TRINJ23NS (2002) 211-224

SPIRITUAL MARRIAGE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY: 1 COR 7:25-38 IN MODERN EXEGESIS AND THE EARLIEST CHURCH GREG PETERS* Several scholars, most notably the twentieth century German Hans Achelis, have argued that the origin of the early Christian ascetic practice of syneisaktism, or "spiritual marriage,"1 can be found in the famous passage on virginity in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (7:25-38). In fact, twentieth century biblical commentators have often agreed with Achelis' understanding of the Corinthian text, thus lending support to his view.2 If these modern commentators are correct then it would appear that Paul was aware of the agapetae and supported their chosen ascetical path. Furthermore, several early church writers also write about the agapetae, thus lending further support to the thesis of Achelis that the practice of "spiritual marriage" was approved of in the earliest church.3 Achelis pictures two persons of the opposite sex living in an impossible situation. They had initially agreed to live together in a chaste marriage, but now they are tempted beyond their limits of control. The question is then raised, "Can such a virgin, vowed to virginity in a spiritual marriage, be free to marry?" Paul advises that the virgin can marry if necessity dictates. She would not be sinning if
*Greg S. Peters is a Ph.D. candidate at University of St. Michael's College in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada. a A phrase for the practice of "female Christian ascetics who lived together with men, although both parties had taken the vow of continency, and were animated with the earnest desire to keep it" flames Hastings, ed.. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics [New York, 1910], s.v. "Agapetae," by Hans Achelis, 177). In this paper, "spiritual marriage" is the equivalent of the transliterated Greek name syneisaktism, which is the form commonly used in scholarly literature. The participants of this ascetic practice are referred to by the Latinized Greek term agapetae. 2 The first to take exception to Achelis' thesis was Joseph Sickenberger, "Syneisaktentum im ersten Korintherbrief?" BZ 3 (1905): 44-26. Sickenberger's conclusions were upheld by E.-B. Alio, Saint Paul. Premire pitre aux Corinthiens (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 189-94. 3 For a negative discussion of the earliest church witnesses see Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 40-47. For early church "parallels of some kind" to "spiritual marriage" see Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 502 n. 105 and 569-70. See also discussion below of Philo, Hermas, and Ephrem.

212

TRINITY JOURNAL

she married. This interpretation suggests that Paul was familiar with syneisaktism. Since Paul does not condemn the practice, it is concluded that Paul had granted his approval. Although this argument is based on a particular reading of the biblical text, which, as will be demonstrated below, some interpreters do not accept, it is probable that the Corinthians were the first witnesses of the same phenomenon that would become popular in early Christian asceticism. To help support the contention that Paul was aware of syneisaktism one can look to modern authors who have commented on the text of 1 Cor 7:36-38, which reads, But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin, if she should be of full age, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.4 Historically, there have been at least four ways to understand 1 Cor 7:36-38, all of which rely on various understandings of Paul's ambiguous word usage: (1) Paul is writing about a young man and his fiance; (2) Paul is writing about a father and his virgin daughter; (3) Paul is discussing a levirate marriage; and (4) Paul is describing "spiritual marriage."5 The first understanding, that Paul is writing about a young man and his fiance, is argued by W. F. Beck and C. K. Barrett.6 Edgar J. Goodspeed and the editors of the RSV both adopt this understanding in their translations of 1 Cor 7:36 which read respectively, "But if a man thinks he is not acting properly toward the girl to whom he is engaged," and "If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed."7 Following Beck, the argument claims that

4 NAS translation, modified by deleting the word "daughter" which NAS interpolates after each occurrence of "virgin." ^William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, The Anchor Bible: 1 Corinthians, A New Translation (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 223. For a summary of these four positions see Roland H. A. Seboldt, "Spiritual Marriage in the Early Church: A Suggested Interpretation of 1 Cor. 7:36-38," CTM 30 (1959): 103-19. Thiselton identifies five positions but sees the fifth position as a variant on the father and virgin daughter position (First Epistle, 597), and Wolfgang Schrge finds six possible interpretations as a result of subdividing the father and virgin daughter understanding into two additional positions (Der erste Brief an die Korinther, vol. 2 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995], 197-99). 6 W. F. Beck, "1 Corinthians 7:36-38," CTM 25 (May 1954): 370-72; C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 182-86. See also Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 206-9. 7 The Complete Bible: An American Translation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), 159; The Revised Standard Version (New York: Collins, 1973), 160.

