1 Corinthians 7: 6-9 and the "Gift" of Singleness
Captain Sensible writes: A thorough and detailed contribution here, from a reader that has compared the original Greek verse that is frequently mistranslated to include a "gift of singleness", with a number of the translations that are popular today. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the reader that sent this in (God bless you, JM), and who I know works tirelessly to address this modern doctrinal error which has sadly now become so entrenched. Although I differ slightly in some regards, this is an outstanding piece of work, the magnitude of which cannot be underestimated, not only for single Christians, but for the entire Body of Christ.
With the recent controversy around Debbie Maken’s book “Getting Serious About Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness”, we decided to take a look at the passage upon which the entire concept of “the gift of singleness” is based. In the process, we made an interesting discovery comparing the original Greek texts with several older and newer translations:
Greek: "6) De lego touto kata suggnome ou kata epitage 7) Gar thelo pas anthropos einai kai hos emautou alla hekastos echo IDIOS CHARISMA ek theos HOS MEN HOUTO DE HOS HOUTO. 8) Lego de agamos kai chera esti KALOS autos ean meno kago hos kago 9) De ei egkrateuomai ou egkrateuomai GAMEO gar esti kreitton gameo e puroo."
KJV: “6) But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his PROPER GIFT of God, ONE AFTER THIS MANNER, ONE AFTER THAT. 8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is GOOD for them if they abide even as I. 9) But if they cannot contain, LET THEM MARRY: for it is better to marry than to burn.”
NASB: “6) But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7) Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his OWN GIFT from God, ONE IN THIS MANNER AND ANOTHER IN THAT. 8) But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is GOOD for them if they remain even as I. 9) But if they do not have self-control, LET THEM MARRY; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
New Living Translation: “6) I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7) But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. But God gives to some the GIFT OF MARRIAGE, and to others the GIFT OF SINGLENESS. 8) So I say to those who aren’t married and to widows—it’s BETTER to stay unmarried, just as I am. 9) But if they can’t control themselves, THEY SHOULD GO AHEAD AND MARRY. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust.”
NRSV: 6) This I say by way of concession, not of command. 7) I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a PARTICULAR GIFT from God, ONE HAVING ONE KIND AND ANOTHER A DIFFERENT KIND. 8) To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is WELL for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9) But if they are not practicing self-control, THEY SHOULD MARRY. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
So let's compare these translations verse by verse:
Verse 6: "permission/concession, not command" relates to verse 7, 8 and 9, all addressed to singles, just as verse 10 "to the married" is expressed as a command "not I but the Lord". This is the case for the KJV, NASB and the NRSV, but not for the New Living Translation (and several other newer Bibles), which seems to creates a separate paragraph to connect verse 6 to the preceding verses (1-5) addressed to married people, not singles. It is a mystery why the editors of those modern Bibles would want to distance the softened "concession not command" from the message to singles it was obviously meant for.
Verse 7: As shown above, the KJV, NASB and NRSV stay close to the original Greek text, but the NLT version (as per its predecessor from the 70's, The Living Bible) embellishes "the gift of marriage" and the "gift of singleness" where there is none. Perhaps the first editors of the Living Bibles and other similar modern translations were trying to downplay the traditional Catholic notion of “gift of celibacy” or bring modern relevance to the passage by turning it into "the gift of singleness". But even Gordon Fee says no one can be sure if “I myself am” in the first half is referring to singleness or celibacy (see The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians).
One thing that many scholars seem to have overlooked was the Greek word IDIOS that precedes “gift” (“charisma” Greek for grace gift) in the second half of the verse. Idios is more correctly translated in the NRSV as “particular”…or even “peculiar”, as a matter of fact, it’s the root of the English word “idiosyncratic”, and the French word “idiot”, meaning “peculiar one”. Paul was more likely referring to a gift much more unique than marital status, such as an enablement for the sexual containment he mentions in the verse 9.
Paul further accentuates the uniqueness of this gifting using a Greek expression still common today: “hos men houto de hos houto”, most closely translated in the KJV and NASB as “one after/in this manner, and another after/in that.” It’s a figure of speech that has an infinite quality (one in this manner, and that manner, and that, and that…etc.), rather than suggesting it's either one of two things (like marriage or singleness). Indeed, “This” and “that” are non-specific, and most likely hypothetical: “this” does not mean marriage and “that” does not mean “singleness”, or vice versa, as the New Living Translation, The Message and other modern translations have concluded! Paul does not identify any specific gift: whatever was his gift that enabled him to proceed on such a perilous mission alone, he probably didn’t quite understand it himself. However Paul may have been gifted, he was gifted in his own particular way.
