1 Corinthians 7

David Lipscomb Commentary On 1 Corinthians 7 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 RIGHTS AND OF MARRIED LIFE 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote:—The Corinthians had written to the apostle inquiring in reference to certain matters of duty. Among others, the relation of husband and wife, when they could separate, when they were guilty of fornication, and other questions connected with the marriage relation. It is good for a man not to touch a woman.—Not to be connected with woman in marriage. This he teaches not as a general truth, for he does not contradict God, who said: “ It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.” (Genesis 2:18.) In verse 26, he explains, “ that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is.” The “ dis¬tress” means the persecution then raging against the Christians. On account of these it was best if a man could restrain his lusts not to be married. There are some special cases, as of Paul himself, in which a man can devote himself without the care and distractions of a family to the service of God. But more evil than good comes of attempting it by those who cannot be continent. It is true now, as in the beginning, that “ it is not good that the man should be alone.” And the universality of marriage is a mark of the morality and virtue of a community.

2 But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.—Recognizing that but few men can be continent and that the lusts with men and women are strong and liable to lead to sin, he tells them the best way to avoid sin is for every man to have his own wife and every woman to have her own husband. He rec-ognizes that both men and women are liable to be led into sin by the strength of lusts. They are both restricted to one companion.

3 Let the husband render unto the wife her due:—After their marriage, the husband must satisfy the wife in her de¬sires, lest she be tempted to do wrong with other men. and likewise also the wife unto the husband.—The wife must please the husband in his desires lest he be tempted to seek unlawful gratification of his passions with other women.

4 The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband:—The wife has not power over her own body to refuse the marriage privileges to the husband. and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife.—The husband has not the power over his body to refuse the marriage privileges to the wife, neither has he the right to bestow them upon others. In the marriage obligations they surrender the power over their bodies to the other. [Marriage is not a capricious union, but a holy bond, in which separate ownership of person ceases, and neither without the other realizes the perfect ideal of man. This equality of the sexes is clearly presented as the way to keep marriage undefiled.]

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season,—They are not to deprive each other of these marriage rights to which each is entitled except by mutual consent. that ye may give yourselves unto prayer,—It is proper by agreement to refrain from indulgence in this fleshly enjoyment or gratification while engaged in special seasons of prayer. After the period of self-denial has passed they must come together, lest through inability to restrain their lusts, Satan should tempt one or both to sin with others.

6 But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment.—[He leaves the details ‘of their lives, whether married or unmarried, to their individual circumstances, for what is suitable in one case may be the reverse in another.]

7 Yet I would that all men were even as I myself.—He again expresses the wish that all were as he was, able to live without marriage. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.—One has ability or strength to control one appetite or lust, another is gifted with abilities to do some kind of work, another after a different kind. So each must act as he is able. He who can live and control himself without marriage should do so. One who is not able to control himself had better marry.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.—It is good for them to remain single even as he did. [Paul had vividly before his mind the trials and persecutions to which the Christians were sub¬jected. What was expedient “ by reason of the distress” might not be desirable under other conditions. And similarly “ good” might cease to be so under changed conditions. Elsewhere Paul says, “ Let marriage be had in honor among all.” (Hebrews 13:4.) And he speaks of marriage with the greatest respect when he elevates it to the loftiest position by employing it as a type of the union between Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:23-32.) He also pronounces the prohibition of marriage to be one of the signs of the great apostasy. (1 Timothy 4:3.) We are, therefore, driven to the conclusion that the statement here in no way conflicts with “ it is not good that the man should be alone.” (Genesis 2:18.) A single life is good in the sense of being in itself honorable, and under cer¬tain circumstances expedient.]

9 But if they have not continency, let them marry:—If they have not power over themselves to restrain their sexual passions, let them marry. for it is better to marry than to bum.— It was better to marry even under the distress in which they were living than to burn with lusts [raging, consuming, and exciting] which they were not able to subdue. [The one, though disadvanta¬geous, is innocent, the other is sinful.]

10 But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord,—He now gives command from the Lord to those already married. Under the law of Moses they had been permitted to be separated when displeased. But Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses permitted this because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not God’ s law of marriage as ordained in the beginning. The man must leave all others and cleave unto his wife, “ and the two shall become one flesh.” (Matthew 19:3-9.) That the wife depart not from her husband—Paul, follow¬ing the teaching of Jesus, commands the wife not to depart from her husband.

11 (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried,—If she and her husband cannot live harmoniously together let her re¬main unmarried. She is not permitted to marry again. That would be adulterous. or else be reconciled to her husband) ;—If the wife who has separated from her husband finds that, after all, she cannot live a single life in purity the only course open to her is to be reconciled to the husband whom she has injured. The same thing applies to the husband under similar circumstances. and that the husband leave not his wife.—This passage un¬doubtedly teaches that the believer is to take no steps to hinder the restoration of the marriage relations, but to be ready to seek to restore them. Divorce is intended to make the separa¬tion permanent and to make unlawful marriage possible. No Christian can do this. Nothing severs the marriage relationship between Christians save the sin of adultery.

