20 Is Singleness Better Than Marriage? (1 Corinthians 7:25-40)

Krisan Marotta: Good morning. My name is Krisan Marotta, and you're listening to Wednesday in the Word, my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. I have another listener warning today. We are still in chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians, and if you're listening with little ones nearby, you may want to hit pause and save this podcast for later, because we are still on the subject of issues within marriage, and it may not be appropriate for young listeners. Today we're gonna be looking at 1 Corinthians chapter 7, verses 25 through 40. This is the 20th talk in our series on 1 Corinthians. You can find lecture notes for today's talk on the link below the podcast, or find them on my website. Just go to wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Corinthians 20. And while you're on the website, take a moment to check it out. There's no charge, no spam, no ads, only Bible study. Thanks for joining me today. Well, we're going to look at the last section of 1 Corinthians 7 today. And this section seems to condemn marriage with faint praise. There's a popular interpretation that Paul is saying something like, well, I guess you could be a Christian and get married, but marriage is a dubious choice at best. You really should stay single like I am. I do not think that's what Paul meant to say. I have argued throughout this chapter that Paul is speaking to a specific question that was raised in 7.1, and that is that the Corinthians have gotten this idea that it's not good for a man to touch a woman. They have the idea from their culture that sexuality is always something dirty and less than holy, and their culture tells them that everything spiritual is pure and good, while the physical is evil and dirty, and they have concluded that to be truly holy you should abstain from sexuality altogether even if you're married. Paul has been correcting that premise. He's been addressing various situations that married believers find themselves in and saying, no, look, this is what it really should all be about. So first he talked to married folks where one spouse decided to abstain, forcing the other into celibacy. Then he spoke to widows and widowers, then to those who thought, well, maybe I should just go ahead and get divorced in order to remain chaste, and then in the section we looked at last time, he spoke to believers who are married to unbelievers. And in each of those cases, Paul has been saying your premise is wrong. There is nothing second best or dirty about married sexuality. Sexuality is intended for marriage and that's appropriate, and sexuality within marriage is a beautiful gift from God. There's nothing unclean about it. He does agree that singleness has its advantage, and today he's going to explain why he thinks that. So we're going to look at 1 Corinthians 7, we're going to start in verse 25 and go to 40. And there are three parts to this section. First, he specifically addresses a question that he's been asked about virgins, and we'll talk about what he means by that in a minute. Then he makes two comments to explain his thinking, and finally he returns to his answer and wraps it all up. And for us today, I think his two explanations in the middle are the most interesting part of the passage. So we're going to spend most of our time there. First Corinthians 7 is a difficult chapter with many interpretive decisions. Every translator and Bible student faces these questions. And chapter 7 has been the subject of a pretty robust scholarly debate, particularly over what question is Paul answering. And I think this section of the chapter, this section we're looking at today, is probably the most difficult interpretive section of the chapter. Part of the reason this chapter is so debated is that every interpretive option has problems, including the option that I've landed on. Whichever way you go in the decisions, you have to deal with some interpretive issue. For example, if you go direction A, then you have to understand word X in an unusual way. If you go direction B, you can understand word X in the usual way, but that means you have to do something different with phrase Y and so on. And if you consult the various translations of this chapter, you're going to see differences that reflect those interpretive issues. Now I'm not going to get into all that debate because I think we would get way too bogged down in the details, and it would be too difficult to follow in a podcast. If you're interested, you can find a discussion of the issues in most all of the good commentaries. So for this podcast, just recognize that chapter seven presents many challenges to translators and interpreters, and this section is perhaps the most challenging of the whole chapter. And the option that I've chosen, like all the options, has problems of its own. I have made two main decisions which determine my interpretive approach, and since I'm not going to get into the entire debate, I want to at least tell you why I've chosen the path that I've chosen. The first issue is the question of how to handle the phrase in 726 in view of this present distress. 