Something on 1 Corinthians 7:39

Melissa asks about 1 Corinthians 7:39 and wonders if the phrase, “only in the Lord” indicates that the Christian widow must marry a Christian . . .

The text says, “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

Here, we're forced to face two different interpretive possibilities. On the one hand, we could interpret the phrase as an adjectival phrase. (Adjectives answer “what kind of.”) If that were the route that we'd take, we'd interpret the text as saying that the Christian widow must “only” marry an “in the Lord” kind of man, so “a Christian.” Admittedly, a good number of interpreters have opted for this view.

But, on the other hand, it is not at all clear that the phrase is intended as an “adjectival” phrase; that the phrase is adverbial is – at least – as equally strong. (Adverbs answer “how.”) If this were the route that we'd go, we'd interpret the text as saying that the Christian widow must marry “only in the Lord,” so, “a marriage that is scriptural” or “a marriage that is approved by God.” (See 1 Corinthians 11:11 and Ephesians 6:1 for other statements that use the phrase, “only in the Lord,” in an adverbial way; Paul isn't saying that it is only Christian males and females that are “mutually dependent” in 1 Corinthians 11:11, nor is he saying that children should only obey their Christian parents in Ephesians 6:1; in both texts, he's saying that God is ultimately responsible and approves the arrangement. Is the same kind of God-approved arrangement in view in 1 Corinthians 7:39?)

At this point, we need to consider which of the two options has the strongest support . . .

Against the idea that the man married must be a Christian, there is a number of considerations. First, should the woman “repent” if she doesn't marry a Christian? If the widowed woman married a non-Christian, how would she repent? To repent, would she have to divorce? (If the marriage is inherently “sinful,” wouldn't divorce be required? If one says that the marriage is “sinful” but doesn't require divorce – so they could stay together, in spite of the sinful marriage – we'd have to ask how God participated in “joining” the couple together in the first place. Didn't God “join together” the couple? Did He violate His own marriage “law,” as found in 1 Corinthians 7:39, in joining them?)

Finally, I should call attention to two other points . . . Paul explicitly says that “mixed marriages” (those between Christians and non-Christians) should not be dissolved; on the contrary, he insists that they are legitimate and scriptural “marriages” and should continue (see 1 Cor. 7:12-16). If that's true, why would the arrangement of a Christian widow and a non-Christian man be any different from any other “mixed marriage”? Does God have a special stipulation for the Christian widow (in marrying a Christian)? Does that same rule apply for the Christian widower? If so, there isn't any evidence for such.

Second, 2 Corinthians 6:14 and its mention of “be not unequally yoked” (KJV) has often been treated by the same interpreters (who understand 1 Corinthians 7:39 to speak of the demand for a Christian widow to marry a Christian) to speak of marriage. This is certainly to be rejected for a number of reasons . . . First, it would have Paul crossing over himself, since he'd already written to the same congregation, telling them not to dissolve “mixed marriages,” stating that they were scriptural and legitimate and to be sustained (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-16). Second, if the context of 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:2 does refer to a “mixed marriage” union, then 6:17 would have one under the command to “come out from among them and be separate” – but again, this would have Paul crossing over himself (as opposed to 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, where he'd said just the opposite). Third, some appeal to an Old Testament “separation” principle, arguing that the same “covenant” restrictions that were binding upon Old Testament Israel are being applied to the New Testament church, but this isn't quite true; the “separation” principle had purposes that the New Testament doesn't face – now, we don't need to keep a purified blood-line to bring the Jewish Messiah; further, the Old Testament “separation” principle was to separate from “foreigners” – not unbelievers, of which there were several even among the nation of Israel (e.g. Nadab, Abihu, Ahab, Jezebel, etc.) – and the “separation” wasn't only in marriages to the “foreigners” but also in business (cf. Deut. 7:1-4; 23:6; Exo. 34:12-15). Fourth – and perhaps, most importantly – the context of 2 Corinthians deals with Paul's opponents, the Judaizers, who would have the Corinthian church reject Paul's ministry and accept some kind of revitalization of the old law (cf. 2 Cor. 3:1-ff.; 11:22,23); the context insists that the “unbelievers” in Paul's “be not unequally yoked with unbelievers” (2.6:14) refers to the opponents, who are actively “lording over” Corinth and are forcefully pushing them against Paul. Paul's context in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 has absolutely nothing to do with a marital arrangement – where'd that idea come from?! (Applying the “principle” of 2 Corinthians 6:14 to marriage is a very slippery thing to do – how far must one go with such an “application”?! What if you and I don't agree on how – or how far – to apply this “principle”? That's the tricky thing with application of principles – the whole business is slippery. Might we be better to realize that we're working in areas of judgment at this point and are quite far from Paul's complete concern?)

What does all of this mean?

If I'm reading all of this data correctly, I think the evidence is overwhelmingly strong in support of the idea that 1 Corinthians 7:39 encourages the Christian widow to marry “only in the case that the arrangement is scriptural, approved by the Lord.” (A “mixed marriage” would be approved by God [cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-16].) I think that the phrase at the end of the passage is “adverbial.” It answers “how” the marriage is to be (arranged) rather than “what kind of man” the potential spouse should be. As far as I can tell, there is nothing that is problematic with this view. The idea that the spouse for the Christian widow must be a Christian seems to have irreconcilable difficulties.