misused by later writers.8 One wonders whether the apostle's thinking is really so "curious" and whether he would have willingly "laid himself open to misunderstanding." But only a careful study of Paul's argumentation will answer these questions: it is as a contribution to such a study that this paper is intended. Within chap. 7 that which seems to be particularly puzzling to com mentators is the role of w 17-24, which deal with circumcision and slavery.9
5 See, e.g., H. Preisker, Christentum und Ehe in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten: eine Studie zur Kulturgeschichte der alten Welt (Berlin: Trowitsch und Sohn, 1927; repr. Aalen: Scientia, 1979) 124-43. 6 See J. Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Good News Studies 6; Wilmington: Glazier, 1983) 55-57. 7 H. Chadwick, "'All Things to All Men' (1 Cor 9,22)," NTS 1 (1954-55) 265. 8 Ibid., 270. 9 Interestingly it is the modern commentators who seem to be the most puzzled. The ancient commentators were more skillful at relating w 17-24 to the rest of the chapter. The bewilderment of some modern writers is well illustrated by the comment of W. F. Orr and J. A. Walther concerning w 17-24: "This passage appears to be a digression. Perhaps the material is meant as a comment on 'in peace' (v. 15)," and then, concerning 25, simply "Paul resumes the discussion about marriage" (First Corinthians [AB 33; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976] 220). By way of contrast both Origen and Jerome understood immediately that the apostle's concern in w 17-24 was to illustrate the argumentation concerning marriage and celibacy. For Jerome's comments, see PL 30:758; for Origen's, see J. A. Cramer (ed.), Catenae Graecorum Patrum in

1 CORINTHIANS 7:17-24 683 And it is the function of these verses which will be dealt with here: what is their role within the chapter as a whole and how do they help us to under stand Paul's carefully nuanced treatment of marriage and virginity? In exam ining these verses we will also attempt a resolution of the crux interpretum of 21b. Recent studies have drawn attention to the importance of reading Paul's letters in light of the science of rhetoric, which so dominated the education and thinking of the ancient world.10 Modern scholars were not the first to apply what has come to be known as "rhetorical analysis" to the Pauline letters: this had already been done, in a brief but brilliant exposition, by Augustine of Hippo, whose aim was to demonstrate the eloquence of the biblical writers.11 In a few short paragraphs of analysis St. Augustine, him self an ex-teacher of rhetoric, shows a familiarity with the classical tech niques of persuasive speaking which many a modern scholar could envy. Only one of those ancient techniques, however, need concern us here. And that technique was known in the classical world as (in Greek) parekbasis or (in Latin) digression2 not in the rather loose sense in which "digression" is used in modern languages (a "wandering-away" from the main theme), but in the more technical sense to be found, for instance, in the definition of Quintilian (IV 3:14): alienae rei, sed ad utilitatem causae pertinentis, extra ordinem excurrens tractation The difference is clear: what appears to be a "wandering-away" from the main theme is actually ad utilitatem causae pertinens. If the speaker deals with another topic, it is only in order to illustrate or further explain the matter being discussed. What appears at first to be something of a distraction turns out to be in fact part of the argumentation. That Paul, too, uses the technique of digressio in 1 Corinthians was noted as long ago as the commentary of J. Weiss.14 More recently Wuellner has analyzed its use in three passages from the letter.15 However, it seems to
Novum Testamentum (8 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University, 1844) 5. 137-39; reprinted by C. Jenkins in JTS 9 (1907-1908) 500-514. 10 See, e.g., W. Wuellner, "Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans," CBQ 38 (1976) 330. 11 De doctrina Christiana IV 6 (PL 34:89-122). 12 Digressio was also known, variously, as egressio or egressus. See J. C. G. Ernesti, Lexicon technologiae Graecorum rhetoricae (1795; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1983) s. v. parekbasis. 13 Ibid. 14 J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief(MeyeTL 5; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1910) xliii. 15 W. Wuellner, "Greek Rhetoric and Pauline Argumentation," Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition: in honorem Robert M. Grant (ed. W. R. Schoedel and

