investigating 1 Corinthians 7:36-38
Any Bible student attempting to understand a problematic Bible passage should try to find out how Bible scholars describe such a passage. The online NET Bible offers comprehensive and detailed analysis for Bible students to increase their understanding of God’s Word. If you look up a scripture reference in it, there is usually enough information given to show any problems in it that Bible scholars deal with and how they deal with them. In this instance, however, they seem to fall short of clarity.
If you are not interested in the details, but would like to know what I am proposing as the most accurate translation of 1 Cor 7:36-38, first read the online NET Bible version of the passage quoted below.
NET Bible note T 1 on Cor 7:36-38:
"36. If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his virgin (a), if she is past the bloom of youth (b) and it seems necessary, he should do what he wishes; he does not sin. Let them marry.
37. But the man who is firm in his commitment, and is under no necessity but has control over his will, and has decided in his own mind to keep his own virgin, does well.
38. So then, the one who marries (a) his own virgin does well, but the one who does not, does better. (b)"
Now, to me, that translation seems rather obscure. It didn't seem to give much clarity about what the situation actually was. But after a thorough text translation grammatical analysis based on The TENT Lexicon, it all came together. To see The TENT Lexicon based translation of this passage, scroll to the bottom of this page. I don’t expect many people would be interested in the grammatical mechanics of this investigation, but if the mechanics does intrigue you, just scroll back up here and keep on reading...
Below I quote the page long NET Bible notes on 1 Cor 7:36-38. First the passage; then below that are lower-case letters in parentheses referring to the NET Bible notes that follow the passage.
Here are the NET Bible textual notes on these verses:
beginning of NET Bible quote ------------ "
7:36 (a) tn Grk "virgin," either a fiancée, a daughter, or the ward of a guardian. For discussion see the note at the end of v. 38.
7:37 (b) tn Or referring to an engaged man: "if he is past the critical point," "if his passions are too strong." The word literally means "to be past the high point."
7:38 (a) tn Or, "who gives his own virgin in marriage."
7:38 (b) sn 1 Cor 7:36-38. There are two common approaches to understanding the situation addressed in these verses.
A. One view involves a father or male guardian deciding whether to give his daughter or female ward in marriage (cf. NASB, NIV margin). The evidence for this view is:
(1) the phrase in v. 37 (Grk) "to keep his own virgin" fits this view well ("keep his own virgin [in his household]" rather than give her in marriage), but it does not fit the second view (there is little warrant for adding "her" in the way the second view translates it: "to keep her as a virgin").
(2) The verb used twice in v. 38 (γαμίζω, gamizo ) is often translated "to give in marriage" not "to get married." The latter is usually expressed by γαμέω (gameo ), as in v. 36b.
(3) The father deciding what is best regarding his daughter's marriage reflects the more likely cultural situation in ancient Corinth, though it does not fit modern Western customs. While Paul gives his advice in such a situation, he does not command that marriages be arranged in this way universally.
If this view is taken, the translation will read as follows:
"7:36 If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his unmarried daughter, if she is past the bloom of youth and it seems necessary, he should do what he wishes; he does not sin. Let them marry. 7:37 But the man who is firm in his commitment, and is under no necessity but has control over his will, and has decided in his own mind to keep his daughter unmarried, does well. 7:38 So then the one who gives his daughter in marriage does well, but the one who does not give her does better."
B. The other view is: a single man deciding whether to marry the woman to whom he is engaged. (NRSV, NIV text, NJB, REB)
The evidence for this view is:
(1) it seems odd to use the word "virgin" (vv. 36, 37, 38) if "daughter" or "ward" is intended.
(2) The other view requires some difficult shifting of subjects in v. 36, whereas this view manages a more consistent subject for the various verbs used.
(3) The phrases in these verses are used consistently elsewhere in this chapter to describe considerations appropriate to the engaged couple themselves (cf. vv. 9, 28, 39). It seems odd not to change the phrasing in speaking about a father or guardian.
If this second view is taken, the translation will read as follows:
7:36 If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his fiancée, if his passions are too strong and it seems necessary, he should do what he wishes; he does not sin. Let them marry. 7:37 But the man who is firm in his commitment, and is under no necessity but has control over his will, and has decided in his own mind to keep her as his fiancée, does well.
7:38 So then, the one who marries his fiancée does well, but the one who does not marry her does better.
" -------------- End of NET Bible quote (continue below)
The Greek says nothing about “his strong passions,” and the NET Bible interpretation is also unclear, and does not take into account the other words in these verses which may have been incorrectly translated. In the wrestling of translators with these verses down through the ages, what we have is indeed a mess of the meaning. Some translations even have Paul saying that in general it is either better not to give in marriage or not to marry, depending on which view, A or B, is chosen!