726 says, I think that in view of the present distress, it is good for a person to remain as he is. Now some scholars see this phrase as the key to unlocking the passage, and they conclude that Paul is talking probably about the terrible persecutions of the early church that took place under Nero in the early 60s. And Paul's argument is it's better not to be married right now because life is so hard given the current persecutions. And that is a very valid interpretive option that many take. It's also the one I used to hold. Others say, well, Paul's not referring to any particular historical difficulty, but rather the fact that life is always filled with tribulations. And Paul is saying, because life is already hard enough, you'd be better off to be single. Well, I'm not going to pick either of those options, and here's why. The Greek word translated distress in 726 is used twice in this section. Here in 726, and then again in 737, where it's translated being under no necessity. But whoever is firmly established in his heart being under no necessity, but having his desire under control and so on, that's 737. That word translated necessity in 737 is the same word translated distress in 726. It generally means something like pressure or necessity or constraint. The basic idea is you're pressured to go in a certain direction or take a certain path. As a general rule, my first interpretive choice when an author uses the same word in the same context is to assume that he means the same thing. Unless there's some indication in the context that he's changing his meaning. So for example, he might give us a clue that he intends to be ironic or that he's twisting the word to make a clever point or something like that. So absent that kind of information, I would expect him to mean the same thing by the same word in the same context. There aren't any clues here that he's being ironic, that he's twisting the meaning, that he's making some kind of play on words. So I would assume he means the same thing in 726 as he means in 737, because we're still in the same context. So I would understand in view of this present distress to mean something like in view of the present necessity, the constraint to make a particular choice. Does the person in question have an obligation or a constraint that dictates the choice he must make? And I'm going to explain why that makes more sense to me in a minute. The second decision involves what question has Paul been asked. Remember, we only have one side of this conversation. The Corinthians wrote a letter to Paul asking him questions, and what we're seeing in this letter is Paul's answers to those questions, but we don't have the question. We have to deduce what the question is from the answer that Paul gives. Some see the question Paul's answering as should virgins married? Should those who have never been married get married? And Paul answers generally no, it would be better if they didn't, but it's okay if they do. Then in 36, Paul addresses a different question, should a father give his daughter in marriage? And here again, Paul answers generally no, it's better to be single, but it's okay if you get married. That line of thinking is tied to one of the big interpretive questions of the passage. Is Paul talking about a father and his daughter? And that's the way the New American Standard translates the section, or is Paul talking about a young man and his fiancee, which is the way the English Standard Version translates it. Now there are good reasons to go with each translation, and there are problems with each of those choices. 736 in the New American Standard reads If any man thinks he's acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin, let her marry. And if you're reading that text, you'll notice the word daughter is in italics or gray font because that word is not in the text. It's been added by the translators to explain how they understand the verse. That same verse in the ESV reads, if anyone thinks that he's not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong and it has to be, let him do as he wishes, let them marry, it is no sin. So they have taken the 736 as a man and his fiance, and that's one of the big interpretive debates in the sections. As I said, both translations have their strong points and both have their weaknesses. At this point, I would go with the English Standard Version. I think Paul is talking about an engaged couple, and I'm going to be reading from the ESV today. In my current thinking, I think Paul is still addressing this idea from 7.1, it's not good for a man to touch a woman. And he's gone through all the various kinds of situations that married folks could find themselves in. And then in 7.25 he says, now concerning engaged couples, this is not an entirely new question, but it is a new kind of situation. What does this premise mean for couples who are engaged but are not yet married? What should they do? Maybe they've been betrothed since birth and now they're of marriageable age. Should they break the engagement? This is a different married situation. This is the last case. This is people who are promised to be married but have not yet gotten married. So in light of this premise, the Corinthians hold that sexuality is always unclean. The question is, should these people get married at all? So I understand the now concerning in 725 to mean we finished all the types of married folks, but now concerning those who are not yet married, but they've been promised to be married. We're still on this topic you Corinthians have raised of it's not good for a man to touch a woman. What about those who are engaged? What should a man do who's engaged to a young woman? I'd like to take this passage a little bit out of order. I'd like to look at the verses that answer that question specifically first, leaving out his explanation for the moment, and then go back and concentrate on his explanation. So we're going to start with seven twenty-five through twenty eight. Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. Now remember, I'm not going to go into all the questions and interpretive decisions you have to make in these verses. I think we just get too lost in the details. If you're interested in that debate, you can find it in most all of the commentaries. So in 725 he says, Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think this language about I have no command from the Lord is similar to what we saw earlier in chapter 7 and verses 11 and 12. I think he's saying, I can't point you to a direct teaching of Jesus on the subject, but as one who's been given apostolic understanding and my judgment is trustworthy, here's what I think. So just like earlier, I don't think he means you're free to think otherwise, you're free to disagree with me. Rather, he's giving his an opinion as an apostle of Jesus Christ, and his opinion carries authority. So he has this ministry and calling by the grace of God, and he can tell you what he understands the implications of the gospel to be in this situation, and that's trustworthy. Then he says in 726 and 27, I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife, do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife, do not seek a wife? Basically he says, remain as you are. Look at your present promises, look at your obligations, and keep them. If you're engaged, go ahead and get married. If you're not engaged, you don't need to seek a wife. So I do think Paul is discussing an engaged couple, and when he says in 727, Are you bound? That question is not are you married, don't seek a divorce, but rather are you betrothed? Are you promised? Have you entered an engagement contract? Are you bound in the sense that you have promised and have an obligation to get married? So you're engaged, but you're not yet married. And the question he's addressing is should you break the engagement? And Paul answers no. If you're bound to buy an engagement promise, don't break it, go ahead and get married. But if you're not bound, if you haven't made such a promise, you don't need to seek a wife. Then 728, but if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. So he clarifies there's no sin in marriage. This is not a moral issue. If you do marry, you have not sinned. This language about those who marry will have worldly troubles, I don't think he means there that marriage is just really, really difficult and kind of a bummer and we ought to avoid it. I think he's saying life in this world is hard. Life in a fallen world is full of tragedy and grief and fear and frustration, and that's just life. And I'm trying to spare you the added burden of needing to worry about another person in the midst of those frustrations and responsibilities and tragedies. But remember, he's making it clear this is not a moral issue. He says, if you marry, it's no sin. You haven't transgressed God's moral law, you haven't settled for a second class life if you get married. As he's about to say, singleness has its advantage, and it would be good if you can enjoy that advantage. So basically his answer is if you want to get married, get married, and if you don't want to get married, stay single. If a young man is betrothed and he wants to marry his fiance and his fiancee is of age and wants to marry him, then they should get married. They should not listen to this idea that the Corinthians hold that it's better for a man not to touch a woman and conclude that they should remain chaste and abstain from sexuality and break their engagement. If the man has made a real commitment to his fiancee, he has a real desire to get married, it's appropriate to fulfill that commitment. So if you're engaged and it's a real engagement that both people want to fulfill and both parties have made a commitment, then go ahead and get married. There's nothing wrong with that. Skipping his explanations, then he goes back to conclude and wrap this topic up in 736. If anyone thinks he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are not strong and it has to be, let him do as he wishes, let them marry, it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity, but having his desire under control and has determined this in his heart to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes only in the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is, and I think that I too have the Spirit of God. Okay, he starts with this language in 736. If anyone thinks that he's not behaving properly toward his betrothed, what does he mean by not behaving properly toward his betrothed? I think the idea here is they are engaged, but they're not moving toward marriage. So he's not behaving properly. He's keeping her in limbo. She's not free to marry someone else, and she's getting older, but he's not willing to go ahead and get married. So he's not being fair to her. She is bound to a promise that he is not keeping, and she's getting past marriageable age. So I think that's what he means by not behaving properly. My best guess on if his passions are strong, then is this situation is starting to bother him and prick his conscience. So he's looking at the situation and he's feeling conflicted. He has made this promise, but he's not keeping it, he's not treating her fairly, and it's starting to really bother him. I would translate it then, let him do as she wishes, not let them let him do as he wishes, as ESV says, but let him do as she wishes, let them get married. There's no sin in marriage. Again, there's a lot of interpretive decisions to make here. Every path you take has problems, but I think that the understanding I've just given you sets up the contrast with the man in 737 who's not under obligation. So the man in 36 is under an obligation, he's under a contract, he has promised to marry this woman, and he's not treating her fairly by not going through with his promise, he should do as she wishes and go ahead and