684 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 52, 1990 me that w 17- 24 of 1 Corinthians have not received sufficient attention as 16 an example of this rhetorical form. In this paper I hope to show that these verses, standing as they do at the very heart of chap. 7, form a carefully balanced illustration of what it is Paul is trying to say about marriage and celibacy. Until their role is understood, we cannot be said to have grasped the true nature of the apostle's thinking on this matter. II. Internal Structure of Verses 17-24 It is necessary first of all, however, to take a close look at these verses themselves. The first feature to strike the attentive reader of w 17-24 is what may be called the recurring refrain, the injunction first found in 17: ei m hekast hs emerisen ho kyrios hekaston hs keklken ho theos houts peripateit. The vocabulary of 17 (hekastos, kaleiri) recurs in w 20 and 24; these verses repeat what has been said in 17, but with slight variations. In 20, for instance, the situation in which the believer finds himself at the time of his conversion (the situation in which he has been "called" [eklthe]) is itself described as a "calling" (klsis). And in both w 20 and 24 the general exhortation to continue to live (literally "walk" [peripatein]) in these cir cumstances has become the more specific command to "remain" (meneiri). The language seems to be becoming more pointed and the command "let him
R. L. Wilken; Thologie historique 53; Paris: Beauchesne, 1979) 177-88. In this paper he studies 1 Cor 1:11-3:21; 9:1-10:13; and 13:1-13. 16 S. Scott Bartchy has already seen the function of these verses, although he expresses it somewhat differently, as the ' section of an A' pattern in chap. 7 (mallon chrsai: First-Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Cor 7:21 [SBLDS 11; Missoula: Scholars, 1973] 161-62). The differences between this author and myself are to be found in the interpretation of 21b (see below) and therefore with regard to the function of this illustration. 17 This use of klsis to describe the particular circumstances in which a believer finds himself is sufficiently unusual to merit comment. In all the other uses of klsis in the Pauline writings the word refers to the general Christian "vocation" (to belong to Christ) or (analogously) to God's "calling" of Israel (Rom 11:29). Nowhere else does it refer to the particular circumstances in which a believer finds himself when the call of God reaches him. So is this in fact the sense intended here? Bartchy argues strongly that it is not, but that klsis here must have the same sense as elsewhere, namely "God's call to salvation" (mallon chrsai, 135-37). But the instruction of 20 is to "remain in" this "calling" (en tautf meneto). That this does not mean simply "remain in your Christian calling" seems clear from the examples chosen (circumcision and slavery). The sense must therefore be: "Remain in the situation in which the call of God reached you." This situation, this setting-in-life in which the call of God has reached one, is now (by extension) itself described as a "call." This is admittedly a loose use of the term klsis, but it seems to be the only solution which respects the context. We might also note the role of the keklken in 15 ("God has called you in peace"). It acts as a Stichwort, a cue for the apostle, who then begins to formulate his rule about the Christian "calling" in general ( w 17,20 and 24).

1 CORINTHIANS 7:17-24 685 remain" in 24 is further emphasized by the addition of the words "before 1 God" (para theou). * Grammatically, then, w 17, 20 and 24 are parallel, each containing a 3d pers. imperative, and they constitute a threefold repetition of a general principle, which on each occasion becomes a little clearer and more emphatic. The first of these statements of principle (v 17) is followed immediately by a particular instance of the rule given: the case of the Christian who is called after having been circumcised, and its contrary case, that of the uncircumcised believer (v 18). Both are told to remain as they are and the following verse (v 19) gives the reason for this command. In the same way, the second statement of principle (v 20) is followed by another particular instance, that of the Christian who has been "called" as a slave (v 21). But the parallel to 18 is not complete: only one case is given and in place of the expected contrary case (the one called as a free man) we find a clause introduced by alia ("but"), which also concerns the person called as a slave. Here, too, an explanation is offered ( w 22-23). In other words, in w 17-24 a rule is given, a general principle ( w 17,20 and 24), which is then illustrated by the two cases cited, that of circumcision and that of slavery.

III. Verses 17-24 in Context Before we begin to look more closely at these two illustrations, we ought to examine the relationship of w 17-24 to the rest of chap. 7. Does the context of these verses provide any indication of their function within the apostle's argumentation? One such indication is to be found in 27. It is true that 25 has begun the treatment of a new topic (peri de tn parthenn), but 27 nonetheless relates what is being said to the general principle stated with such emphasis in w 17-24. The relationship is subtly but effectively suggested by the very structure of 27, which is parallel to that of 18 (on circumcision). The parallelism becomes evident when the two verses are placed side by side: 18 peritetmmenos tis eklth; m epispasth. en akrobysti kekltai tis; m peritemnesth. 27 dedesai gynaiki; m ztei lysin. lelysai apo gynaikos; m ztei gynaika.

See BAGD s. v. para II 2e.