Because of inaccuracy and obscurity in translating we have the following confused translations of 1 Cor 7:38 in English Bibles today. The first group of New Testaments below translate the passage according to View A (from the Net Bible note quoted above) - a father or male guardian deciding whether to give his daughter or female ward in marriage:
New American Standard Bible - 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.
King James Bible - 38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English - 38 And he therefore who gives his virgin does well, and he whoever does not give his virgin girl does all the better.
GOD'S WORD® Translation - 38 So it's fine for a father to give his daughter in marriage, but the father who doesn't give his daughter in marriage does even better.
Jubilee Bible 2000 - 38 So then he that gives her in marriage does well, but he that does not give her in marriage does better.
King James 2000 Bible - 38 So then he that gives her in marriage does well; but he that gives her not in marriage does better.
American Standard Version - 38 So then both he that giveth his own virgin daughter in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better.
Douay-Rheims Bible - 38 Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better.
English Revised Version - 38 So then both he that giveth his own virgin daughter in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better.
Webster's Bible Translation - 38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
Weymouth New Testament - 38 So that he who gives his daughter in marriage does well, and yet he who does not give her in marriage will do better.
World English Bible - 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin in marriage does well, and he who doesn't give her in marriage does better.
Young's Literal Translation - 38 so that both he who is giving in marriage doth well, and he who is not giving in marriage doth better.
The second group of New Testaments below translate the passage according to View B - a single man deciding whether to marry the woman to whom he is engaged:
Darby Bible Translation - 38 So that he that marries himself does well; and he that does not marry does better.
International Standard Version - 38 So then the man who marries the virgin acts appropriately, but the man who refrains from marriage does even better.
Holman Christian Standard Bible - 38 So then he who marries his virgin does well, but he who does not marry will do better.
New International Version - 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.
New Living Translation - 38 So the person who marries his fiancée does well, and the person who doesn't marry does even better.
English Standard Version - 38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.
Berean Study Bible - 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does well, but he who does not marry her does even better.
As found in 1 Cor 7:36-38 and elsewhere, here are some Greek verbs and nouns relevant to this passage, with English meanings translated by the TENT Lexicon (produced by the N2LR method) with TENT scripture references. Words closely related in Greek share the same color:
NT 718 v. 1x ἁρμόζω harmozo (from NT 719; n. - "a joining/joint")
Definition: to join(-together) / (midd.) to give-in marriage (as in 2Cor 11:2)
NT1060 v. 29x γαμέω gameo (from NT1062; n. - “a uniting / a marriage”)
Definition: to bind-together/unite [fig.: to marry] (as in Mat22:25; 22:30; 24:38; 1Cor 7:9; 33; 39; 1Tim 4:3; 5:14)
*NT1061 v. 1x γαμίζω gamizo (from NT1062; n. - “a uniting”)
Definition: to unite-physically/sexually (as in Mk 12:25; *Lk17:27) (NT1061 is usually wrongly translated as "to give in marriage" - but see verb NT718 above in blue, an unrelated Greek word which does have that meaning!
NT1062 n. 16x γάμος gamos (from root, gam; v. - “to unite/bind-together”)
Definition: a binding-together/uniting [fig.: (masc. sing.) marriage-union (as in Mt 22:8, 10, 11, 12; Jn 2:1, 2; Heb 13:4; Rev 19:7, 9) / (masc. pl.) wedding-celebration (as in Mt22:2, 3, 4, 9; 25:10; Lk12:36; 14:8)] [Note: NT1062 singular and plural meanings differ; just another case highlighting the importance of accurate translation of grammar for preserving meaning! ]
Now look at the two paragraphs below for two derivatives of *NT1061:
*NT1547 v. 5x ἐκγαμίζω ekgamizo is a verb derived from a form of the noun NT1061 - “uniting-physically/sexually", in a compound with NT1537 - "out-of/out(side)-of” ; and meaning, I believe, to unite-sexually-out(side)-of(-marriage) (Mt22:30; 24:38; Lk17:27*) [fig.: (Eng. euphem.) marry-from-necessity (2x in 1Cor 7:38)]. It is said that this word is not currently found outside the NT. The TENT Lexicon meaning for this word fits well in all of its New Testament occurrences, as does also the TENT Lexicon meaning for the second derivative compound below.
(NT1547 is usually incorrectly translated as "to give in marriage")
*NT1548 v. 2x ἐκγαμίσκω ekgamisko is also a variation of NT1061 v.+ NT1537 - “to unite-sexually-out-of/out(side)-of”, and means the same thing: to unite-sexually-out(side)-of(-marriage) (Lk 20:34, 35) [fig.: (as English euphemism) marry-from-necessity] (same as NT1547), not found outside the NT.
(NT1548 is usually incorrectly translated as "to give in marriage")
___________________________________________________________________________________
The above meanings of NT1061 and its derivatives, NT1547 and NT1548, are newly proposed from using the N2LR method and TENT Lexicon. I believe the traditional translations of these words are inaccurate, causing the current lack of consensus about the verses in question.
