1 Corinthians 7:9

  • Thread starter Thread starter Safe_Eagle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Safe_Eagle

Guest
Bible buffs needed.

My Ignatius says: "But if they CANNOT exercise self-control…

The Douay says: "if they DO NOT…

The notes in the Douay say this is a mistranslation in the KJV. One implies an action to contain oneself for the kingdom of God. Religious life, Priesthood etc. The other implies that one has no power over oneself and therefore could be construed to mean one has to get married in order to satisfy carnel desire.

And to me this flies in the face of the Grace of God. I have heard from one protestant friend that because he had such strong carnel desire this passage told him that getting married was something he had to do.

My question is: The Douay was very strong in its commentary concerning this scripture. So why was it not changed in the Ignatius, NAB etc.? Or at least not offered as an alternative interpretation?
 
Hi Safe,

The verb used, “egkrateuontai” means “have self-control”.

So the literal translation is, “If they do not have self-control”, in other words, if they are so constituted that they cannot resist the temptations of the flesh" . The Latin translates “non se continent”, “if they do not contain themselves”.

I think we must disavow any translation that would advise us to wait until we sin to decide if we should get married. That is why “cannot” is the correct translation.

Verbum
 
Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament

But if they have not continency (ei de ouk egkrateuontai). Condition of the first class, assumed as true. Direct middle voice egkrateuontai, hold themselves in, control themselves. Let them marry (gamhsatwsan). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Usual Koin? form in -twsan for third plural. Better (kreitton). Marriage is better than continued sexual passion. Paul has not said that celibacy is better than marriage though he has justified it and expressed his own personal preference for it. The metaphorical use of purousqai (present middle infinitive) for sexual passion is common enough as also for grief (2 Corinthians 11:29).
bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=1co&chapter=007&verse=009&next=010&prev=008

If you can locate a copy of Wuest’s expanded translation of the NT or that of J B Phillips, both do a good job of bringing out the verbs.
 
My Ignatius says: "But if they CANNOT exercise self-control…

The Douay says: "if they DO NOT…

My question is: The Douay was very strong in its commentary concerning this scripture. So why was it not changed in the Ignatius, NAB etc.? Or at least not offered as an alternative interpretation?
Great question!!

And another fine example of where the RSV-CE missed the boat in not offering the D-R rendering as an alternative or in the endnotes. Sort of like Luke 1:34, where we got “How can…” when it should have been “How shall…”

Verbum, Daniel: for the dense among us (and, please, count me among them!), would you re-state your respective positions a bit more clearly? All that talk about “aorist”, pluperfect conditionals, etc. bother my aorta! 😃
 
From Albert Barnes’ notes on the Bible from e-sword:
1Co 7:9 -
But if they cannot contain - If they have not the gift of continence; if they cannot be secure against temptation; if they have not strength of virtue enough to preserve them from the danger of sin, and of bringing reproach and scandal on the church.
It is better - It is to be preferred.
Than to burn - The passion here referred to is often compared to a fire; see Virgil, Aeneas 4:68. It is better to marry, even with all the inconveniences attending the marriage life in a time of distress and persecution in the church 1Co_7:26, than to be the prey of raging, consuming, and exciting passions.
 
Thank you for all the wonderful responses to my post. However, I must take issue with the last poster and most of the responses in the sense that somehow this implys a sin/desire that Grace cannot contain.

if they have not strength of virtue enough to preserve them from the danger of sin,

WHAT!?!

St. Paul tells us that there will always be a way out of temptation. We will never be tempted past what we can (with God’s Grace) endure.

Take for instance the man who is married to a comatose woman. And perhaps has been for some time. Perhaps it happened when they were both very young. We can accept the fact that sufficient Grace is offered to keep him contenant.

The same is true for the single individual. We don’t decide to get married because we have not strength of virtue enough to preserve. This is not a reason to get married. Not supported in the gospel.