686 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 52, 1990 In each instance two contrary cases are cited and the appropriate response is given with a negative imperative. The only grammatical difference is the use of the second person in 27 in place of the third person of 18. The careful reader will hear the echo and begin to relate what is being said in w 19 25-35 to what has already been said in w 17-24. IV. Paul's Use of Illustrations It comes as no surprise that the apostle should support his argument with illustrations, for he frequently uses illustrations to clarify his argument and to impress an idea on the mind of the reader.20 What is distinctive about w 17-24 of 1 Corinthians 7 is that circumcision and slavery are not mere images, metaphors drawn from nature or from other areas of human life. Since Paul's concern is to illustrate a rule, he does so by making two par ticular applications of that rule, each valid in its own right. In other words, what Paul says about circumcision and slavery is ethical advice which could stand on its own, outside of the argumentation of 1 Corinthians 7.21 In this context, however, the apostle's concern is to expand the horizon of his read ers and to allow them to see marriage and celibacy in a new light (the true function of a digressio). It is to be noted that Paul uses not one illustration but two. This, too, is a technique found elsewhere in his letters. And in each case the apostle's use of multiple illustrations seems to be quite deliberate. For each of the illustrations has a role to play in the argumentation: in this way they modify and complement one another. A brief study of two examples will make this clear. 1 Cor 3:5-7 A first example is to be found in 1 Cor 3:5-7. Without entering into a detailed exegesis of chaps. 1-4 we can note simply that Paul uses two illustra tions to clarify what he wants to say about the relationship of the CorinAnother question relating to the context of these verses must be dealt with. Vv 17-24 begin with ei m, an expression which is often used in the Greek of the NT to indicate a simple exception, in the same way as the English "unless" or "except [that]" (BDF n. 376; e.g., 1 Cor 1:14). In its present use at the beginning of a sentence its meaning is not so clear. The most likely explanation is that it indicates that the concession Paul has just made with regard to the separation of couples in mixed marriages (v 15) is precisely thata concession. Separation is not to be the general rule. The general rule is rather that given in w 17, 20 and 24: "remain in the state in which you were called." 20 Such illustrations are to be found, for instance, in Rom 7:2-3; 9:21-23; 11:16-24; 1 Cor 3:5-17; 9:25-27; 12:14-27; 14:7-8; 15:36-44; Gal 4:1-2. 21 Indeed what Paul says here about circumcision he elsewhere says in a context in which it stands alone, no longer functioning as an illustration (Gal 6:15).
19

1 CORINTHIANS 7:17-24 687 rinthians to their various apostles. The first, in w 5-9, is the image of a field: the Corinthian community is the field itself (v 9: theou gergion . . . este), while the apostles are workers in that field. Paul planted; Apollos watered. In 10, however, the illustration changes: here the image becomes that of a building (v 9: theou oikodom... este) and the various apostles and teachers are builders. Paul laid the foundation; others are building on it. With w 7 the nature of the building becomes clear: it is in fact a temple and there fore worthy of particular respect. What is happening here? Is the apostle simply using two different images to make the same point? Not at all! These verses themselves make it quite clear that each illustration has its own purpose and that they complement one another. Thus it is that the first illustration ( w 5-9) sets out to put the role of the apostles in its proper perspective: at most they are fellow-workers (v 9: synergo) in a field which belongs to God. It is not they who are responsible for the growth of the church: that is God's work, since it is he who "gives the increase" (v 7). The Corinthians' disputes have led them to overemphasize the importance of each apostle. Moreover, since Paul and Apollos are "fellowworkers," they are one (v 8) and it is wrong to divide them. The first illustration, then, is directed to the Corinthian community and is a direct response to the report of divisions among them (3:4). The second illustration, however, has a different purpose, which is clearly expressed in the warning of 10b: hekastos de blepet pos epoikodomei. This is no longer directed to the community itself, but rather at those who are building on the foundation laid by Paul. First of all, they must build on that foundation and not attempt to lay another (v 11). And then they must be careful about how they build; the quality of each one's workmanship will become clear on "the day" ( w 12-15). Hence the reason for the change of metaphor: the image of a field was too limited to allow the apostle to warn those who were at work among the Corinthians that they should be careful. No particular care is needed to water a field, but care is required from those who would build an edifice. The introduction of a second illustration signals a change of emphasis, a new direction in the apostle's argumentation. 1 Cor 15:35-44a Another example of Paul's use of multiple illustrations is to be found in 1 Cor 15:35-44a. Concerning the resurrection of the dead, these verses are intended to answer an anticipated objection, namely the question of 35: alla erei tis ps egeirontai hoi nekroi; poi de smati erchontai. The argumentation which follows contains three illustrations, related to one another by the word soma ("body") and by the related word sarx ("flesh"), but differing in nature and intention.