The verb NT1061, also in its compounds, is often translated, incorrectly I believe, as "to give away in marriage." The biblical Greek has a different word which means “to give in marriage” – NT718 – “to join-together / (midd.) engage (to be married)”, as in the chart above, and it is found in 2 Cor 11:2, where Paul says, “…to one husband I engaged you, a blameless virgin…”
A Hebrew woman, being engaged to marry (NT3423), pledged her faithfulness before her family, then the couple was to remain virginal until the wedding day, which included the consummation. This was the situation of Joseph and Mary, "having been engaged to marry" before she had become pregnant (Mt 1:18).
I believe the verb NT1061 should be translated "to unite-physically/sexually" in Mark 12:25, which would translate as, "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are united sexually, but are like angels in the spiritual realms." From this meaning of NT1061 we have the twin derivatives: NT1547 / NT1548, ἐκγαμίζω (ekgamizo) / ἐκγαμίσκω (ekgamisko), and both have the same meaning. I believe that meaning is: to unite-sexually-out(side)-of(-marriage) [fig.: marry-from-necessity], v. 5x, ( from NT1537 + NT1061 ) [note: not found outside the NT] (Mt22:30; 24:38;Lk 17:27;1 Cor 7:38 (2x))
We have contextual corroboration for this meaning, especially in Luke 17:27, which is usually translated in English as -"They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” From the way this is translated in English, it seems these people were hobbit-like denizens of an age of innocence. But that is not the context. Yeshua was highlighting why sudden destruction came upon them - they had normalized sex outside of marriage.
The Alexandrian texts here have NT1061 meaning "to unite-sexually", but because presumably that could be seen as part of the marriage just mentioned in that verse, some group, perhaps the Byzantines or later redactors changed the word for clarification to NT1547 meaning "to unite-sexually-outside-of-marriage." And so the change was made from NT1061 to NT1547: "They ate, they drank, they married, they were uniting-sexually-outside-marriage." This fits the context and does clarify what Yeshua intended to be understood. It is only through a perspective of great elapsed time containing both text streams that we can consider such a plausible scenario.
Now we can see a similar clarification in another passage concerning marriage and the words we have been studying -- NT1060 and its derivatives. This passage has been the source of too many varying interpretations for much too long! In 1 Cor 7:36-38, the woman is the man’s "virgin" – what English would call his “fiancée”. Today, one might ask, "If the man's virgin/fiancée did not become pregnant by her fiancée, why would the word still mean 'marry from necessity' if she no longer had to marry the man?" The answer from a Hebraic context is that even if she did not become pregnant, she no longer had the evidence of her virginity, which, if she did not marry, would have condemned her in some measure to a life of shame.
Today the word fiancée is no longer synonymous with virginity, but in the tumultuous days Paul refers to in 1 Cor 7:26, he thought it might be better to wait for more peaceful times to actually marry, i.e. have legal sex with a wife so as to avoid "trouble in the flesh"(vs. 28). In many English Bible versions the last half of 1 Cor 7:38 has been incorrectly translated and left to imply that Paul thinks not marrying at all is better than marrying!
There is another thing to consider here. Let’s look at the two major textual traditions, the earlier Alexandrian texts and the later more numerous Byzantine-Majority texts.
In the Alexandrian texts:
Concentrating on vs 38 below - with “uniting-sexually” (NT1061) highlighted in green, we have the words “with his virgin” in yellow and those words are inserted again in the same sentence by an ellipsis, which is a common Greek grammatical device used to repeat a meaning from a preceeding use. You can find the Greek ellipsis construction well over a hundred if not hundreds of times in a Greek New Testament (e.g. Mt 5:25; 6:25; 21:42; 23:4,15; 25:38; 26:67, etc.).
Nestle-Aland 28
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ γαμίζων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον καλῶς ποιεῖ καὶ ὁ μὴ γαμίζων [ellip. = with his virgin] κρεῖσσον ποιήσει.
SBL Greek New Testament
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ γαμίζων τὴν παρθένον ἑαυτοῦ καλῶς ποιεῖ, καὶ ὁ μὴ γαμίζων [ellip. = with his virgin] κρεῖσσον ποιήσει.
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ γαμίζων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον καλῶς ποιεῖ, καὶ ὁ μὴ γαμίζων [ellip. = with his virgin] κρεῖσσον ποιήσει.
In English, vs. 38 would be translated as, “And even as the one uniting-sexually with his virgin/fiancée does well, also the one not uniting-sexually [ellipsis: ‘with his virgin/fiancée’] does better.” This is a good example of the wisdom of not taking verses out of context! The question was bound to arise. "How can Paul say that the one having sex with his fiancée does well?!", and this was probably asked in shocked reaction by careless hearers misunderstanding from lack of paying attention to the previous verses.