get married. But 737, whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity, but having his desire under control and has determined this in his heart to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So in contrast to the man in 736 who was under a contract, under an obligation or promise to marry, the man in seven hundred thirty seven is not yet under that obligation. He is still free to make an honorable choice and a decision. But he stands firm in his heart, he's decided that he wants to keep her as his fiance, as his betrothed, and he's decided that he wants to marry her, let them marry, he'll do well. Now I don't know in their culture exactly what that would be to be in this arrangement but not be under contract. Perhaps his betrothed is still underage, not of marriageable age yet, so he's not obligated, or perhaps this one was an arranged situation that neither party ever really committed to, or maybe it's just an engagement that's been talked about but hasn't been formally agreed to yet. Something like Like that. But in any case, I think the idea he is not yet under necessity. He is still free to make a choice. So if he's in a situation where he is not yet bound by a contract or promise and he is under no compulsion and can still make a right and honorable choice, but he's decided that he wants to get married, then let him get married, he'll do well. Then in 738 he summarizes, so then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. So those who get married will do well, and those who stay single will do even better from Paul's perspective, as he explained in the section we skipped, but we're going to go back and look at it. So that's his conclusion. If you decide to get married, you do well, and if you decide to stay single, you do better because of the advantage I explained. Then in 739 and 40, a wife is bound to her husband as long as she lives, but if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Yet in my judgment, she is happier if she remains as she is, and I think that I too have the Spirit of God. Again, there's a lot of interpretive questions here. My understanding is that in that culture, engagements were taken very seriously. It was more of a contract than a promise. And if a man died while he was engaged, his fiancee was treated as his widow and all the laws of widowhood applied to her. I think that's the situation Paul's addressing here. I understand the wife in this situation to be a woman whose fiance has died before they got married. And he's basically turning the gender table and saying, look, this works both ways. Everything I said about a man being engaged applies to a woman who's engaged. Just like the man in 736, she too is bound by her promise. But if her fiance dies, she's free to marry again if she wishes, as long as she marries a believer. Everything Paul just said for a man applies to the woman. He sees an advantage in remaining single, and that advantage applies to both genders. And then he adds this conclusion that he has been given an accurate understanding by the Spirit of God, I think echoing his statement in 725 that this judgment is trustworthy. Now I want to spend most of our time on what he says in the middle. He makes two points to explain why he's giving this advice and why he prefers being single. And for us today, I think those explanations are the most relevant part of the discussion. So let's look at the first point. Remember, he has just said if you're engaged and want to get married, then get married, and if you're not engaged, then stay single. Then in seven twenty nine through thirty one he says, This is what I mean, brothers. The appointed time has grown very short. From now on let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it, for the present form of this world is passing away. I think Paul steps back here and he says, Look, this issue of whether you marry or not is part of something bigger. Let's step back and look at the issue in light of that bigger fundamental truth. Now some scholars get distracted by the language the appointed time has grown short and the world is passing away, and they think Paul is saying something like, Well, you've only got a little bit of time left to serve the Lord, so don't waste it being married. It seems like they let those two phrases overshadow and dictate the rest of what he says, but that's not the argument he makes. If you remove those phrases and look at the rest of what he says here, it's really difficult to reach that conclusion that he's saying marriage is a waste of time. He's just not saying don't get married because you don't want to waste your time with that stuff, especially in the immediate context when he just said the opposite. He just said if you're engaged and you want to get married, then get married. He's saying the form of this world is passing away, not just marriage. The world and everything in it is passing away. Let those who have wives live as though they had none. If you're married, there's a sense in which it's if you're not married. And those who weep as though they did not weep, if you're sad, there's a sense in which you're not. And those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice. If you're rejoicing are prospering, there's a sense in which you're not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they did not possess, if you're rich, there's a sense in which you don't really own that which you have bought. And those who use the world as though they did not make full use of it, for the form of this world is passing away. Those who use the world, there's a sense in which they don't make full use of it. Why? Because this world is passing away. Now what's he saying? Now