688 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 52, 1990 The first image is contained in w 36-38 and may be described as the metaphor of sowing. The apostle's concern is to make it clear that "out of death a new expression of life springs forth"22 and that out of what looks like annihilation God raises a new type of body. This can be seen already in the case of sowing: what arises from the buried seed is a new body, given by God. Therefore only a "fool" (v 36: aphrri) could ask how it is possible for God to raise the dead. But the concluding remark of 38 that God gives to each thing sown its own particular body seems to lead Paul to a new reflection and a new illus tration. He now wants to make it clear that there can be different types of body and different types of flesh. And in 39 he illustrates this by reference to the flesh of men, of animals, of birds, and of fish. Although it is not clearly stated, the conclusion seems to be that the inevitable "otherness" of the resurrection body should not lead the Corinthians to dismiss it as unreal. It too is another type of flesh, analogous to that which we know. And yet this illustration seems inadequate, for, as Paul will later indicate (v 43), the risen body will be a body raised in glory and in power. There is a qualitative difference between the body which dies and that which is raised, a difference which cannot be illustrated by reference to the flesh of men, animals, birds, and fish. And so in w 40-41 the apostle uses the analogy of "heavenly bodies" and "earthly bodies" to illustrate his thought, an analogy which plays upon the different meanings of the terms "heavenly" and "earthly." A similar play on words enables Paul to speak of the splendor (doxa) of the heavenly bodies, which differs from that of the earthly. The same term (doxa) will be used in 43 to speak of the glory of the resurrection body.23 It has become clear from these examples that the apostle chooses his illustrations with care. Where he has chosen more than one image to illus trate his argument, it is because one image alone would have been inade quate. Each illustration must be examined to discover the role it plays in the argumentation, for the various images chosen modify and complement each other.
G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 781. It is to be noted that all the bodies mentioned in 41 are, in fact, "heavenly bodies." If Paul's aim is to illustrate the difference between "earthly" and "heavenly" bodies (as 40 indicates), then 41 fails to do so. It illustrates merely the difference among the various "heav enly" bodies. Fee (First Corinthians, 783) tries to resolve this problem by considering 39 along with w 40-41 and discerning in these verses "a nearly perfect chiasm." Ingenious though this solution may be, it fails to convince. First, the use of "flesh" (sarx) instead of "body" (soma) in 39 would be inexplicable if 39 belonged to such a structure. Secondly, if 39 corresponded to 41 (as this solution claims), it would have to speak of the differing splendors of the earthly bodies (cf. 40). But in fact the word "splendor" (or "glory": doxa) is introduced only in 40. It seems clear, therefore, that 39 must be considered a different illustration.
23 22

1 CORINTHIANS 7:17-24 689 Given that this is what Paul does with illustrations elsewhere, we would expect the same to be true of 1 Corinthians 7. In w 17-24 the apostle presents the reader with two illustrations, the first being circumcision, the second, slavery. Do they serve the same purpose, as simple examples of the general rule of w 17, 20 and 24? Or (as we would expect) has each of them a particular purpose in the context of the argumentation of this chapter? V. Interpretation of Verse 21b To answer this question we must examine a little more closely the fa mous crux interpretum of 21b. Our examination of the literary structure of w 17-24 has indicated a lack of parallelism between w 18-19 (on cir cumcision) and w 21-23 (on slavery). The parallelism is disturbed in a par ticular manner by the presence of an alia clause (v 21b). The nature of this clause is disputed: does the sentence mean "even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery" (NAB) or "although if you can gain your freedom, do so" (NIVJ The first problem is the ellipsis with which the clause ends (mallon chrsai). Is it to be completed by supplying the word "slavery" ("make use of your slavery") or the word "freedom" ("make use of this chance to become free")? And how is the alia ei kai which introduces 21b to be understood? As one commentator notes, scholarship since the time of Origen has been pretty well evenly divided on these questions. Therefore whatever position one adopts, "the list of those with whom one would disagree is impressive."24 The correct interpretation of 21b is nonetheless essential if one is to understand w 17-24 and their role in the argumentation of chap. 7. A useful place to start is with the observation that most of those who interpret 21b to mean "remain in your slavery" do so because of the immediate context. They believe that this is the only interpretation which is consistent with the principle of w 17, 20 and 24 (that each should remain in the state in which he was called).25 They therefore feel compelled to choose this reading of the verse, even if on lexical and syntactical grounds (as will be shown) it lacks support. This argument from the rule of w 17,20 and 24 loses its force, however, when 21b is read in the light of the argumentation of the chapter as a whole. For as the apostle deals with the various questions which have been
Fee, First Corinthians, 341. A list of scholars and the positions they adopt is found in Bartchy, mallon chrsai, 6-7. 25 E.g., C. K. Barrett translates this verse, "but even though you should be able to become free . . . put up rather with your present status" and rejects the alternative because (he claims) "[it] does not make sense in the context" (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968] 170).
24