The Byzantines or whoever, at some point noting this alarming possibility for misinterpretation, must have decided the verse needed a makeover. Even though the missed context of the previous verses makes it clear that the man has just hypothetically married his fiancée so that now everything is alright, the previous verses might have too easily gone unheard.
Paul’s answer in the previous verses is what provides the "missing" context. His brief yet commanding answer in v. 36 is that, “They marry!” Only after this solution is given, does Paul say that the young man applying it then "does well.” But at the same time, Paul also commends the hypothetical man with self-control who has not united sexually with his fiancée, and says he does even better.
In the later Byzantine Majority texts:
In the same verses, but from the later Byzantine-Majority text tradition, instead of NT1061 we have its derivative NT1547 used, "uniting-sexually-out(side)-of(-marriage) / (fig.) marrying from necessity”, but this text also leaves out the phrase “with his virgin” and therefore the second occurrence of its meaning from its ellipsis is gone as well.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ ἐκγαμίζων καλῶς ποιεῖ· ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐκγαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ.
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ ἐκγαμίζων καλῶς ποιεῖ, ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐκγαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ ἐκγαμίζων καλῶς ποιεῖ· ὁ δὲ μὴ ἑκγαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ.
What remains is, "And even as the one uniting-sexually-outside-of-marriage does well, then the one not uniting-sexually-outside-of-marriage does better." But this solution doesn't seem to fix anything! What were the redactors thinking?! Could it be that by some time in the Byzantine era, the literal meaning of NT1547, "uniting-sexually-outside-marriage" was replaced by its euphemism, so that "marry-from-necessity", or its literal Byzantine equivalent, became the standard meaning?
It seems probable that what the redactors understood by their version was, "And even as the one marrying-from-necessity does well, then the one marrying not from necessity does even better." And that is an elegant dynamic equivalency, using a word that implies a fiancée in both situations, but without having to use the easily missed Greek ellipsis.
In their zeal to clarify this verse’s meaning, and head off any misconceptions, it seems the redactors modified the verb by adding a prepositional prefix, possibly coining a new word. Many such “cosmetic” changes would naturally have later become codified as the Textus Receptus. But how did this single verse get so messed up in English?
1 Cor 7:36-38 is Paul's answer to a question about marriage and sexual abstention. It was sent specifically to him, being a Spirit-filled Jewish rabbi grounded in both God's Word and the cultural heritage of God's chosen people. That heritage may or may not have been always founded upon the Hebrew Scriptures, but Yeshua never spoke against traditions that did not detract from the observance of God's Law. Hebrew traditions regarding marriage can be gleaned from many passages in Scripture. We know quite a bit about marriage customs in ancient Israel, but a rough outline will do to straighten out the misperceptions under which translators and makers of Bible commentaries have labored in the past concerning the translation of the infamous vs 38.
A Hebrew/Jewish woman entered into a marriage process. First she consented (or not) to a suitor. If she did, her father negotiated the marriage contract. At that point, the marriage was legally binding, even before the marriage was consummated. The woman became the man's "virgin" -- the word 'virgin' was used to specify her as his fiancée. The couple were to remain virginal for the length of their engagement. They could see one another and do things together within her family framework. It was a duty of the male fiancée to guard himself concerning his fiancée’s virginity.
He had no more than seven years to raise money for marriage to his bride, to be consummated in the special place at his virgin’s family home on an agreed day while her family and friends celebrated nearby. Then they all departed in procession to the husband’s home for the wedding feast, at the end of which the marriage ritual was complete. [http://www.bible.ca/marriage/ancient-jewish-three-stage-weddings-and-marriage-customs-ceremony-in-the-bible.htm]
Now the unknown question put to Paul, which he answers in 1 Corinthians 7, can be inferred by his answer. That is, it can if his answer is translated grammatically accurately from Greek. Unfortunately his answer has not been translated accurately in the past in English due to historical misunderstandings of some Greek words, which we have just examined. Using the new TENT Lexicon to translate Paul’s answer, we can better infer the questions Paul might have been asked by Corinthian converts unfamiliar with Jewish wedding traditions, questions such as:
"Dear Paul, what should be done in the case of a man who has behaved inappropriately with his fiancée and now it seems she may be pregnant? Should he be punished? What is his responsibility? What happens to her? Are they allowed to marry?" And here is Paul's reply, translated with grammatical accuracy from the oldest biblical Greek manuscripts by using the TENT Lexicon --
36 Now if anyone assumes to do inappropriately with his fiancée, and if ever she might be beyond her time [of the month ], then it ought to be happening this way: he is to do what he wants. He does no wrong. They marry!
And this makes perfect sense.
