Why does Paul suddenly shift the topic from marriage to circumcision and slavery?

Explanation:

To understand why Paul suddenly introduces circumcision and slavery amid his teachings on marriage, we need to consider 1 Corinthians 7:18–24 within the broader context of 1 Corinthians 7:1–17. First, in 1 Corinthians 7:18–24 Paul explains that whether one is circumcised or uncircumcised, slave or free, one ought to live out his call to keep God’s commands. In other words, to be a Christian is an internal struggle to resist sin and love God and one’s neighbour. It is not about one’s external circumstances such as ethnicity or social standing.³

In the broader context of 1 Corinthians 7:1–17, Paul discusses marriage. He explains that married people should not abstain from sexual intercourse (1 Corinthians 7:2–5). Single people may remain single (1 Corinthians 7:8) and married people should not divorce (not even if one is married to an unbeliever, 1 Corinthians 7:10–16). Paul summarizes his instructions for marriage in 1 Corinthians 7:17 with the principle that each one should walk in any situation according to God’s call. In other words, God’s call to live as a Christian transcends one’s external circumstances, such as marriage status. If one was married when called, continue in that marriage, and if one was single, it is fine to remain so.

With the context of 1 Corinthians 7:1–17 in mind, we can see why Paul suddenly introduces the notions of circumcision and slavery. By introducing an example of ethnicity and social status, Paul drives home the point that married people should remain as they are as they live out their Christian faith.⁴ In other words, if either circumcision or slavery does not favour or hinder one’s ability to live out one’s call to faith, neither does marriage.

Counterargument:

While Paul’s teachings about circumcision and slavery are related to his teaching that one should remain as he is (whether married or single), it is not clear that he introduces these matters to support his teachings on marriage. Rather, he seems to offer the Corinthians pastoral advice on a range of topics from immoral behaviour (1 Corinthians 5:1–13), to lawsuits between believers (1 Corinthians 6:1–20), to marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1–16), to circumcision and slavery (1 Corinthians 7:18–24). There might be loose principles that connect each of these topics, but Paul does not seem to use one topic to support principles that apply to another. Rather, he seems to write on various topics that have to do with Christian living.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this view is that after Paul discusses circumcision and slavery in 1 Corinthians 7:18–24 he gets back to the topic of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:25–40). That Paul introduces circumcision and slavery in the midst of his discussion on marriage means that he uses circumcision and slavery to support his broader point about marriage. In other words, the external matters of marriage and singleness are not as important as one’s response to God’s call to live a Christian life. The same is true for circumcision and slavery. Marriage, circumcision, and slavery are external matters related to gender, ethnicity, and social status. God’s call to live faithfully transcends such matters.

Explanation:

The Corinthians ask Paul about marriage, so he offers his pastoral insight. After giving his instruction on mixed marriages, Paul summarized his teaching with the principle that one ought to walk according to the situation he was in when God called him.⁵ The principle is important and extends beyond marriage. The gospel has to do with an inward change of heart, not an outward change of circumstance. Paul uses the opportunity to illustrate this critical insight by introducing circumcision and slavery. Circumcision and slavery are similar to marriage in that they have to do with one’s external circumstances. Paul knows from his own conversion experience that outward circumstances do not prevent one from being called by God to faith.⁶ What matters is not one’s outward circumstance, but that one lives out his calling in any external circumstance. Given the importance of this insight, Paul presses the point through the examples of circumcision and slavery before getting back to his instruction on marriage.