PETERS: SPIRITUAL MARRIAGE

213

The first natural impression which we get from the text is that it speaks of a man and a woman who are plarining to marry. To describe the girl whom he has in mind, Paul could not say \ or (Rev. 21:9), because these terms mean a wife. He has in mind a woman who has been chosen, but is not yet married; the exact term for such a woman is , which is used of the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:27). This "virgin" is "his" () girl, because he has chosen her Paul is advising a man who has chosen a girl and who is now trying to decide whether he should 8 marry or postpone marriage indefinitely. Barrett simply says that the man and woman are an engaged couple, in doubt (under the influence of the ascetic party) whether to carry out their planned marriage. "His virgin" remains a somewhat odd expression in this case also, but the woman in question is a virgin, and the colloquial English "his girl" provides a close analogy. The adjective (^) is used in a natural sense, and the advice given is obviously sensible.9 Anthony Thiselton shows that a "clear majority of twentiethcentury scholars interpret v. 36 as referring to engaged couples" and that "virtually every modern English translation reflects this view."10 Werner Wolbert sees this passage as referring to an engaged couple when, after discussing and rejecting the father/virgin daughter and spiritual marriage views, writes that "All in all the most convincing solution [is that] 7,36-38 refers to engaged [couples]."11 Similarly, Ben Witherington supports this position when commenting on the structure of 1 Corinthians 7. He writes that vv. 25-38 refer to "advice to those considering engagement and to those engaged considering marriage."12 Yet despite the popularity of this view among translators it is often rejected for the following reason: the Greek word is an unusual designation for fiance. Although the term is used in Luke 1:27 to designate Mary, it is followed by a modifying word: ("betrothed"). Thus, Mary is referred to as the "betrothed virgin." If Paul would have wanted to designate an engaged virgin in 1 Cor 7:36-38 he, too, would have likely used a modifier with .13 The interpretation which sees Paul as writing about a father and his virgin daughter has also found defenders and has been believed Beck, "1 Corinthians 7:36-38," 371-72. Barrett, First Epistle, 184. w First Epistle, 596. See n. 605 for a list of those who support the young man and fiance position. ll Ethische Argumentation und Parnese in 1 Kor 7 (Dsseldorf: Patmos, 1981), 132. 12 Women in the Earliest Churches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 41. 13 Seboldt, "Spiritual Marriage," 113.
8

214

TRINITY JOURNAL

to be the oldest known understanding since this interpretation was espoused by John Chrysostom in De virginitateu and "is widely said to constitute the normal interpretation among the Fathers/715 Although rejecting the view, Richard Horsley writes, "Traditionally, because of the reference to "his virgin' in verse 36 and the verb 'cause to marry7 in verse 38, the passage has been understood as addressed to fathers about their virgin daughters."16 Graydon Snyder provides a comparable argument when he writes, The key to the entire section lies in these three verses. Two wellknown and quite different translations have been made. In one the husband is advised that not marrying his betrothed would be better than marrying her (NRSV). In the other, made popular by the ASV, it is the father who is advised that not giving his daughter in marriage would be better than arranging a marriage for her. In terms of the Greek language a decision between the two would be hard to make. In v. 36 the man acts unseemly (aschemoneo) toward the unmarried woman. At first glance that hardly fits the relationship between the father and daughter. On the other hand, in v. 38 Paul clearly speaks of someone (i.e., the father) giving the unmarried woman to be married rather than of a man (i.e., the betrothed) marrying her. All things considered, the father-daughter interpretation seems best.17 In a similar manner F. W. Grosheide says that Vs. 36 introduces a new subject to the extent that the apostle begins to treat a special case relating to virgins. That which is called unseemly here is to restrain virgins from marriage. The pronoun he has been taken in two different ways, referring to either the father of the virgin or to her fianc. For the latter construction an appeal is made to the words let them marry. However, the idea of an engagement is absent here as much as in vs. 27. It would be strange to suppose that an engaged man would think of acting in an unseemly manner if he did not marry his fiance, for the purpose
14 See comments on Ephrem's commentary below. For Chrysostom's De virginitate see PG 48, 533-96. However, Chrysostom appears to have revised his understanding of 1 Cor 7:36-38 in his homilies that were delivered at a later date. In his Homily 19, "On 1 Corinthians 7" he writes, "'If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin... ' (v. 36-40). These words refer to a man and a woman living in sexual continence as brother and sister; He approves of this but also says it is no sin to marry" (St. John Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life [Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1986], 41). Since Chrysostom at this later date understood the passage as referring to "spiritual marriage," Deming's comment that "no Greek or Latin church father ever interprets 1 Corinthians 7.36-38 as referring to spiritual marriage" must be seen as incorrect [Paul on Marriage and Celbacy,43]. 15 Thiselton, First Epistle, 595. Thiselton is correct, however, when he writes that "On closer inspection of the actual sources, however, the [father/virgin daughter] interpretation is less 'universal' than is often claimed." 1 Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 104. 17 First Corinthians: A Faith Community Commentary (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1992), 115.

