1 Corinthians 7:28Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

See how Paul limits even this by the shortness of time. "The time," he says, "is already shortened" (1 Cor 7:29). That is, we have already been commanded to depart from here and prepare for the exodus, while you press inward. Even if marriage brought no afflictions, one ought still to strive toward the things to come. But if it is accompanied by afflictions, what need is there to lay a burden on oneself? What necessity is there to take on such a burden, which, once taken, must be borne as though it had not been taken? "So that those who have wives," he says, "should be as though they had none." After saying something about the future, he again turns to the present. The spiritual point is that one cares for the things of her husband, while the other cares for the things of God (1 Cor 7:34). The earthly point is this: "I want you to be without cares" (1 Cor 7:32). Yet even this he leaves to their will. Whoever points out what is worthy of choice and then again compels it seems not to trust his own words. Paul, by his very yielding, urges and inclines them all the more. "I say this," he says, "for your own profit, not to put a noose upon you, but that you may serve in good order and without distraction" (1 Cor 7:35). Let virgins hear that virginity is not defined by this alone. She who cares for worldly things is not a comely virgin. After saying, "There is a difference between the married woman and the virgin" (1 Cor 7:33), the Apostle explains wherein their difference consists. He sets the distinguishing mark of the virgin and the non-virgin not in marriage or continence, but in freedom from cares in one and many cares in the other. Cohabitation is not evil, but the hindrance to philosophy. Blessed Paul shows that everything human is only an apparition and passes like a shadow or a dream, because it has nothing true or firm in itself. Is it not childish to chase a shadow, boast in a dream, and cling to what vanishes in a moment? "For the form of this world is passing away," he says. When you have heard that it is passing away, why do you still seek the goods of the world? When you have heard that everything human is only an apparition without truth, why do you willingly subject yourself to deception? Why, when you reflect on the changeability and instability of present goods, do you not despise them? Why do you not direct your desire toward those goods that are constant, firm, enduring, and subject to no change?

"But such will have afflictions in the flesh, and I spare you." By afflictions he means the cares and sorrows connected with marriage. He continues, "I spare you," as children, and I desire you to be free and without sorrow. Marriage is a bond. Those under its yoke do not have authority over themselves, as was said above.

While Damasus of blessed memory was still alive, we wrote a book against Helvidius on the perpetual virginity of holy Mary. Since our purpose was to glorify the holiness of virginity, we said many things unfavorable to marriage. Did that righteous expert in the Scriptures, the virginal teacher of the virgin Church, Damasus, condemn anything at all in that work? Likewise, in the book to Eustochium we spoke far more severely about marriages, and no one was offended by this. For the lover of purity listened intently for praises of chastity. Read Tertullian. Read Cyprian and Ambrose. Either condemn me together with them, or leave us in peace. If people of the Plautine household or story are so arrogant in disputes that they imagine themselves very learned by condemning whatever anyone says, they condemn both sides at once, even on the same subject. They condemn, for example, both me and my opponent. Although one of the two must necessarily be defeated, they assert that both have been defeated. "But when, speaking of second and third marriages, we said that it is better to know one husband, even a second or third, than many, that is, that it is more tolerable to be a prostitute for one man than for many, did we not immediately explain why we said this? Indeed, the Samaritan woman mentioned in the Gospel, who said that she had a sixth husband, is reproved by the Lord because this sixth was not her husband" (Jn 4:18). Even now I say without hesitation that the Church condemns neither second nor third marriages. In the same way, she permits a woman to marry a fifth, sixth, and further husband, just as she permits a second. Yet as these marriages are not condemned, so they are not praised. They are a concession to weakness, not praise of temperance. Therefore elsewhere I also said, when one husband is accepted, there is no need to ask whether he is second or third, because single marriage has already ceased. "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable." I do not condemn second or third marriages. If it can be said, I do not even condemn eighth marriages. Let a woman take even an eighth husband, provided only that she cease fornication.

Then come allusions to the dangers of persecutions, the difficulties of religious perfection, and the like. As before, the Apostle speaks of virginity in the form of counsel. According to blessed Theodoret, the Apostle speaks as though saying, "I do not introduce a law, but offer counsel. For the Lord also, after giving law to what accords with nature, offers only as counsel what is above nature. He says, 'I think,' not because he doubts that virginity is good and the best of good things, but so that counsel should not turn into law. He expressed himself as though in doubt." Blessed Theophylact writes, "It is good, and very good, for a man to abstain from marriage. Yet this is not because marriage is unclean, but because of the difficulties and sorrows of the married state. By affliction of the flesh he means the cares and concerns unavoidable in marriage. The unmarried are free from them."

He spoke of those who have not yet chosen either state, but stand on the common boundary between married and unmarried life (Theodoret). What does "affliction in the flesh" mean? Oecumenius writes, "Those who marry, he says, will have affliction because of the sorrows connected with marriage. But I spare you as my children. I desire you to be free from sorrows and without care. When you are in marriage, you are as though in bonds. Not one of you has authority over himself." Theophylact understands affliction in the flesh as the cares and concerns unavoidable in the married state. "Affliction in the flesh," te sarki, means for the flesh or in the flesh. The Apostle points to an affliction nearer than outward sorrowful circumstances. It is an affliction in the flesh itself. Why should one not first understand here the pains of childbearing? Husband and wife suffer equally at that time, he in soul and she in body. Then one may understand the sorrowful cares of maintaining a household, raising children, sustaining outward relations, privations, failures, reversals, attacks, and ruin. All this must inevitably be endured. The unmarried are free from it all and remain masters of their body, their occupations, and their whole outward condition. Since, in the course of the discourse, the words "affliction in the flesh" correspond to "because of the present necessity," perhaps the Apostle also had in mind what blessed Photius saw in the present necessity. These were persecutions and oppressions for the faith, always ready to arise. It is easier for the unmarried to endure them, or to hide from them.