that Christ has come, we're in the last days. The last days are not just the few weeks before Jesus returns. The Bible talks about the last days as the era in which we live now. This era is the last one. The last days in Scripture are not just the last year or the last months before Jesus' return, but the last era of history, the time period from the resurrection to Jesus' second coming. Something fundamental is changed and history is on course to the final day. Now God often ties his lessons to material things. He shows us his faithfulness by giving long life, by giving prosperity and peace and so forth. But the coming of Christ made it abundantly clear that those lessons were only pictures. The blessings of God are not ultimately found in the good things of this life. The real blessings we are to hope for are not to be found in whatever good things God puts in our lives now. The world's philosophy is seize the day, go for the gusto, wring everything you can out of this life because this life is all there is, but the Christian knows better. This life is not all there is, and there is a real sense in which I can let go of the things of this life, the weeping, the rejoicing, the buying, the marrying, and so forth, because my heart is set on the age to come. Now the good things in this life are good. We ought to be grateful for them. Paul talks about marriage as something that ought to be enjoyed with gratitude. There's nothing wrong with the joys and pleasures and achievements and callings of this life. Those are good gifts from God. But there is something bigger that we are waiting for and hoping for. Life with a capital L is not going to be found here on this earth. It's going to be found in the age to come when God rights every wrong and wipes away every tear. All of the stuff of this life, which seems so important and significant and overwhelming to us now, it's just the orchestra warming up for the show. There's a sense in which the curtain has not yet risen. This is not the main act. We're in the prologue and the story has not even begun in one sense. There is something better coming that is intended to be the completion and the fulfillment of what God is doing now. And in light of that bigger picture, in light of the hope of the inheritance we have in the kingdom of God, in light of what's coming, there's a sense in which if you're married, you're not. If you're sad, you're not. If you're rejoicing, you're not. You don't have to stress about all those things because this is only the prologue. The really important issue of this age is not whether I get married or not, whether I'm happy or sad, whether I'm rich or poor. The really important issue of this age is have I made the choice to follow Christ or not? Other philosophies and religions tell you, look, this life is all there is, go for it because this is all you've got, you go around once and you're gone, but that's just not true. This age is the time where I am to make the choice that determines where I spend the next age. And the next age is what this age is all about. Either I've set my heart and my focus and my being on the promises of God and the rescue He's bringing in Jesus Christ, or I've set my heart on this world. And that is the crucial, most important choice I must make in this life. So the time has been shortened, not in a chronological sense, not in the sense that Paul knows that Jesus is coming back in the next year, so we don't have much time left, but in the sense that this era is the last era. There won't be another big event like Moses giving another set of commandments, there won't be another virgin birth that starts something new, there won't be a new new covenant bringing in another age. This is it. This is our last chance. This is the last age. The form of this world is passing away. We're in the final stage of history. The future that was hinted at in the Old Testament has been made clear in Christ, and the really important choice you have to make is not whether to get married, it's whether or not to follow Christ. There's a sense in which it's not really significant, whether you're married or single, rejoicing or weeping, rich or poor, because in the end there's a joy coming that's going to overwhelm all of those things. The really significant question is do you know where your future lies? Do you have the hope of the gospel or not? In the end, the specific roles and the choices and the opportunities God gives us are not as significant as whether or not we have faith. Now, those choices and roles and opportunities, they're very significant to us. They shape us, they mold us, they test us, they try us, they matter. They cause joy and they cause mourning. But here Paul's saying, step back a minute and look at the bigger picture. In the scale of these things, all these questions you're asking are not as significant as what happens to you when this world passes away and you face your Creator and the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you know where you're headed? Do you know that this world is passing away? The time has been shortened in the sense that the time to decide to follow Christ is now. Now that strikes me as one of the fundamental truths and themes of the Bible. And if we could really gain that perspective, we could go a long way toward having joy and contentment in this life no matter what our circumstances. We would be able to let go of the hurts and the grievances and the worries and the troubles because we know something more important is at stake. Paul's saying, I do think there are certain advantages to singleness. Marriage brings certain troubles, and there are some advantages to not taking those on, but in the