PETERS: SPIRITUAL MARRIAGE

215

of the betrothal is marriage. Besides, vs. 37 also excludes the thought of an engagement, since otherwise the words to keep his own virgin would have to indicate a permanent betrothal. This would be contrary to Paul's statements in vss. 7, 9 and 27. The expression his virgin would also be a peculiar designation of one's fiance. On that basis we conclude that he must refer to the father.18 Thus, this argument turns on who is referred to by the word he in v. 38. According to the proponents of this view, for a number of reasons he refers to the virgin's father. However, this interpretation is subject to four criticisms: (1) it involves awkward changes of subject; (2) "should be of full age" is an improbable translation of ; (3) does not usually mean "daughter" and Paul would have likely used if he, in fact, would have had a father in mind; and (4) indicates that Paul was referring to a suitor, not a father. The third, and least popular, understanding of this passage was set forth by J. Massingberd Ford.19 She argues, based on Jewish sepulchral inscriptions and the use of Ignatius of Antioch, that " here does not refer to virgins at all but to young widows or widowers who have only been married once. . . . The whole passage then, from v. 25 to v. 40 could apply to young widows and widowers without any reference to virgins."20 Therefore, in v. 36 should be read as "widow" which leads Ford to suggest that "this is a widowed sister-in-law and that the question posed by Corinthians is one which concerned levirate marriage: they asked whether they were bound by this Jewish custom."21 She concludes by writing that this explains the use of the words and ^ because both were employed in Jewish literature when discussing levirate marriage. Although she argues intelligently, nevertheless Ford has failed to attract any followers to her view.22 Additionally, Ford's view rests mainly on the parallels to Paul's words in Jewish sources so it fails to consider that Paul may have used familiar words while giving them a new understanding and meaning, much like he used Greek philosophical words. The fourth understanding of 1 Cor 7:36-38 has come to be called the "spiritual marriage" view. This view was first suggested by Carl von Weizscker, elaborated by Eduard Grfe, and exhaustively set forth by Hans Achelis.23 The arguments of Weizscker, the seed of
^Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 182. 19 "Levirate Marriage in St. Paul (I Cor. VII)," NTS 10 (1963/1964): 361-65. 20 Ibid., 362-63. 21 Ibid.,364. ^1 was unable to locate another commentator who adopted the levirate marriage view. Likewise, Thiselton writes, "Few specialists, if any, regard this view as possible" (First Epistle, 597). ^Carl von Weizscker, The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church, 2 vols. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1894-1895), 2:371, 388, 396; Eduard Grfe, "Geistliche