Counterargument:

Paul’s point is not to support the principle that one ought to remain as he is when he is called. Rather, his point is that one’s social status and distinctions have a relativized place once one is transformed by the gospel.⁷ For the sake of friendship and the witness of the gospel there need to be Christian Jews, Christian Gentiles, Christian singles, and Christian married people.⁸ Still some are called to this situation, and some to that; it does not matter which.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that it misses Paul’s point. When Paul uses the verb to call, he has in mind God’s call to salvation, not one’s external circumstance. The point is not that one should live out whatever external circumstances one has been called to. Rather, Paul’s point is that one’s external circumstance is irrelevant to God’s call to salvation. Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 7:17 when he says that one should walk in his situation according to his call from God. He then drives this point home even further in 1 Corinthians 7:19. There Paul says that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; rather, what counts is keeping the commandments of God. In other words, there do not need to be Christian Jews, Gentiles, married people, and so on. There need to be Christians who live according to their call to faith, in whatever outward circumstance they find themselves in. Of course, because one’s external circumstance is not relevant to the gospel, and God’s call goes out to all tribes and nations, there will be Jewish, Gentile, married, and single Christians.

Possible weaknesses:

It is hard to see what the weakness of this view might be. Once one sees that Paul uses the verb to call to refer to God’s call to salvation, and that the discussion around circumcision and slavery is sandwiched between his discussion on marriage, Paul’s point becomes clear. Just as one ought to live out his call to salvation whether circumcised or enslaved, so one ought to live out his call to salvation whether married or single.

Explanation:

Paul exhorts the Corinthians to be content with their lot in life. Their lot in life is the situation in which God has called them to live. Some are called to live in marriage, while others are called to singleness. Paul now introduces the notions of circumcision and slavery to drive home the point that the Corinthians should be content with matters beyond their control. Paul’s comments on slavery are especially clear. Slaves are not able to control their situation, and so they have no choice but to be content. In the same way, whether one is married or single, one ought to be content with the life to which God has called him.⁹

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that Paul does not say that one should be content with slavery. Rather, he says that if one was a slave when one was called, it does not matter (1 Corinthians 7:21). Why does it not matter? Because what is important is that one lives out God’s call to salvation in whatever circumstance in which one finds himself. In other words, Paul’s point here is that one ought to live out the gospel in any circumstance, not that one ought to be content with their external situation. Paul even says in 1 Corinthians 7:21 that if an enslaved person finds an opportunity to gain his freedom, he should take it and become free. This is not true of married people, whom Paul specifically commands not to divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10).

Explanation:

Paul uses the example of slavery to illustrate that the Corinthians should be content with their situation. Paul wants the Corinthians to be content whether they are married or single, and slavery gives him the analogy he needs to make his point. We can deduce that Paul uses slavery as an analogy for contentment in marriage because the Greek terms married and divorced align closely with bound and free.¹⁰ Paul’s point is that just as slaves learn to be content with their situation, so married people must learn the same.

Counterargument:

There are two problems with this. First, it is not clear that the Greek terms for marriage and divorce are anything like the Greek terms for bound and free. For example, the term Paul uses for divorce is ἀφίημι, which means to release or to send away. The term he uses for free is ἐλεύθερος, which means free or freedom. Of course, there is something similar about being free and being released, but without further argumentation these similarities are coincidental. Worse, it is not clear what the term γαμέω which means to marry, has to do with the term δούλος, which means slave.

Second, even if the Greek terms were similar in the way posited, it is not clear why slavery is a fitting analogy for marriage. For which is it? Are the married people like slaves or are they like the freedman? Such a question is relative to the persons. Some prefer marriage, while others prefer being single. Thus, it is hard to see how Paul could be using an argument from slavery to show that married people ought to be content with their situation.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that it overlooks Paul's use of the verb to call throughout 1 Corinthians 7:1–40. When Paul says that one should walk according to God’s calling and should remain as he was when he was called, he likely has in mind God’s call to salvation. Thus, Paul is not saying that circumcised people were called to circumcision, or that slaves were called to be slaves. Rather, he is saying that people ought to live up to their call to salvation, regardless of their outward circumstances. Once one understands what Paul means by to call, Interpretation 2 seems to be ruled out. Paul is not saying one should be content with circumcision or slavery, because the call refers to salvation, not external circumstances.