Verse 8: The NLT translates this verse to mean that it's BETTER to not marry, despite the fact that the original Greek uses the word "KALOS", which is more correctly means "GOOD", as written in the KJV, NASB and the NRSV. Again, it leaves us to wonder why the editors of the NLT would take an interpretation so denigrating of marriage? Even if there are other passages in 1 Cor 7 that suggest the superiority of singleness over marriage (v. 38), they must be looked at within the context of "the present distress" (v. 26, and also 29, 31) that faced the Corinthian people at that time.
Verse 9: "LET THEM MARRY". Note the permission granting (as opposed to permission denying) language that leaves the CHOICE to marry or remain single up to the individual, repeated again several times throughout the chapter in verses 26-28 and 36-38, even going so far as to say "he should do as he wants" in verse 36.
The wisdom Paul shares throughout the entire chapter is given to help the listeners make WISE DECISIONS about whether or not to marry. Nowhere in Corinthians or any other book of the Bible is there any mention of God "calling" some to marriage or singleness, or having to discern if it's "God's will" for you to pursue marriage or remain single. No admonishments to "wait on the Lord" to give you a spouse. Some interpret 1 Cor 7:17 to suggest that God assigns spouses ("But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk"), but the wording of this passage is also non-specific, and existing in equal proximity to similar passages about circumcision and slavery. The most that could be said about verse 17 is that a spouse may be a gift from God, especially a good one (Proverbs 19:14), but as far as divine matchmaking is concerned, we must dig deep into the Old Testament to find the only two examples: Adam & Eve and Hosea & Gomer. Almost always the Bible talks about marriage and singleness in terms of personal volition and intentionality: a man "finds a wife" in Proverbs 18:22, or "takes a wife" in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew 19.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no such thing as "the gift of singleness". It's an entirely modern invention, propogated by well-intentioned but misguided editors of The Living Bible, The New Living Translation and many of the other "plain English" Bibles because of how they interpreted 1 Cor 7:7 to mean that "God gives some the gift of marriage and some the gift of singleness", despite the fact that Paul was referring to unique gifting or enablement, not circumstantial singleness. When you step back from the passage and look at the other verses around it, you see that verses 6 and 7 combined merely serve as a preamble to verses 8 and 9, which contain the meat of Paul's recommendations about whether to marry or remain single, so that the individual would decide wisely-- well aware of their gifts vs. limits of self-control. A far cry from many of today's church leaders who would prefer that singles remain oblivious to their sexuality and the realities of postponing timely decisions about marriage-- as if God prefers and rewards indifference. It's time we correct these teachings and restore these passages to their original meaning (best represented by the NRSV) so that we may give single Christians what they have been sorely lacking: a wholehearted blessing to pursue marriage.
With the recent controversy around Debbie Maken’s book “Getting Serious About Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness”, we decided to take a look at the passage upon which the entire concept of “the gift of singleness” is based. In the process, we made an interesting discovery comparing the original Greek texts with several older and newer translations:
Greek: "6) De lego touto kata suggnome ou kata epitage 7) Gar thelo pas anthropos einai kai hos emautou alla hekastos echo IDIOS CHARISMA ek theos HOS MEN HOUTO DE HOS HOUTO. 8) Lego de agamos kai chera esti KALOS autos ean meno kago hos kago 9) De ei egkrateuomai ou egkrateuomai GAMEO gar esti kreitton gameo e puroo."
KJV: “6) But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7) For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his PROPER GIFT of God, ONE AFTER THIS MANNER, ONE AFTER THAT. 8) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is GOOD for them if they abide even as I. 9) But if they cannot contain, LET THEM MARRY: for it is better to marry than to burn.”
NASB: “6) But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7) Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his OWN GIFT from God, ONE IN THIS MANNER AND ANOTHER IN THAT. 8) But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is GOOD for them if they remain even as I. 9) But if they do not have self-control, LET THEM MARRY; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
New Living Translation: “6) I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7) But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. But God gives to some the GIFT OF MARRIAGE, and to others the GIFT OF SINGLENESS. 8) So I say to those who aren’t married and to widows—it’s BETTER to stay unmarried, just as I am. 9) But if they can’t control themselves, THEY SHOULD GO AHEAD AND MARRY. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust.”
NRSV: 6) This I say by way of concession, not of command. 7) I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a PARTICULAR GIFT from God, ONE HAVING ONE KIND AND ANOTHER A DIFFERENT KIND. 8) To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is WELL for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9) But if they are not practicing self-control, THEY SHOULD MARRY. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
So let's compare these translations verse by verse:
Verse 6: "permission/concession, not command" relates to verse 7, 8 and 9, all addressed to singles, just as verse 10 "to the married" is expressed as a command "not I but the Lord". This is the case for the KJV, NASB and the NRSV, but not for the New Living Translation (and several other newer Bibles), which seems to creates a separate paragraph to connect verse 6 to the preceding verses (1-5) addressed to married people, not singles. It is a mystery why the editors of those modern Bibles would want to distance the softened "concession not command" from the message to singles it was obviously meant for.