216

TRINITY JOURNAL

the spiritual marriage view, and of Achelis, its subsequent fruit, will be examined below.24 Weizscker writes, At Corinth, the inclination to celibacy had in a short time developed so strongly, that there was not only a class of virgins (vii. 25); the custom was already fostered to such an overstrained extent (vii. 36ff.), that the grossest depravity threatened to grow out of it. What the Apostle says of men bearing responsibility for these virgins is not clear enough to let us perceive with the necessary precision the relations to which he refers. . . . But the words themselves support another meaning more strongly. There rather seems to have existed a kind of spiritual betrothal between the virgin and a man, which secured to him the guardianship of duty of oversight, but, through the freedom of the intercourse thus established, also formed a source of danger. In any case, all these traits taken together furnish a picture of a fanatical cherishing of sexual continence, which here presents itself in a unique form, and to which no certain parallel occurs on Jewish Christian ground.25 Without elaborating on Paul's word usage, Weizscker concludes that the apostle is referring to spiritual marriage in 1 Corinthians 7. Weizscker, introducing a novel interpretation, is quick to stress that the practice existed in no other part of the Christian world at this time, thus, spiritual marriage is unique to the Corinthian believers living circa 65 CE."Here a new and distinctive custom had grown up; it necessarily met with opposition; and attention could be drawn to the danger threatened by it." More importantly for the purpose of this paper is Weizsckers comment that the "Apostle approved the custom." Thus, Weizscker is arguing that Paul, in fact, knew about the unique Corinthian custom and did not forbid it. Instead Paul "warned against the peril involved in carrying it to excess."26 Weizsckers belief is two-fold: 1) that Paul knew about spiritual marriage and did not reject the practice; and 2) that spiritual marriage existed only in the Corinthian church at this time is significant in the history of the interpretation of 1 Cor 7:36-38. Many commentators hastily reject the "spiritual marriage" view because the earliest known explicit reference to the practice is from the second century CE.27 Weizscker, on the other hand, believes that 1 Corinthians 7 is the first reference to the practice. In essence he
Verlbnisse bei Paulus," Theologische Arbeiten aus dem rheinischen wissenschaftlichen Prediger-Verein, N. F. 3 (1899): 57-69. "4Grafe's text concerns itself almost exclusively with a detailed grammatical study of the Greek text of 1 Cor 7:36-38. His arguments are beyond the scope of this paper. ^Weizscker, Apostolic Age, 371-72. 26 Ibid., 388. 27 For example, see Ford, "Levirate Marriage," 363; Barrett, First Epistle, 183; Colin Brown, ed.. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 588; and Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 121.

PETERS: SPIRITUAL MARRIAGE

217

contends that since the practice existed only in Corinth there would be no other references to the practice at this time. Therefore, rejecting the "spiritual marriage" view because one believes that it is not mentioned in the sources until the second century is unsubstantiated. The first reference to syneisaktism is from the first century CE. in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Hans Achelis followed Weizscker with the most detailed study of syneisaktism thus far.28 Not content to deal only with the biblical literature, Achelis reported on the scores of authors who merely mentioned the agapetae in passing. However, like Grfe, Achelis begins his study of spiritual marriage with an examination of the scriptural text, and he too bases his argument on the nuancing of the words in the original Greek text. Concerned with proving wrong the father-daughter argument, Achelis spends much time showing that this understanding is impossible based on Paul's word usage.29 Although his grammatical analyses are beyond the interest of this paper, his conclusions are informative.30 Achelis believes that in 1 Cor 7:36-38 Paul is talking about a "spiritual father" (geistiger Vater) and his "maiden" (Jungfrau), concluding that the question posed to Paul by the Corinthians was whether or not this man could marry his "maiden." Achelis writes that One can imagine the question posed by the Corinthians. They had quite openly related to the apostle that it often led to a precarious situation if one would accommodate a maiden at home. And they had asked whether it was forbidden for the spiritual fathergiven the "maiden" status of the girlto marry the maiden to whom he had granted this protection.31 Achelis argues that the issue at Corinth is not whether this "guardian" or "patron" (Vormund) and his "ward" (Mndel) can marry, but whether this man, who himself is physically attracted to this virgin but forbidden by Roman law to marry her,32 can give his virgin "daughter" to another man to marry. Thus, Achelis sees spiritual marriage as the intimate relationship between a virgin and her spiritual father. More importantly, he believes that the apostle Paul was actually the one who developed the practice of syneisaktism. He writes, "We must contend rather that the institution of the subintroductae was explained by Paul in his instructions."33 Achelis goes on to show that
^Virgines Subintroductae: Ein Beitrag zum VII. Kapitel des I Korintherbriefo (Leipzig: J. D. Hinrich, 1902). 29 For example, Achelis believes that is too strong a word to be applied to a father-daughter relationship: "der scharfe Ausdruck passt wenig in die Situation" (Virgines Subintroductae, 21). ^Ibid., 22-25. For a succinct discussion of grammatical questions in general, see Thiselton, First Epistle, 594-98. 31 Ibid., 26. 32 Ibid., 24. 33 Ibid.,26.