However it was all for naught when translators misunderstood the probably euphemistic expression in verse 36 using ὑπέρακμος – beyond-the-point (of time). Today’s English would say in that same context, “beyond [her] time [of the month].” But undoubtedly any later age’s celibate male translators may well have not even thought of this idiom or euphemism, or if they did, it was only in reference to the man, as “beyond the point [of controlling his desire],” which some versions have adopted for their translations. However most translations stick with “past the bloom of her youth” and get into all kinds of convoluted reasonings about her father and keeping her at home and it being better not to marry. Scripture has no such teachings.
So a few words in these verses seem to have been historically mis-translated into English. NT1547 and NT1548, the compounds from NT1061- “to unite sexually”, in compounds with NT1537 – “from-out(side)-of”, may actually mean “to unite sexually outside (marriage)”. Some have translated the Greek word ἐκγαμίζω (NT1547) quite awkwardly in verse 38 as “to give in marriage”, just as was done with NT1061, and the one doing the giving is said to be the woman’s father! Because of this, some current English translations of 1Cor 7:38 unfortunately make it seem as though Paul thinks it is in general better not to marry one’s fiancée, an obvious absurdity.
Today because of inaccurate translations, wrong ideas about the value of marriage and wrong teachings about marriage, priesthood and celibacy, are still evident in many churches, especially in Roman Catholicism. Wikipedia: “The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry.” [This was between the First and Second Crusades.] In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed this later "tradition" of celibacy.
In contrast, according to the laws governing the ancient Jewish priesthood, all priests were married because the priesthood was inherited. Why did the Roman Catholic Church begin to forbid priests to marry? In hindsight, I believe it was because it was Jewish law, and after a thousand years CE the Church had largely become anti-Jewish, and systematically renamed or changed as many biblical Hebraic observances as possible, trying to erase any remaining spiritual relatedness between themselves and the people they had 'always' been taught had been rejected forever by God.
Accurate translations are all we have to protect ourselves from such false teachings and also from the ever-increasing pressure to promote unity with religious institutions in which false teachings abound and heresies flourish. What is to be done about this situation, except to get back to the true Word of God?
Yet, we should recognize that it is hardly the translators’ fault. It could have been simple deficiencies in the accuracy of biblical Greek semantic understandings and the absence of a consistent and reliable method of semantic discovery. For this purpose the Language Learning Redundancy (N2LR) translation method was developed, and by it the Transparent Experimental New Testament (TENT) Lexicon was created, so that we now have a clear teaching in 1 Cor 7:36-38 –
from The TENT : (In the last line of verse 38 please note the restored bracketed ellipsis anchoring the meaning through redundancy.)
36 Now if anyone assumes to do inappropriately with his virgin/fiancée, and if ever she might be beyond her point of time [fig.: time of the month], then it ought to be happening this way: he is to do what he wants. He does no wrong. They marry!
37 But he who has stood firm in his mind, not having necessity, but has authority concerning his own will, and this same one has decided in his own mind to guard his own virgin/fiancée, he will do well.
38 Then, even as the one uniting sexually with his own virgin/fiancée does well (if Paul's judgment in vs 36 is done), the one not uniting sexually [ellipsis = with his own virgin/fiancée] will do even [a] better thing.
Here is verse 38 after the later (Byzantine?) clarification changes: 38 Then even as the one marrying his own virgin/fiancée from necessity does well, the one marrying [ellipsis = his own virgin/fiancée] not from necessity will do even [a] better thing.
As found in 1 Cor 7:36-38 and elsewhere, here are some Greek verbs and nouns relevant to this passage, with English meanings translated by the TENT Lexicon (produced by the N2LR method) with TENT scripture references. Words closely related in Greek share the same color:
NT 718 v. 1x ἁρμόζω harmozo (from NT 719; n. - "a joining/joint")
Definition: to join(-together) / (midd.) to give-in marriage (as in 2Cor 11:2)
NT1060 v. 29x γαμέω gameo (from NT1062; n. - “a uniting / a marriage”)
Definition: to bind-together/unite [fig.: to marry] (as in Mat22:25; 22:30; 24:38; 1Cor 7:9; 33; 39; 1Tim 4:3; 5:14)
*NT1061 v. 1x γαμίζω gamizo (from NT1062; n. - “a uniting”)
Definition: to unite-physically/sexually (as in Mk 12:25; *Lk17:27) (NT1061 is usually wrongly translated as "to give in marriage" - but see verb NT718 above in blue, an unrelated Greek word which does have that meaning!