Verse 7: As shown above, the KJV, NASB and NRSV stay close to the original Greek text, but the NLT version (as per its predecessor from the 70's, The Living Bible) embellishes "the gift of marriage" and the "gift of singleness" where there is none. Perhaps the first editors of the Living Bibles and other similar modern translations were trying to downplay the traditional Catholic notion of “gift of celibacy” or bring modern relevance to the passage by turning it into "the gift of singleness". But even Gordon Fee says no one can be sure if “I myself am” in the first half is referring to singleness or celibacy (see The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians).
One thing that many scholars seem to have overlooked was the Greek word IDIOS that precedes “gift” (“charisma” Greek for grace gift) in the second half of the verse. Idios is more correctly translated in the NRSV as “particular”…or even “peculiar”, as a matter of fact, it’s the root of the English word “idiosyncratic”, and the French word “idiot”, meaning “peculiar one”. Paul was more likely referring to a gift much more unique than marital status, such as an enablement for the sexual containment he mentions in the verse 9.
Paul further accentuates the uniqueness of this gifting using a Greek expression still common today: “hos men houto de hos houto”, most closely translated in the KJV and NASB as “one after/in this manner, and another after/in that.” It’s a figure of speech that has an infinite quality (one in this manner, and that manner, and that, and that…etc.), rather than suggesting it's either one of two things (like marriage or singleness). Indeed, “This” and “that” are non-specific, and most likely hypothetical: “this” does not mean marriage and “that” does not mean “singleness”, or vice versa, as the New Living Translation, The Message and other modern translations have concluded! Paul does not identify any specific gift: whatever was his gift that enabled him to proceed on such a perilous mission alone, he probably didn’t quite understand it himself. However Paul may have been gifted, he was gifted in his own particular way.
Verse 8: The NLT translates this verse to mean that it's BETTER to not marry, despite the fact that the original Greek uses the word "KALOS", which is more correctly means "GOOD", as written in the KJV, NASB and the NRSV. Again, it leaves us to wonder why the editors of the NLT would take an interpretation so denigrating of marriage? Even if there are other passages in 1 Cor 7 that suggest the superiority of singleness over marriage (v. 38), they must be looked at within the context of "the present distress" (v. 26, and also 29, 31) that faced the Corinthian people at that time.
Verse 9: "LET THEM MARRY". Note the permission granting (as opposed to permission denying) language that leaves the CHOICE to marry or remain single up to the individual, repeated again several times throughout the chapter in verses 26-28 and 36-38, even going so far as to say "he should do as he wants" in verse 36.
The wisdom Paul shares throughout the entire chapter is given to help the listeners make WISE DECISIONS about whether or not to marry. Nowhere in Corinthians or any other book of the Bible is there any mention of God "calling" some to marriage or singleness, or having to discern if it's "God's will" for you to pursue marriage or remain single. No admonishments to "wait on the Lord" to give you a spouse. Some interpret 1 Cor 7:17 to suggest that God assigns spouses ("But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk"), but the wording of this passage is also non-specific, and existing in equal proximity to similar passages about circumcision and slavery. The most that could be said about verse 17 is that a spouse may be a gift from God, especially a good one (Proverbs 19:14), but as far as divine matchmaking is concerned, we must dig deep into the Old Testament to find the only two examples: Adam & Eve and Hosea & Gomer. Almost always the Bible talks about marriage and singleness in terms of personal volition and intentionality: a man "finds a wife" in Proverbs 18:22, or "takes a wife" in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew 19.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no such thing as "the gift of singleness". It's an entirely modern invention, propogated by well-intentioned but misguided editors of The Living Bible, The New Living Translation and many of the other "plain English" Bibles because of how they interpreted 1 Cor 7:7 to mean that "God gives some the gift of marriage and some the gift of singleness", despite the fact that Paul was referring to unique gifting or enablement, not circumstantial singleness. When you step back from the passage and look at the other verses around it, you see that verses 6 and 7 combined merely serve as a preamble to verses 8 and 9, which contain the meat of Paul's recommendations about whether to marry or remain single, so that the individual would decide wisely-- well aware of their gifts vs. limits of self-control. A far cry from many of today's church leaders who would prefer that singles remain oblivious to their sexuality and the realities of postponing timely decisions about marriage-- as if God prefers and rewards indifference. It's time we correct these teachings and restore these passages to their original meaning (best represented by the NRSV) so that we may give single Christians what they have been sorely lacking: a wholehearted blessing to pursue marriage.
posted by Captain Sensible at 9:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home