218

TRINITY JOURNAL

there were contemporary literature and practice from which Paul could have drawn to help him develop this ascetic practice and then concludes the work by exploring the history of the literature related to the practice of spiritual marriage, suggesting why the practice disappeared in late antiquity.34 Although later commentators would take the idea of spiritual marriage in a different direction, many followed the ideas and conclusions first argued by Achelis.35 Before turning to these later commentators it is necessary to highlight the supposition of Achelis' position that Paul initiated syneisaktism. Although other commentators do not make such bold statements, those examined in the next section believe that Paul was fully aware of the practice, regardless of where and when it had originated, and granted his approval. In their view, although Paul may not have been the originator of spiritual marriage, he was one of the practice's first supporters. The "spiritual marriage" interpretation of 1 Corinthians has become common in the biblical commentary literature of the last one hundred years. Although consensus does not prove without a doubt the validity of an interpretation, it does add credibility to that interpretation. Therefore, it is necessary to review, at least partially, this recent history. Achelis published his defence of the "spiritual marriage" view in 1902 and it quickly gained a following among other commentators. Kirsopp Lake was one of the first to argue for the spiritual marriage understanding of 1 Cor 7:36-38. In his work of 1911 he wrote, The answer is probably to be found in the institution of "spiritual marriage." . . . [The] details of any solution to the problem presented by I Cor. vii. 25-38 are uncertain... but the view that has been presented by Achelis seems to present fewer difficulties than any other, and recent commentaries all show a tendency to accept it.36 As shown, Lake interprets the text to refer to syneisaktism, demonstrating that commentators were adopting the spiritual marriage view soon after its original formulation. His remark that "recent commentaries all show a tendency to accept it" proves that the "spiritual marriage" view was the popular interpretation of 1 Cor 7:36-38 soon after it had been fully developed by Weizscker, Grfe, and Achelis. Therefore, it can be assumed that many commentators

^Achelis cites the Therapeutae of Philo's De vita contemplativa, 29-33. See discussion of the Therapeutae, as well as the Shepherd of Hermas, below. 35 As seen below, later commentators do not view the situation as between a virgin and her spiritual father, but rather between a virgin and someone who could be her spouse, i.e., of a similar age. This conclusion is reached by not following the variant reading () of Achelis. 3e The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (London: Rivingtons, 1911), 188-90.

PETERS: SPIRITUAL MARRIAGE

219

were adopting the "spiritual marriage" view although bibliographical references are unavailable for the earliest years.37 In 1923 Hans Lietzmartn provided the most detailed explanation since Achelis, whom Lietzmarm refers to in his comments, on the "spiritual marriage" view. His comments are worth quoting in their entirety: Both verses are set out in complete parallel so that the subject in both must be the same. The parallelism shows that the stands opposite to and to ; over against stands . No reader who, unbiased, enters into the text and stops at verse 38, can understand this other than a groom who is wavering on whether he should marry his bride or not. It is entirely clear, without difficulty, only the expression ) instead of is unusual. As one reads verse 38 it cannot be other than with "the" which translates to "he gives in marriage"which must refer to the father or guardian and that means that his daughter is getting married. The conclusion is that the subject in vs. 36-38 must be the same because of the that the one who is explaining has revised the explanation in vs. 36-37. The parallelism is destroyed if ^ is drawn to the maiden, which is possible verbally; but the strong intonation of the will of the father ( ) then seems grotesque, the must be portrayed as a dubious novel about the chastity of the daughterand then how is the rejection of marriage (among Pauline Christians) an ? The expression ) is much the same. . . . We know about the situation of syneisaktism in the ancient church, that devout men lived together with maidens in spiritual marriage. . . . with this explanation alone is the whole situationas well as the expression ) understandable.38 Thus, Lietzmarm concludes that understanding this passage as referring to syneisaktism is the only way that makes Paul's wording intelligible. In addition to the argument that v. 36 must be read parallel with w . 37-38, Lietzmarm sees the second century references to spiritual marriage as supporting his conclusion, instead of weakening it as many commentators do when rejecting the "spiritual marriage" view. He states, "Already Hermas Sim. IX, 11.14 and Vis. II sets out such a relationship and pictures a situation which huperakmos and anagke drastically illustrate."39 However, Lietzmann's use of the Shepherd of Hermas is questionable and will, therefore, be looked at in further detail below. Attempts to locate the "recent commentaries" mentioned by Lake have been unsuccessful. AH die Korinther MI (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 9; Tbingen: Mohr, 1923), 35-36. 39 Ibid. 36.
38