end, that's not really the most important issue. Take them on or not. But whether you take them on or not, live like what matters is your faith in God. Whether you're married or not is of secondary importance to having faith in Jesus Christ. Don't lose sight of the biggest choice you need to make. So if you're married, there's a sense in which you live like you're not married because you recognize there's a bigger picture going on. Yes, you absolutely have the obligations and the vows and the promises of a married person if you're married, but in the end, the question of whether or not I'm married is of secondary importance to whether or not I have faith. And that's a really hard lesson to learn, but I think it's a profound lesson. His advice is basically marry or don't marry. Either choice is good, but keep track of the big picture. He then goes on to make his clearest statement about why singleness has its advantage. And I'm going to argue that Paul is not commanding singleness here, just like he's not commanding marriage. I don't think he believes that marriage is a second class state, and I don't think he believes that singleness is a second class state. I think Paul believes both singleness and marriage are good gifts of God, both have their benefits, both have their challenges, and both are good gifts. And I've been arguing that Paul, who is single as he writes this, has a particular issue he wants them to think about as they consider whether or not to get married. So let's look at seven thirty two through thirty five. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided, and the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit, but the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. Okay, Paul is not saying that it is wrong to be concerned with pleasing your wife or pleasing your husband. We get this idea that Paul is saying that the single person can be wholeheartedly devoted to God while the married person can only be devoted to God in the non-married part of his or her life, and that married stuff, well, it's just a distraction to the real deal. We think Paul is saying something like your spouse, your children, they just compete with God for your devotion and they somehow detract from the devotion you give God, as if your spouse is distracting you from the path to holiness and dragging you down into worldliness. God wants you to do this thing, but your wife says, No, you have to do that thing, and your allegiance is divided, as if you have to side with your spouse over God, and that's a terrible place to be, so it's better just to stay single. I would say that Paul is not arguing that and that the kind of division he's talking about is something different. I argue that he makes one point about the advantage of singleness and one point only, and as I understand it, this is the argument he makes. No Christian, whether married or single, is free to please himself. No Christian can say I'm gonna do whatever I want to do whenever I want to do it, because every Christian has the obligation to serve the Lord Jesus Christ who bought us out of slavery to sin. As he just said in 723, you are not your own, you were bought with a price. If there is a choice between what I want to do and what God tells me is the right thing to do, then I have an obligation to choose what God says is right. And I ought to be asking myself, in whatever my life circumstances or situations, given all the choices and responsibilities before me, what is pleasing to God in my life? So from God's perspective, what's the right thing for me to do? Now marriage is rightly and appropriately designed by God to make two lives into one. Therefore, a married person has an additional obligation to ask what is the right thing for us. Not only must I consider what God says is right and true and good, I have to consider what my spouse needs and wants as well. I am no longer on my own. The single person who has come to faith has one obligation to do what's pleasing to God. The married person who has come to faith has taken on two obligations to do what's pleasing to God and what is pleasing to my spouse. So the married person is not free to think about him or herself only. The married person is not free to ignore or disregard the needs and wants and callings of his or her spouse because the two have become one, and that's a good thing. The two shall become one and that's appropriate for married people. There's nothing wrong in that. But it does mean as I consider the range of my options and the choices before me, if I am married, I am not free to do only what I want. I am obligated to consider the needs and gifts and callings of my spouse, whereas a single person need only consider their own needs and gifts and callings before God. Married people work out that calling together. I don't think Paul is trying to pit the desire to please God against the desire to please your spouse. It's not as if God is saying, go to the mission field and my husband is saying, no, stay here and have children. If I'm married, God wants me to love my spouse as myself. It's obedient for me to consider how to please and encourage and become one with my spouse. It is a godly and appropriate thing for me to do to keep the promises I have made in marriage. That's a promise I've made before God and He wants me to keep it. Keeping it is not in competition with following God. Keeping my marriage vows and serving my family is part of following God. So Paul is not saying that only single people can be undistractedly devoted to the Lord. He's saying single people have an obligation to devote themselves to their Lord. Married people have an additional obligation to devote themselves to their