690 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 52, 1990 raised concerning marriage and celibacy, his argumentation takes the form of a series of imperatives, a series of general principles, accompanied in each case by clauses which qualify the command given or indicate legitimate exceptions to the rule.26 Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband ( w 1-7), but (nonetheless) Paul would prefer it if they could choose celibacy (v 7a). Similarly in w 8-9 the unmarried and the widows are commanded to marry if they are not in fact living continently, while at the same time those who can do so are encouraged to remain celibate. In w 10-16 couples are commanded not to separate, except for the case of a mixed marriage in which the unbelieving partner leaves; in this case the separation can be tolerated. Verse 27 gives a general rule: they are to remain in the state in which they currently find themselves. But nonetheless, should the unmarried choose to marry they do not sin (v 28a). Whatever the precise meaning of w 36-38,27 here too the argumentation seems to follow the same pattern: the imperatives of 36 encourage marriage under certain circumstances, but 37 immediately qualifies this by recommending celibacy. Finally the unmarried woman is bound to her husband while he lives but if he dies she is free to remarry (v 39). The qualification of this principle comes in 40: despite the fact that she may remarry, she will be happier if she remains as she is. As one commentator says: "In the context of these many exceptions, 072Id (= 21b) can also be seen as an exception: *but if you are indeed able to become free, rather than staying a slave, take freedom'."28 In any case there are a number of lexical and syntactical arguments which also favor this interpretation.29 First of all, as Fee has pointed out, in an elliptical sentence such as 21b (one in which the words needed to complete the sense have been omitted), "one would ordinarily supply a word from that sentencein this case 'freedom'not a word from an earlier sentence."30 If "freedom" is supplied, then the last phrase of 21b reads "by
26

This point is made also by Bartchy, mallon chrsai, 9-10 and by Fee, First Corinthians,

318.
27 Orr and Walther (First Corinthians, 223) note that "few passages of scripture bristle with more difficulties than does this." For a discussion of these verses and their varying interpretation (at least up until 1957) see J. Leal, "Super virgine sua (1 Cor 7,37)," VD 35 (1957) 97-102. 28 Bartchy, mallon chrsai, 10, who ultimately does not follow this line but offers an interpretation of his own (as we shall see). The same argument is however put forward by Fee (First Corinthians, 318). 29 For a good summary of the arguments in favor of the interpretation of 21b which we have chosen here, see P. Trmmer, "Die Chance der Freiheit: zur Interpretation des mallon chrsai in 1 Kor 7,21," Bib 56 (1975) 344-68. 30 Fee, First Corinthians, 317.

1 CORINTHIANS 7:17-24 691 all means make use of [this opportunity to gain] your freedom." Moreover the strong adversative with which the clause begins (alia), as Fee also points out, would make little sense if it introduced "an intensification of the negative 33 imperative" of 21a. The use of alia indicates a contrast with what has just preceded and therefore favors reading 21b as a true exception. The contrast with w 18-19 is also instructive. The advice given the slave in 21a is not "do not seek your freedom" (as the parallel with 18 and its two negative imperatives would lead one to expect). The apostle says simply "do not let it worry you" (m soi meleto). Nor does he argue that "slavery is nothing and freedom is nothing" (as he argues that "circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing" in 19). It seems that for Paul the two illustrations are not exactly parallel; therefore he deals with them in different ways. Another reason which has been given for understanding 21b in the sense of "remain a slave" is the gar ("for") of 22. It is claimed that 22 34 follows 21 most naturally as the reason for staying in one's slavery. On the contrary, there is nothing in 22 which would explain why a slave who is offered his freedom should nonetheless prefer slavery. It is true that 22a does take up the case of 21, namely that of the Christian called as a slave. It reminds him that he is, even as a slave, a freedman of the Lord. It does not follow from this, however, that he should continue in the social condition of a slave: such an argument would have no logic. Rather as a "freedman of the Lord" who has been "bought at a price" he should avoid remaining a "slave of men" (v 23).35
31 I am following here the suggestion of J. H. Moulton (A Grammar of New Testament Greek [4 vols. (vols. 3 and 4 by Nigel Turner); Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908-1976] 2. 165 n. 1) that the mallon here has an intensive or elative sense. This use of mallon is not uncommon in Paul; examples may be found in Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 9:12; 14:1,5,18; 2 Cor 7:7,13; Phil 1:9,12; 3:4; 1 Thess 4:1,10. 32 The reader could ask himself how he would most naturally understand the same verse if it were literally translated into English: "Were you called [as] slave? Let it not concern you. But if in fact you are able to become free, by all means make use [of it].'* The "it" (which we have supplied to represent the ellipsis) more naturally refers to the "freedom" of the same clause than to the "slavery" of the preceding. 33 Fee, First Corinthians, 317. 34 Barrett, e.g., says: "Particularly important [for the understanding of 21b] is the ./r (gar) with which the next verse begins: You need not hesitate to put up with your servile condition, 'for the slave who has been called in the Lord . . . is the Lord's freedman'" (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 171). But there is no logic in such an argument: that the slave is "the Lord's freedman" scarcely seems a sufficient reason for choosing slavery (when one has been offered one's freedom). 35 My use of 23 here seems justified, although the plural and the parallel in 6:20 indicate that this exhortation applies to all Christians, slaves or free. The m ginesthe of 23 is often