37

220

TRINITY JOURNAL

Samuel Belkin argued in 1935 for the "spiritual marriage" view in a different way than his predecessors. His conclusion that Paul is referring to syneisaktism comes from his understanding of Jewish laws concerning marriage and betrothal.40 Although one may not agree with Belkin's presuppositions, particularly concerning the rights of a virgin, he continues the tradition of interpretation which concludes that Paul is referring to "spiritual marriage." His argument differs from that of Achelis and others, but his conclusion is the same: syneisaktism was practiced, with Paul's approval, in the Corinthian church. The decades of the 1950s and 1960s saw a rise in the number of commentators adopting the "spiritual marriage" view, for it was during this time that the view became popular among authors in the United States and England after enjoying its initial success among German authors such as Weizscker, Grfe, and Achelis. Clarence Craig, after rejecting the RSV's interpretation, says that it "is more probable, however, that Paul is referring to the custom of a young man's taking a young woman under his protection, and their living together, but under vows of celibacy." Although Craig mentions the lack of non-biblical references to syneisaktism earlier than the second century, he concludes that spiritual marriage "seems to be implied here."41 Although providing no argument, since his focus lies elsewhere, Morton Enslin also adopts the "spiritual marriage" view. He says that the "interpretation of w . 36-38 has long been debated, but the interpretation which is becoming increasingly popular with modern scholars seems on the whole in keeping with the whole section."42 The modern scholars that he is referring to, according to a footnote, Lake and Weiss,43 are both advocates of the "spiritual marriage" view. Therefore, Enslin also adheres to the belief that Paul was aware of syneisaktism and even argues that this is the only view that makes sense in the context of 1 Corinthians 7. John Hering also defends the "spiritual marriage" view. After he rejects the father-daughter explanation and states that Grfe, Achelis, and Lietzmarm asserted the correct interpretation, he writes, Paul here presupposes the existence of an institution which we might call spiritual marriage: a young man and woman would pledge their permanent mutual affection and would agree to cohabit occasionally, but without breaking the vows of virginity which they have made one to the other.44 Thus, Hring, without any explanation, accepts that syneisaktism existed in the Corinthian church. Like Hring, T. W. Manson also
40//

The Problem of Paul's Background: III, Marrying One's Virgin/' JBL 54 (1935):

50-52.
41
42

77K? First Epistle to the Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), 87-88. 7? Ethics of Paul (New York: Abingdon, 1957), 178. 43 On Weiss see n. 4. u The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1962), 63.

PETERS: SPIRITUAL MARRIAGE

221

accepts the practice of spiritual marriage in Corinth without providing a detailed explanation: Two points are discussed in chapter vii, family life in general,. . . and the peculiar form of family then coming into vogue in which couples lived together in a relation of brother and sister rather than 45 husband and wife. Manson's comment reveals that he has adopted the "spiritual marriage" view, and that it is this question that Paul is addressing. A much more detailed explanation appeared in 1965 from John Hurd, who comments that this view has "become the most popular among scholars to-day [sic]."46 After detailing eight points of disagreement between the "father and daughter" view and the "spiritual marriage" view and discussing the purpose of 1 Cor 7:25-35, Hurd concludes "that the ascetical relationship which had arisen in the Corinthian Church were probably marriages in every respect save marital intercourse and the resulting parental responsibilities." He then summarises the argument by giving the substance of the Corinthians' question concerning virgins: Concerning our celibate couples it has been suggested that it would be safer for them to marry. With this advice we are in direct disagreement. We hold that it is well for them to continue in their spiritual state.47 Like many before him, Hurd concludes that Paul was not only aware of syneisaktism; he approved of its existence and practice. Margaret Thrall agrees with Hurd but adds that Paul was also aware of the practice's difficulties: The situation pictured here is apparently that of a man and a woman who have decided to live with each other without marrying and having sexual intercourse. . . . In principle Paul approves Of the idea, but in practice he realises the difficulties, and is careful to reassure the men and women concerned that it is no48 sin for them to marry if they find the situation too much for them. Though ultimately rejecting the "spiritual marriage" view, Hans Conzelmann, in 1975, wrote that the "linguistic difficulties disappear if we adopt the interpretation of spiritual betrothals, and thus find here the earliest evidence for the phenomenon of the or 49 subintroducta" He adds that the "spiritual marriage" view "is
^Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 199. 46 77i<? Origin of I Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965), 170. 47 Ibid., 180-81. AS The First and Second Utters of Paul to the Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 59. 49 2 Corinthians: A Commentary (Philadelphia: fortress, 1975), 135. Thiselton mistakenly writes that this is the view accepted by Conzelmann (First Epistle, 596),