spouse. That is part of pleasing the Lord. Both of those are good things. If you're measuring the single person has one obligation, the married person has two obligations, but that additional obligation is not a distraction from serving God, it is part and parcel of serving God. So Paul is not saying, I want to promote undistracted devotion to the Lord, so I don't want anyone to get married because only single people can have undistracted devotion to the Lord. If you're married and you're serving your family, you are being obedient to the Lord. If you live as a godly wife or a godly husband, you are doing what God wants you to do. Being a wife or a husband is not a distraction from serving God. It's an additional obligation or promise that you have made, and that puts certain limits on what you can do. He said repeatedly in this section, there's no sin in marriage. It is a good gift from God. But I do recognize that in marriage you've made promises that limit your choices and your freedom. So Paul routinely preached the gospel and put himself in danger, and that would be made more difficult by putting a wife in danger. Paul as an apostle has the freedom to make choices he couldn't make if he were married. So notice he says, I'm not trying to restrain you, I'm not trying to put a noose on you. Marriage is a great thing. If you're married, seek to follow God as a married person. If you're single, follow God as a single person. If you're single, you have the freedom to follow God without needing to consider the needs of anyone else. Enjoy that. Follow him there with your whole heart. Now remember, he is speaking to people who've decided that asceticism and abstinence and chastity is a the good and best thing and that they should stay away from getting married. And he's saying, Okay, there is an advantage to remaining single, but it's not the advantage you think it is. The advantage is not that you can be physically chaste, the advantage is that you have only one obligation in following God. You have the freedom to follow God without considering the needs of a spouse. So is Paul knocking marriage? No, I don't think so. He says there's no sin in marriage. It is a good gift from God. And other parts of the Bible, including Paul's other letters, make it clear that we're designed for marriage. Does Paul think only single people can wholeheartedly serve the Lord? No. Does Paul think marriage is a distraction from serving God? No. Does Paul think marriage is some kind of second class lesser way to follow God? No. And neither does he think that singleness is a second class, lesser way to follow God. Does Paul think that singleness is an advantage in his calling as an apostle? Yes. It gives him an extra measure of freedom that he needs to fulfill his calling. Does Paul think that singleness is a good gift from God? Yes. Singleness can be a benefit in certain callings and circumstances. Were the apostles required to be single? No. We know that the other apostles were married. Peter's wife is mentioned in Scripture as traveling with him. Did Paul prefer the single life? Yes. For himself, but he is not anti-marriage. Now many people have argued that Paul must have been married at some point in his life because it was pretty unusual or unthinkable that a Pharisee not get married, and we know he was a Pharisee. Pharisees were encouraged or required to be married. So some have argued that when Paul became a Christian, his wife must have left him, or perhaps he's a widower, but we don't have any clear, unambiguous evidence either way. Remember, Paul is talking to people who have decided that asceticism is good and they should stay away from marriage altogether. And Paul's saying, yes, there is an advantage to singleness. I agree with you, Corinthians, there is something good about singleness, but it's not the good you Corinthians think it is. The good is not an abstinence and chastity, the good is not in avoiding physical contact. The advantage to singleness is that you have a wider range of choices and fewer obligations and promises to keep as you sort out your calling before God. There's no advantage in avoiding marriage in order to be ascetic. Marriage is a good gift from God. If you're married, keep your marriage vows. That's part of your obedience and calling. If you're single, use your extra freedom to serve God. Now Paul doesn't talk about this, but in my experience, singleness presented some extra challenges in addition to the extra freedom. When I was single, it was much easier for me to be selfish because no one was in my face saying, Why are you making that choice? In my life, I have found incredible blessings and learning opportunities through being married. It has forced me to realize I'm not the center of the universe the way I was tempted to believe when I was single. So if you're single, it is true that you do have extra freedom, but in some ways it may be harder to use that freedom well. So I would encourage you, single folks, to make sure you cultivate the kinds of friends and mentors who will hold you accountable and get in your face and say, let's think about that choice today. If you've been listening to Wednesday in the Word, my podcast about what the Bible means, how to know. If you've been blessed by listening, I ask that you please leave a positive comment on your favorite podcast platform. And tell your friends about this podcast, particularly sharing what you've learned. Artsday Music is graciously provided by Reggie Cook of heartfeltmusic.org. I invite you to check out his other music and cities. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Krisan Marotta, and I'll meet you here next week at Wednesday in the Word.