“In view of the present distress”
May 20, 2008
I was thinking about 1 Corinthians 7 as one does, and further to a comment on a post on singleness last year, I’m warming to the idea that when Paul is saying that singleness is better (1 Corinthians 7.38), he is addressing a particular redemptive-historical context. Could “the present distress” (v. 26), the “appointed time” which has “grown very short” (v. 29), the fact that “the present form of this world is passing away” (v. 31), and the requirement for some slightly odd behavior more in keeping with a temporary situation than normal life (v. 30), be referring not to the whole of the last days, but a particular crisis, maybe even AD 70? Jesus advice for AD 70 (see e.g. Matthew 24.17-19) bears some resemblance to vv. 29 and 30. That then forms the context for the anxiety and divided interests the married man faces which Paul wants to avoid (vv. 33 and 34).
The implication of Paul’s teaching for us in the chapter as a whole is therefore first to be content with our current situation, second realise that there may be particular situations of crisis which makes singleness a better state to be in (not morally, but practically), and since Paul’s aim is to promote good order and secure undivided devotion to the Lord, it seems fair to say that those in some kind of courtship or marriage should be to make sure that they are charactised by good order and undivided devotion to the Lord.
May 20, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Sounds good, but highly speculative. Is there any historical references to link this to 70 AD? And why would the destruction of Jerusalem provoke the need to stay single for example? The Jerusalem church, and maybe others near by would need to here this, -but in Corinth?
Isn’t it more plausable to think of political/social turmoil within the Roman empire (which might include for example, persecution of Jews and/or Christians)?
May 20, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I was waiting for this…
May 20, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Sam - Mea culpa! I am indeed speculating. I think the references to the passing away of the present form the world might have something to do with the Old Covenant age ending, though.
Mark - Obviously. I am a preterist, after all…
May 20, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Oh dear. Undue emphasis on AD 70 again.
May 21, 2008 at 9:48 am
I don’t think Sam and Daniel’s perspective are irreconcilable, they properly belong together.
I think Paul is probably talking about political/social turmoil within the Roman empire which includes persecution of Christians. But I think that’s what Jesus said the run up to the destruction of the temple in AD70 was going to be like. The signs of the end of the age, the beginning of birth pangs etc. The evidence that the present form of this world was passing away (cf. Hebrews 8:13, 12:26-28).
May 21, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Does anyone else find this hysterical?!!
May 21, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Victoria: yes.
May 21, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Very much so, Victoria, very much so…
May 21, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I think that, for once, Daniel is writing drivel.
May 21, 2008 at 10:13 pm
chuckle chuckle
May 22, 2008 at 10:53 am
Daniel, I think this probably makes good sense (it’s an idea I’ve been toying with for a while). Certainly distress and shortness of time apply to AD70 consistently in the NT. And AD70 is presented as the final end of the First Creation, and so would make a deeper sense of the present form of this world passing away than any other event in the 1st century.
May 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm
If you want to get married, Daniel, then go ahead and do so with God’s blessing. You don’t need to say that the present distress is referring to AD 70 in order to justify a desire to marry
May 22, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I agree with Apodeicitc. If you’re in a situation with another person which makes marriage the best option, any ensuing marriage is therefore a gift which should be received gratefully.
All other things being equal, singleness is best. But all other things aren’t equal. Thus, for some people, marriage is best.
It’s very simple, really!
May 22, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I just noticed I misspelled my name in the last post. Here’s a song for all you singles out there
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAH5dvfYEto
May 22, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I feel a slight need to make more serious comment. I do think that Daniel’s main point is on to something - although I would still say that connection to AD 70 is, although interesting, a little bit speculative. Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 7 that he is offering wise council rather than authoritative command, and so it doesn’t seem to be too out of the box to claim that when Paul says “in view of the present distress”, he is speaking into the particular situation of the Corinthians at that time. If this is the case, it is not necessarily the case that singleness is better in all circumstances.
To lighten the tone though, I’ll point out that:
1) this is not what you’d have said as little as two months ago. I know this because you’ve said as much!
2) combining point one and your temporal circumstances does continue to make this hilarious. I shall be chuckling for some time, I think!
May 22, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Try Matthew 24 and the Great Tribulation by Brian Schwertley
May 22, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Semper reformanda!
May 22, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I’m not sure it is quite so hilarious, actually. I think it smacks of liberal theological method.
May 23, 2008 at 11:48 am
“Semper reformanda!”
what: reforming your exegesis of Scripture in response to your experience? Very Schliermacher.
May 23, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Schleiermacher? Liberal theological method? I’ve got Bible quotations and references and everything.
Harrumph.
June 9, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Daniel, it’s something I’ve thought now for over a year, but am still not totally convinced.
The thing that makes me prefer it is exactly Liam’s point. However much we wriggle, Paul does say “it is good for a man not to marry.” The rest of the chapter also sounds as though marriage is a necessary evil (for those too weak to restrain their lusts), more than a wonderful gift. But this is so out of step with Paul’s own writing (eg, Eph. 5), and the picture of marriage, and the subsequent blessing of children, in both testaments, that it just seems incongruous.
Unless, as you say, it is AD70-related. After all, Jesus says it would be a terrible thing to be a pregnant woman or nursing mother in AD70, so equally, wouldn’t it be great not to be encumbered by a spouse, in-laws etc.
But, of course, in a situation unlike AD70, all things being equal, it would be better to be married than single, as the whole Bible would lead us to see.
June 9, 2008 at 8:52 pm
i think the whole of the bible is exclusively about AD70.