NT1062 n. 16x γάμος gamos (from root, gam; v. - “to unite/bind-together”)
Definition: a binding-together/uniting [fig.: (masc. sing.) marriage-union (as in Mt 22:8, 10, 11, 12; Jn 2:1, 2; Heb 13:4; Rev 19:7, 9) / (masc. pl.) wedding-celebration (as in Mt22:2, 3, 4, 9; 25:10; Lk12:36; 14:8)] [Note: NT1062 singular and plural meanings differ; just another case highlighting the importance of accurate translation of grammar for preserving meaning! ]
Now look at the two paragraphs below for two derivatives of *NT1061:
*NT1547 v. 5x ἐκγαμίζω ekgamizo is a verb derived from a form of the noun NT1061 - “uniting-physically/sexually", in a compound with NT1537 - "out-of/out(side)-of” ; and meaning, I believe, to unite-sexually-out(side)-of(-marriage) (Mt22:30; 24:38; Lk17:27*) [fig.: (Eng. euphem.) marry-from-necessity (2x in 1Cor 7:38)]. It is said that this word is not currently found outside the NT. The TENT Lexicon meaning for this word fits well in all of its New Testament occurrences, as does also the TENT Lexicon meaning for the second derivative compound below.
(NT1547 is usually incorrectly translated as "to give in marriage")
*NT1548 v. 2x ἐκγαμίσκω ekgamisko is also a variation of NT1061 v.+ NT1537 - “to unite-sexually-out-of/out(side)-of”, and means the same thing: to unite-sexually-out(side)-of(-marriage) (Lk 20:34, 35) [fig.: (as English euphemism) marry-from-necessity] (same as NT1547), not found outside the NT.
(NT1548 is usually incorrectly translated as "to give in marriage")
___________________________________________________________________________________
The above meanings of NT1061 and its derivatives, NT1547 and NT1548, are newly proposed from using the N2LR method and TENT Lexicon. I believe the traditional translations of these words are inaccurate, causing the current lack of consensus about the verses in question.
The verb NT1061, also in its compounds, is often translated, incorrectly I believe, as "to give away in marriage." The biblical Greek has a different word which means “to give in marriage” – NT718 – “to join-together / (midd.) engage (to be married)”, as in the chart above, and it is found in 2 Cor 11:2, where Paul says, “…to one husband I engaged you, a blameless virgin…”
A Hebrew woman, being engaged to marry (NT3423), pledged her faithfulness before her family, then the couple was to remain virginal until the wedding day, which included the consummation. This was the situation of Joseph and Mary, "having been engaged to marry" before she had become pregnant (Mt 1:18).
I believe the verb NT1061 should be translated "to unite-physically/sexually" in Mark 12:25, which would translate as, "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are united sexually, but are like angels in the spiritual realms." From this meaning of NT1061 we have the twin derivatives: NT1547 / NT1548, ἐκγαμίζω (ekgamizo) / ἐκγαμίσκω (ekgamisko), and both have the same meaning. I believe that meaning is: to unite-sexually-out(side)-of(-marriage) [fig.: marry-from-necessity], v. 5x, ( from NT1537 + NT1061 ) [note: not found outside the NT] (Mt22:30; 24:38;Lk 17:27;1 Cor 7:38 (2x))
We have contextual corroboration for this meaning, especially in Luke 17:27, which is usually translated in English as -"They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” From the way this is translated in English, it seems these people were hobbit-like denizens of an age of innocence. But that is not the context. Yeshua was highlighting why sudden destruction came upon them - they had normalized sex outside of marriage.
The Alexandrian texts here have NT1061 meaning "to unite-sexually", but because presumably that could be seen as part of the marriage just mentioned in that verse, some group, perhaps the Byzantines or later redactors changed the word for clarification to NT1547 meaning "to unite-sexually-outside-of-marriage." And so the change was made from NT1061 to NT1547: "They ate, they drank, they married, they were uniting-sexually-outside-marriage." This fits the context and does clarify what Yeshua intended to be understood. It is only through a perspective of great elapsed time containing both text streams that we can consider such a plausible scenario.
Now we can see a similar clarification in another passage concerning marriage and the words we have been studying -- NT1060 and its derivatives. This passage has been the source of too many varying interpretations for much too long! In 1 Cor 7:36-38, the woman is the man’s "virgin" – what English would call his “fiancée”. Today, one might ask, "If the man's virgin/fiancée did not become pregnant by her fiancée, why would the word still mean 'marry from necessity' if she no longer had to marry the man?" The answer from a Hebraic context is that even if she did not become pregnant, she no longer had the evidence of her virginity, which, if she did not marry, would have condemned her in some measure to a life of shame.
Today the word fiancée is no longer synonymous with virginity, but in the tumultuous days Paul refers to in 1 Cor 7:26, he thought it might be better to wait for more peaceful times to actually marry, i.e. have legal sex with a wife so as to avoid "trouble in the flesh"(vs. 28). In many English Bible versions the last half of 1 Cor 7:38 has been incorrectly translated and left to imply that Paul thinks not marrying at all is better than marrying!
There is another thing to consider here. Let’s look at the two major textual traditions, the earlier Alexandrian texts and the later more numerous Byzantine-Majority texts.