31

32

692 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 52, 1990 To what then does the gar of 22a refer? It seems that it must refer not to the instruction given to the slave in 21bwhich has something of the nature of an obiter dictumbut rather to 21a. The one called as a slave who cannot do anything about it is not to be concerned (m soi meleto), for (gar) as a Christian he has the consolation of knowing that he is a freedman in Christ. On the other hand (v 22b) the free man who becomes a Christian is faced with the sobering thought that he is now a slave of Christ. But, it is also claimed, surely the ei kai of 21b, which introduces the protasis of this conditional sentence, must be translated as "even if. . . ," in other words concessively? The verse would then read "but even if you are able to become free . . ." and this favors the idea that Paul is telling the slave to remain in his slavery. It is true that when Paul uses ei kai (or ean kai) it is most often in a concessive sense ("even if. .." or "although"). Examples of this abound. To take only one we may note the use of ei kai in 2 Cor 4:16: "Therefore we do not lose heart," writes the apostle, "but even if (alia ei kai) our outer nature is wasting away, nonetheless (alia) our inner nature is being renewed day by day." But it is also true that Paul's use of ei kai is not exclusively concessive. The combination ei kai (or ean kai) is also used in contexts in which the kai has emphatic force and the two particles together must be translated "if indeed." An example is 1 Cor 4:7, in which Paul asks the Corinthians: "What do you have which you did not receive? And if indeed (ei de kai) you received [it], why do you boast as if you had not?" Here the kai emphasizes the fact of their having received, which then becomes the basis of the question which follows. And a similar use (of ean de kai) is found in 28 of the very chapter which we are studying. Therefore there is nothing which compels us to understand the alia ei kai of 21b concessively. Indeed all other indications are that it is to be taken in its other, "emphatic" sense so that the verse reads "but if indeed you can become free, by all means make use of [this opportunity to gain your freedom]."36
translated "do not become," but "do not be" (or even "do not remain") seems better. The form ginesthe is regularly used in place of the 2d pers. pi. imperative of einai (which, with one possible exception, is not found in the NT [BDF n. 98]). And ginesthe (or m ginesthe) is very frequently used in this sense in the Pauline exhortations (e.g., Rom 12:16; 1 Cor 14:20; Gal 5:26; Eph 5:7,17). 36 The same interpretation of ei kai in this verse is put forward by C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1953) 167 n. 3.

1 CORINTHIANS 7:17-24 693

Before concluding the discussion of this famous crux, however, it is necessary to take into account a third possibility put forward some years ago by S. Scott Bartchy. This author carefully examines the evidence we have forfirst-centuryslavery and comes to the conclusion that it simply was not possible for a slave to refuse manumission. He therefore concludes that the verse must be translated ". . . but if, indeed, you become manu mitted, by all means [as a freedman] live according to [God's calling]." It is not, therefore, a matter of the slave choosing or refusing freedom, but simply a matter of his living according to God's calling in whatever state he may be. The choice regarding remaining a slave or becoming free is not his.37 The claim that a slave could not refuse manumission is based on the fact that the slave was not a "legal person," and therefore he "had no method of resisting such actions by his owner, except by pleading with him privately."38 It is true that the slave's lack of legal status is a factor with which we must grapple in interpreting this text, and Bartchy's study of the institution of slavery in thefirstcentury has done much to illuminate this issue for biblical scholars. But there remain considerable difficulties with his interpretation of 21b of 1 Corinthians 7. The first, already seen by Barrett, is that he ignores the force of the dynasai in this verse: "if you are able. .. ."39 The verb is not sufficiently explained by the suggestion that Paul is speaking of manumission "solely from the point of view of the person in slavery."40 Nor is the use of the same verb in Acts 26:32 parallel, as Bartchy claims.41 In other words, the use of dynasai in 21b implies at least that Paul thought that the slave could choose to remain in slavery or to become free. Secondly, what Fee said about completing the ellipsis with a word from the immediate context rather than with a word which is not readily suggested from the context (see nn. 29 and 31 above) must also be applied to Bartchy's
Bartchy, mallon chrsai, 183. Ibid., 107. 39 See, e.g., the review by C. K. Barrett in JTS ns 26 (1975) 173-74. 40 Bartchy, mallon chrsai, 176. 41 Although it is true that in Acts 26:32 Paul would have been "set free" (and would not have been able to refuse it), Paul's own action is not without its importance in this case, since by "appealing to Caesar" (the other half of the verse) he made his release impossible. One might ask, however, whether the edynato with the passive verb ("be released") in Acts 26:32 has any more meaning than the corresponding word "can" in the English sentence, "The prisoner can now be released." In both cases the use of the verb with a passive infinitive would seem to give it the sense of "is now in a position to be . . . " ("can now legally be . . . " ) . The idea of an active subject ("being able" to do something) has all but disappeared. By way of contrast, with the verb ginesthai in 1 Cor 7:21 the idea that the slave is "able" to accept freedom or to refuse it seems unavoidable.
38
37