I submit the word CANNOT being used is an inferior rendering in regards to this scripture. And I submit that the notes contained in the Douay-Rheims such as: "Some translators have corrupted the text, by redering it, if they cannot contain is quite valid.

The DRV in this regard upholds Catholic doctrine quite clearly and supports sacred celibacy quite on its own. The other renderings with there commentaries in a lot of cases must be met with Catholic teaching already grounded in the individual.
 
From Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

Ver. 7-8. “I would”, or I could wish you “all were even as myself”, and as it is said in the next verse, to continue unmarried as I do. From hence it is evident, that St. Paul was not then married, who according to the opinion of the ancient fathers, was never married. But when the apostle says, “I would” this as to “you all”, he only signifies what could be wished for, the particular good of every one considered as a particular person, but what cannot be hoped for, considering the state of mankind in general, and the temptations, and frailty of men. — “But every one hath his proper gift from God”, so that some prudently embrace a single life, and also make a religious vow of always living so, as it has been practised by a great number both of men and women in all ages, ever since Christ’s time. Others have not this more perfect gift: they find themselves not disposed to lead, or vow a single life, they marry lawfully: “it is better to marry than to burn”, or be burnt by violent temptations of concupiscence, by which they “do not contain themselves” from disorders of that kind. It is against both the Latin and Greek text to translate, “they cannot contain themselves”, as in the Protestant and Mr. N’s translation. Dr. Wells, in his paraphrase, gives the sense of this place in these words: The inconveniences of marriage are to be undergone, rather than such sinful imaginations, or practises, as arise from the flames of an ungovernable lust. They therefore that are unmarried or widows, (to whom St. Paul speaks in these two verses) may have recourse to marriage as a remedy. But let it be observed, that when St. Paul allows of marriage, he speaks not of those who have already made a vow of living always a single life. Vows made to God must be kept. (Psalm lxxv. 12.; Ecclesiastes v. 3.) And St. Paul expressly says of such persons, who have made a vow of perpetual continency, and afterwards marry, “that they incur damnation, because they violate their first faith”, or vow made to God. See 1 Timothy v. 12. This saying, therefore, “it is better to marry than to burn”, cannot justify the sacrilegious marriages of priests, or of any others who were under such vows. There are other remedies which they are bound to make use of, and by which they may obtain the gift of continency and chastity. They must ask this gift by fervent prayers to God, who give a “good spirit to them that ask it”. (Luke xi. 15.) They must join fasting, alms, and the practice of self-denials, so often recommended in the gospel. See the annotations on Matthew xix. The like remedies, and not others, must they use, who being already in wedlock, are under such violent temptations, that they are continually in danger of violating, or do violate the chastity of the marriage-bed. For example, when married persons are divorced from bed and board, when long absent from one another, when sick and disabled, when one has an inveterate aversion to the other: they cannot marry another, but they can, and must use other remedies. (Witham)

Ver. 9. “If they do not contain”. This is spoken of such as are free; and not of such as by vow have given their first faith to God; to whom, if they will use proper means to obtain it, God will never refuse the gift of continency. Some translators have corrupted this text, by rendering it, “if they cannot contain”. (Challoner)
 
I think we must disavow any translation that would advise us to wait until we sin to decide if we should get married.
I don’t understand. All descendants of Adam have been sinners except Jesus and Mary. Mary, being the most pure, virginal, chaste woman ever, especially was able “to contain herself” and remain continent.
That is why “cannot” is the correct translation.
No, “cannot” is a mistranslation, as some have noted here. God gives His grace to remain continent freely to all. Some accept it; others don’t. “God will never refuse the gift of continency,” as Bishop Challoner writes in his commentary. To those who do not fully accept that grace, St. Paul says “let them marry.” Some translations, like the NAB, say “they should marry,” but this is incorrect; marriage is not compulsory, let alone compulsory for those who struggle with continence, for even most consecrated virgins and celibate priests undoubtedly struggle with it, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top