In the Alexandrian texts:
Concentrating on vs 38 below - with “uniting-sexually” (NT1061) highlighted in green, we have the words “with his virgin” in yellow and those words are inserted again in the same sentence by an ellipsis, which is a common Greek grammatical device used to repeat a meaning from a preceeding use. You can find the Greek ellipsis construction well over a hundred if not hundreds of times in a Greek New Testament (e.g. Mt 5:25; 6:25; 21:42; 23:4,15; 25:38; 26:67, etc.).
Nestle-Aland 28
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ γαμίζων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον καλῶς ποιεῖ καὶ ὁ μὴ γαμίζων [ellip. = with his virgin] κρεῖσσον ποιήσει.
SBL Greek New Testament
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ γαμίζων τὴν παρθένον ἑαυτοῦ καλῶς ποιεῖ, καὶ ὁ μὴ γαμίζων [ellip. = with his virgin] κρεῖσσον ποιήσει.
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ γαμίζων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον καλῶς ποιεῖ, καὶ ὁ μὴ γαμίζων [ellip. = with his virgin] κρεῖσσον ποιήσει.
In English, vs. 38 would be translated as, “And even as the one uniting-sexually with his virgin/fiancée does well, also the one not uniting-sexually [ellipsis: ‘with his virgin/fiancée’] does better.” This is a good example of the wisdom of not taking verses out of context! The question was bound to arise. "How can Paul say that the one having sex with his fiancée does well?!", and this was probably asked in shocked reaction by careless hearers misunderstanding from lack of paying attention to the previous verses.
The Byzantines or whoever, at some point noting this alarming possibility for misinterpretation, must have decided the verse needed a makeover. Even though the missed context of the previous verses makes it clear that the man has just hypothetically married his fiancée so that now everything is alright, the previous verses might have too easily gone unheard.
Paul’s answer in the previous verses is what provides the "missing" context. His brief yet commanding answer in v. 36 is that, “They marry!” Only after this solution is given, does Paul say that the young man applying it then "does well.” But at the same time, Paul also commends the hypothetical man with self-control who has not united sexually with his fiancée, and says he does even better.
In the later Byzantine Majority texts:
In the same verses, but from the later Byzantine-Majority text tradition, instead of NT1061 we have its derivative NT1547 used, "uniting-sexually-out(side)-of(-marriage) / (fig.) marrying from necessity”, but this text also leaves out the phrase “with his virgin” and therefore the second occurrence of its meaning from its ellipsis is gone as well.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ ἐκγαμίζων καλῶς ποιεῖ· ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐκγαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ.
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ ἐκγαμίζων καλῶς ποιεῖ, ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐκγαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ ἐκγαμίζων καλῶς ποιεῖ· ὁ δὲ μὴ ἑκγαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ.
What remains is, "And even as the one uniting-sexually-outside-of-marriage does well, then the one not uniting-sexually-outside-of-marriage does better." But this solution doesn't seem to fix anything! What were the redactors thinking?! Could it be that by some time in the Byzantine era, the literal meaning of NT1547, "uniting-sexually-outside-marriage" was replaced by its euphemism, so that "marry-from-necessity", or its literal Byzantine equivalent, became the standard meaning?
It seems probable that what the redactors understood by their version was, "And even as the one marrying-from-necessity does well, then the one marrying not from necessity does even better." And that is an elegant dynamic equivalency, using a word that implies a fiancée in both situations, but without having to use the easily missed Greek ellipsis.
In their zeal to clarify this verse’s meaning, and head off any misconceptions, it seems the redactors modified the verb by adding a prepositional prefix, possibly coining a new word. Many such “cosmetic” changes would naturally have later become codified as the Textus Receptus. But how did this single verse get so messed up in English?
1 Cor 7:36-38 is Paul's answer to a question about marriage and sexual abstention. It was sent specifically to him, being a Spirit-filled Jewish rabbi grounded in both God's Word and the cultural heritage of God's chosen people. That heritage may or may not have been always founded upon the Hebrew Scriptures, but Yeshua never spoke against traditions that did not detract from the observance of God's Law. Hebrew traditions regarding marriage can be gleaned from many passages in Scripture. We know quite a bit about marriage customs in ancient Israel, but a rough outline will do to straighten out the misperceptions under which translators and makers of Bible commentaries have labored in the past concerning the translation of the infamous vs 38.
A Hebrew/Jewish woman entered into a marriage process. First she consented (or not) to a suitor. If she did, her father negotiated the marriage contract. At that point, the marriage was legally binding, even before the marriage was consummated. The woman became the man's "virgin" -- the word 'virgin' was used to specify her as his fiancée. The couple were to remain virginal for the length of their engagement. They could see one another and do things together within her family framework. It was a duty of the male fiancée to guard himself concerning his fiancée’s virginity.