694 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 52, 1990 translation. Basing himself on evidence that chrsai can mean "live according to," he completes the sentence by supplying either "the commands of God" or "your calling."42 The question must be asked: how likely is this choice when the immediate context would suggest completing the sentence with some reference to "becoming free"? The very fact that Bartchy has to propose two possible ways of completing the sentence surely indicates that neither is totally convincing. However, it remains true that Bartchy's observation that the slave had no legal standing and therefore no right to refuse manumission cannot be simply discounted. The problem is that neither can the evidence of 1 Cor 7:21b that Paul believed that the slave could in some way "choose freedom." The dilemma in which we find ourselves on this issue may be due to the fact that the debate has too often been centered on the very moment of manumission. The question has been: when the owner of a slave declares him free, could the slave refuse to become free? Bartchy may well be right in saying that he could not. But at the same time he points out that there were many ways in which a slave could contribute to the possibility of his being freed.43 He was not simply a passive recipient of manumission; in some way he could take the initiative and help to bring it about. (Hence, for instance, the value of manumission as an incentive to the slave to work well.44) Thus, even given the legal situation outlined by Bartchy, the Christian who was a slave was still faced with a question: "Am I permitted as a Christian to work to bring about my release? If the rule is to 'remain in the state in which one is called,' then may I take advantage of these opportunities of (eventually) becoming free?" In answer to this question, Paul's advice in 21c is quite understandable (and, as we shall see, serves his broader purpose in this chapter): " . . . but if in fact you can become free, make use [of this opportunity]."45 VI. The Function of Each Illustration We are now in a position to answer the question which we set ourselves at the beginning of this paper: what is the function of w 17-24 within the argumentation of 1 Corinthians 7? To answer this question, however, we must first grasp the analogy which is the basis of Paul's argumentation in
Bartchy, mallon chrsai, 179 (cf. p. 156). Ibid., 85, 97. 44 Ibid., 74 . 260; 82. 45 There does not seem to be any objection to this understanding of the verse in the criticism Bartchy makes of previous interpretations on pp. 111-14. In other words, one can accept his analysis of the social situation while still following the traditional understanding of the verse, i.e., that the slave can choose freedom.
43
42

1 CORINTHIANS 7:17-24 695 these verses. For when we see that Paul uses circumcision and slavery to illustrate what he wants to say about marriage and celibacy, then the question arises: "Why these examples? What do they have in common that Paul should choose to associate them here?" Bartchy indicatesquite correctly that neither circumcision nor slavery seems to have been a particular issue among the Corinthians; there is no indication that Paul wanted to treat of these subjects for their own sake.46 It is true that the pairs male-female, Jew-Greek, and slave-free are dealt with together in Gal 3:28 to express the irrelevance of such distinctions to the baptized,47 but even this observation does not succeed in grasping the real basis of Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 7 and the reason why he has chosen these particular analogies. An analogy may be defined as "a resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise alike."48 And when we reflect on the significance of circumcision and slavery in the world of first-century Christianity the common feature, the "resemblance," is evident. What enables these two examples to be used as illustrations of Paul's argument? It is the fact that he could presume that in the minds of his readers each of them would have what we might call a "positive pole" and a "negative pole." Even a Gentile Christian familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures could hardly have failed to notice the importance of circumcision in the OT. Even without having had contact with those who urged circumcision on Christians, the question must have arisen as to its importance for believers. The temptation would be (and was, as we know, in many places) to regard circumcision as necessary for salvation. And slavery, even if it were not seen as incompatible with the Christian vocation, was certainly seen as undesirable (as may be gathered from Paul's comment to the slave not to be concerned about his status). Now it seems from the rest of chap. 7 that there existed in the minds of the Corinthians a "positive" and a "negative" pole also with regard to marriage and celibacy. Celibacy was seen positively; marriage, negatively. The opening words of the chapter ("it is good for a man not to touch a woman") are probably to be attributed to the Corinthians themselves, for Paul counters
46 The introductory formula (peri de) which introduces subjects with which Paul wants to deal in these chapters is in any case missing here. (See Bartchy, mallon chrsai, 163 . 560.) 47 Ibid., 163-65. The question being dealt with in 1 Corinthians 7 is not the distinction between male and female (and its irrelevance for one who is in Christ) but rather the distinction between the married and the celibate. The choice of examples is therefore not fully explained by reference to Gal 3:28. 48 Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. A more precise definition is offered by the OED, s.v., which defines analogy as an "equivalency or likeness of relations;... a name for the fact, that, the relation borne to any object by some attribute or circumstance, corre sponds to the relation existing between another object and some attribute or circumstance pertaining to it."