222

TRINITY JOURNAL

therefore linguistically possible, but must be rejected on inherent grounds."50 Although other modern scholars could be added,51 the ones shown above reveal that throughout the last century commentators have adopted the "spiritual marriage" view of 1 Cor 7:36-38. Many arguments have been put forward to defend the view, though some may be more easily rejected than others may. Nonetheless, the opinion of many modern interpreters is that: (1) syneisaktism existed in the Corinthian church; (2) Paul was aware of the practice and allowed it to continue, therefore, Paul fully supported syneisaktism; and (3) the earliest reference to syneisaktism is not the second century, but possibly the 50s CE. or earlier, depending on the dating of 1 Corinthians. In addition to modern commentators there are two additional sources which add further support to the possibility of an early date for the practice of spiritual marriage. Both of these references are highly debated: (1) the Therapeutae of Philo, mentioned by Achelis;52 and (2) the vision of Hermas referenced by Lietzmarm and Achelis.53 Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 B.C.E.-C.E. 50) in De vita contemplativa records the existence of an ascetic community living near Alexandria which he called the Therapeutae, or "healers," who are, at times, equated with the Essenes of Qumran.54 Philo, while discussing the ritual associated with a banquet held among the Therapeutae every seven weeks, describes the virtue of charity as extolled by the ascetic sect The women, too, take part in the feast; most of them are aged virgins who have maintained their purity not under constraint... but voluntarily through their zealous desire for wisdom. Eager to enjoy intimacy with [wisdom], [the aged virgins] have been unconcerned with the pleasures of the body, desiring a progeny

but Conzelmann ultimately adopts the young man and fiance position: "When applied to real betrothals, everything is explained without difficulty as far as the content is concerned" (p. 136). 50 Conzelmann, 3 Corinthians, 136. 51 For example, Jerome Murphy-O'Conner, 3 Corinthians (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1979), 72-76; J. Dorcas Gordon, Sister or Wife? 3 Corinthians 7 and Cultural Anthropology (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1997), 161; and, with qualifications, Thiselton who writes that "We concluded that we could neither establish nor exclude this possibility" [First Epistle, 596]. Further, Thiselton's translation of w . 36 and 38 reflects his preference for either the "spiritual marriage" view or the young man and his fiance view: "(36) .If anyone thinks that he is not behaving in a proper way toward his betrothed, if it is a matter of undue strain and it seems the right thing, he should do what he wishes. There is not sin: let them get married. . . . (38) So, then, he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who does not marry will do better" (p. 566). 52 See Virgines Subintroductae, 30-33. For a summary of Achelis' conclusions see Lake, Earlier Epistles, 188-89. 53 See Virgines Subintroductae, 14-19. 54 See Geza Vermes, Post-Biblical ]ewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 836; and Emil Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.c. - A.D. 135), vo 2 (Edinburgh: & Clark, 1979), 591-97.