He had no more than seven years to raise money for marriage to his bride, to be consummated in the special place at his virgin’s family home on an agreed day while her family and friends celebrated nearby. Then they all departed in procession to the husband’s home for the wedding feast, at the end of which the marriage ritual was complete. [http://www.bible.ca/marriage/ancient-jewish-three-stage-weddings-and-marriage-customs-ceremony-in-the-bible.htm]
Now the unknown question put to Paul, which he answers in 1 Corinthians 7, can be inferred by his answer. That is, it can if his answer is translated grammatically accurately from Greek. Unfortunately his answer has not been translated accurately in the past in English due to historical misunderstandings of some Greek words, which we have just examined. Using the new TENT Lexicon to translate Paul’s answer, we can better infer the questions Paul might have been asked by Corinthian converts unfamiliar with Jewish wedding traditions, questions such as:
"Dear Paul, what should be done in the case of a man who has behaved inappropriately with his fiancée and now it seems she may be pregnant? Should he be punished? What is his responsibility? What happens to her? Are they allowed to marry?" And here is Paul's reply, translated with grammatical accuracy from the oldest biblical Greek manuscripts by using the TENT Lexicon --
36 Now if anyone assumes to do inappropriately with his fiancée, and if ever she might be beyond her time [of the month ], then it ought to be happening this way: he is to do what he wants. He does no wrong. They marry!
And this makes perfect sense.
However it was all for naught when translators misunderstood the probably euphemistic expression in verse 36 using ὑπέρακμος – beyond-the-point (of time). Today’s English would say in that same context, “beyond [her] time [of the month].” But undoubtedly any later age’s celibate male translators may well have not even thought of this idiom or euphemism, or if they did, it was only in reference to the man, as “beyond the point [of controlling his desire],” which some versions have adopted for their translations. However most translations stick with “past the bloom of her youth” and get into all kinds of convoluted reasonings about her father and keeping her at home and it being better not to marry. Scripture has no such teachings.
So a few words in these verses seem to have been historically mis-translated into English. NT1547 and NT1548, the compounds from NT1061- “to unite sexually”, in compounds with NT1537 – “from-out(side)-of”, may actually mean “to unite sexually outside (marriage)”. Some have translated the Greek word ἐκγαμίζω (NT1547) quite awkwardly in verse 38 as “to give in marriage”, just as was done with NT1061, and the one doing the giving is said to be the woman’s father! Because of this, some current English translations of 1Cor 7:38 unfortunately make it seem as though Paul thinks it is in general better not to marry one’s fiancée, an obvious absurdity.
Today because of inaccurate translations, wrong ideas about the value of marriage and wrong teachings about marriage, priesthood and celibacy, are still evident in many churches, especially in Roman Catholicism. Wikipedia: “The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry.” [This was between the First and Second Crusades.] In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed this later "tradition" of celibacy.
In contrast, according to the laws governing the ancient Jewish priesthood, all priests were married because the priesthood was inherited. Why did the Roman Catholic Church begin to forbid priests to marry? In hindsight, I believe it was because it was Jewish law, and after a thousand years CE the Church had largely become anti-Jewish, and systematically renamed or changed as many biblical Hebraic observances as possible, trying to erase any remaining spiritual relatedness between themselves and the people they had 'always' been taught had been rejected forever by God.
Accurate translations are all we have to protect ourselves from such false teachings and also from the ever-increasing pressure to promote unity with religious institutions in which false teachings abound and heresies flourish. What is to be done about this situation, except to get back to the true Word of God?
Yet, we should recognize that it is hardly the translators’ fault. It could have been simple deficiencies in the accuracy of biblical Greek semantic understandings and the absence of a consistent and reliable method of semantic discovery. For this purpose the Language Learning Redundancy (N2LR) translation method was developed, and by it the Transparent Experimental New Testament (TENT) Lexicon was created, so that we now have a clear teaching in 1 Cor 7:36-38 –
from The TENT : (In the last line of verse 38 please note the restored bracketed ellipsis anchoring the meaning through redundancy.)
36 Now if anyone assumes to do inappropriately with his virgin/fiancée, and if ever she might be beyond her point of time [fig.: time of the month], then it ought to be happening this way: he is to do what he wants. He does no wrong. They marry!
37 But he who has stood firm in his mind, not having necessity, but has authority concerning his own will, and this same one has decided in his own mind to guard his own virgin/fiancée, he will do well.
38 Then, even as the one uniting sexually with his own virgin/fiancée does well (if Paul's judgment in vs 36 is done), the one not uniting sexually [ellipsis = with his own virgin/fiancée] will do even [a] better thing.
Here is verse 38 after the later (Byzantine?) clarification changes: 38 Then even as the one marrying his own virgin/fiancée from necessity does well, the one marrying [ellipsis = his own virgin/fiancée] not from necessity will do even [a] better thing.