696 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 52, 1990 them immediately with an exhortation to marry (dia . . . tas porneias). The comments later in the chapter that those who marry "do not sin" would seem 49 to indicate that it had been suggested that they do. What is Paul's response to such an evaluation of marriage and celibacy? Quite simply, he relativizes the choice. It is not a matter of celibacy being good and marriage being bad: he clearly rejects any such evaluation in w 1-7. Rather, he says, marriage is good (cf. 7:38) and acceptable; those who marry do not sin and those who are already married should not separate. In this sense whether a Christian is married or celibate is a matter of indifference, an indifference which is illustrated by the parallel case of circumcision ( w 1819). In this sense the rule of w 17, 20 and 24 applies: each is to remain in the state in which he was called, for in marriage or celibacy, circumcision or uncircumcision, the Christian can "keep the commandments of God" and thus be saved (cf. 27). And yet with regard to marriage and celibacy the analogy with circum cision limps: the reality is more complex than this comparison would make it appear. While any idea that marriage is incompatible with the Christian vocation was to be strenuously resisted, that did not mean that there was no "advantage" (cf. 35a: pros to. . . symphorori) in remaining celibate. Indeed Paul makes his preference for celibacy quite clear, first of all in w 7 and 8 and then in w 25-35, 36-38, and 40. It is to express the nature of this preference that the apostle has incorporated a second example, a second illustration, that of slavery. Ultimately the slave ought not to worry about his status: here too it is in one sense a matter of indifference (v 21a). In the same way (and by analogy) married persons are not to be worried about their status: as the comparison with circumcision has already made clear, marriage is no obstacle to living the Christian vocation. On the other hand, the slave who is offered the chance of becoming free ought to make use of this opportunity (v 21b). In the same way (the implied argument goes), the person who is already celibate or who has been married and is now once again single is urged to take advantage of this opportunity to remain singlemindedly devoted to the Lord (cf. 35). VII. Conclusion It has become evident that the two examples chosen in w 17-24 have not been chosen at random. They have a role in the chapter, illustrating by way of analogy the apostle's complex argumentation with regard to marriage and
49 In addition to the literature already mentioned (see n. 1 above) Bartchy offers a useful reconstruction of the views held by the Corinthian Christians which Paul is seeking to counter (mallon chrsai, 128).

1 CORINTHIANS 7:17-24 697 celibacy. The analogy is based on one point of contact (and one point of contact only) among all three states of life. In each case Paul's readers were tempted to see one of the two options as negative, as incompatible with the Christian life. To counter this temptation with regard to marriage and celibacy the apostle first of all brings forward the case of circumcision, which illustrates perfectly the rule of w 17,20,24 (and 27), that each should remain in the state in which he was called. No state of life is incompatible with the Christian calling. And yet because the matter was more complex than this, and because Paul could see that there was some advantage in celibacy, he brings forward another example, slavery. This second example illustrates both the ultimate indifference of one's state of life (v 21a) and the possibility of having a preference where circumstances allow (v 21b). In a certain sense, then, w 17-24, which at first sight appear to be an interruption of the apostle's argumentation, dealing with apparently unrelated matters, are in fact the key with which one can unlock the meaning of this chapter. What seems to be a mere digression is in fact a true digressio, in which each of the two illustrations chosen has a role to play. They indicate how carefully Paul deals with a delicate matter and the balance with which he seeks to insure that his converts live a life of undivided devotion to the Lord.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.