PETERS: SPIRITUAL MARRIAGE not mortal but immortal, which only the soul that loves God is capable of engendering unaided, since the Father has sown in her intelligible rays whereby she can behold the teachings of wisdom.55

223

From this it is learned that the Therapeutae comprised both men and women who practised life-long virginity. It is also known from Philo, however, that they "each live apart in seclusion" although they are able to hear one another.56 Therefore, the Therapeutae provide proof that there was a group of men and women who lived together, although physically separated, observing life-long virginity before Paul wrote to the Corinthians. It is highly unlikely that the Therapeutae and the agapetae were synonymous institutions since the agapetae lived as though they were married and not just in the same building. Nonetheless, the Therapeutae show that similar ascetic practices did exist as early as the writing of 1 Corinthians. The vision of Hermas, known as The Shepherd ( ), was written in the second century and claims to be the revelation of a series of visions. Although surrounded by uncertainty since the time of its composition, The Shepherd was accepted as Scripture by many in the Eastern church up until the fourth century. The book is divided into three sections: five "Visions"; twelve "Mandates"; and ten "Similitudes."57 The passage that concerns this article is found in Sim. 9.11: The virgins say to me; "Today, the shepherd cometh not here." "What then shall I do?" say I. "Stay for him," say they, "till eventide; and if he come, he will speak with thee; but if he come not, thou shalt stay here with ustiUhe cometh." I say to them; "I will await him till evening, and if he come not, I will depart home and return early in the morning." But they answered and said unto me; "To us thou was entrusted; thou canst not depart from us." "Where then," say I, "shall I remain?" "Thou shalt pass the night with us," say they, "as a brother, not as a husband; for thou art our brother, and henceforward we will dwell with thee; for we love thee dearly." . . . And I stayed the night with them, and I slept by the side of the tower. For the virgins spread their linen 58 tunics on the ground, and made me lie down in the midst of them. Almost without exception this passage has been understood as the first reference to spiritual marriage and is often referred to as such even by commentators who reject the "spiritual marriage" view of 1 Cor 7:36-38. Two points make this passage particularly important in relation to spiritual marriage: (1) the Shepherd was often accepted as Scripture in the Eastern church, therefore, this strongly suggests that
55 Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, The Giants, and Selections (New York: Paulist, 1981), 53. 56 Ibid., 46-47. 57 E. A. Livingstone, ed.. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3d ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), s.v. "Hennas," 760. ^J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2 (London: Macmillan, 1907), 468.

224

TRINITY JOURNAL

the custom of spiritual marriage was considered orthodox, at least in the East, in the second century; and (2) the rejection of the Shepherd as Scripture in the West is a precursor to, and may provide a partial explanation for, the eventual negative position adopted by Western theologians regarding syneisaktism.59 To conclude, one last early church argument in favor of syneisaktism needs to be examined. This argument, or rather comment, is provided by Ephrem the Syrian (ca. 306-373 CE.) and is found in his commentary on the Epistles of Paul.60 He writes that if there is someone who perhaps has a virgin, and he remains for a certain time, as long as she be in her vow, and he realizes in himself, "I am not suitable," he should not feel ashamed about time that has already passed. However, one who is steadfast in his conviction, and has fallen into danger of lust and has chosen in his heart to keep his virgin, does good. So the one who gives up his virgin does good, and the one who does not give her up and is continent does good. Of primary concern for this paper is Ephrem's final comment that a man who gives up his virgin is good, but just as good is one who does not give her up and remains continent. By this comment Ephrem clearly supports the practice of spiritual marriage. This is the earliest reference, with the possible exception of 1 Corinthians itself, explicitly supporting syneisaktism. However, as noted above, it is often thought that John Chrysostom's interpretation, in which Paul writes about a father and his virgin daughter, is the oldest known understanding of 1 Cor 7:36-38. But, here is evidence that before Chrysostom suggested his interpretation, so influential for other commentators, Paul's words were understood by Ephrem to refer to syneisaktism. Thus, the oldest interpretations of 1 Cor 7:36-38, along with many modern commentators, demonstrates that Paul is supporting the practice of spiritual marriage. Perhaps this should cause commentators of today to read Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians in a new light.

59 For a recent argument against Hennas as referring to "spiritual marriage" see Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy, 44-46. 60 "Die Scholien Ephrms wurden armenisch im III. Bande seiner Werke Venedig 1836 verffentlicht; 1892 erschien eine lateinische von den Mechitaristen nach einer H[and]S[scrift] des Jahres 999 besorgte bertragung" (Franz Herklotz, "Zu 1 Kor 7, 36ff.," BZ 14 [1917]: 344). See S. Ephraemi Syri Commentarti in Epistulas Divi Pauli (Latin translation from Armenian: Venice, 1893), 62.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.