No man or woman with a living wife or husband not guilty of adultery can marry another without adultery, and no lapse of time will purge the cohabitation of its sinfulness. The one who separates from the other tempts the other to commit adultery. One in a state of sin cannot become a Christian or live a Christian life without making an earnest endeavor to correct that wrong. Repentance involves the confession of all our sins as occasion may demand, and of our undoing our wrongs, as far as in our power. A failure to do so shows a lack of faith from the heart and of genuine repentance towards God. Neither the woman nor the man with w’ hom she cohabits can live the Christian life without ceasing their adulterous relationship.

No service is acceptable to God unless done because God requires it, and done to obey him. The great trouble on this question is not a failure to understand the teaching of the Bible, but a lack of faith and courage to do what it requires.

12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord:—[The contrast here and in verse 10 is not between commands given by Paul as an inspired apostle and as a private individual. He expressly claims that all “ the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord” (14 : 37), and he speaks of that knowledge into which he was guided as given by the Holy Spirit, as “ by the word of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:15). He must therefore not be regarded as here claiming apostolic authority for some things he writes and not for others. The real point of the contrast is between a subject on which the Lord while on earth gave direct instruction, and another subject on which he now gives his commands through an inspired apostle, as was promised by Jesus on the night of his be¬trayal : “ Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth.” (John 16 John 13.) The Lord had given instructions regarding divorce (Matthew 5:31-32 Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18), and Paul here has only reiterated what he had already commanded.] If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.—Hitherto his direction has been to them when both husband and wife were Christians. He now introduces another class. Sometimes in the preaching of the gospel, a husband would believe and the wife would not. The fact that the provision is here made by Paul for them to separate when the unbeliever is unwilling to live with the believer, with the direction that a widow may marry “ only in the Lord” (verse 39), and that Christians are forbidden to be “ unequally yoked with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14)— to be so tied to them as to be controlled by them— clearly suggests that it is not well for believers to marry un-believers, nor to enter into any relation by which they would be controlled by unbelievers. But he gives directions to those who found themselves so married to them. If the unbelieving wife is content to dwell with the believing husband, let him not depart.

13 And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband.—The same law applies to husband and wife alike; but it seems to me if it had been anticipated that believers would marry unbelievers such provisions would not have been made for separation when one becomes a believer after marriage.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.—What is meant by the unbelieving being sanctified by the believing companion has been much discussed. Macknight says: “ When infidels are married to Christians, if they have a strong affection for their Christian spouses, they are thereby sanctified to them, they are fitted to continue married to them; because their affection to the Christian party will in¬sure to that party the faithful performance of every duty; and that if the marriages of infidels and Christians were to be dis¬solved, they would cast away their children as unclean; that is, losing their affection for them, they would expose them after the barbarous custom of the Greeks, or at least neglect their education. But that by continuing their marriages, their children are holy; they are preserved as sacred pledges of their mutual love, and educated with care.” That is, if an unbelieving husband or wife is regarded so unclean that you cannot live with him or her, you must for the same reason regard your unbelieving children as unclean, but now under the rule he lays down, they are holy. The unbeliever is held as so sanctified by being one flesh with the believer, the relation is to be borne by the believer. Both husband and wife in the marriage relationship are sanctified or made sacred to each other. So when the unbeliever is willing, the marriage is to be held sacred. [It means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of divorce.

If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is holy and need not be set asunder. If it is otherwise, their children are illegitimate. If the relations of the parents be holy, the child’ s birth must be holy also (not illegitimate.)]

15 Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart:—[If the desire for separation is pressed by the unbeliever, making it intolerable for the Christian, he or she must be passive; and, if the unbeliever withdraws from such a union, let him not be hindered in so doing. The unbeliever is not constrained to keep up the union.] the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: —There has been doubt as to the meaning of this expression. Does it mean that bond is not binding in such cases? The Roman Catholic Church and most of the Protestant churches allow remarriage in the case of willful desertion. The meaning most likely is that the believer can regard the unbeliever’ s act as final, and need not seek to live with him, while yet in such cases remarriage is not approved. The Christian should be prepared to restore the marriage relation when possible, and this certainly is safe ground. If, however, the unbeliever should marry another person, he would by the act commit adultery and in that case the wife or husband would be at lib¬erty to marry.

Just here I wish to emphasize the thought that there is so much looseness in the churches on the marriage relation, so little regard for Scripture teaching, it is well to guard the point that the violation of the marriage vow not only must exist, but it must be the cause and ground of separation— or the adultery of the unbeliever as in the case before us— to justify remarriage of the separated party. Frequently the guilt of a husband is known, the crime is condoned by the wife, she lives with him knowing his guilt. Finally other causes lead to a separation; and then, when she wishes to marry again, the infidelity of the husband, which did not cause the separation, is made the excuse to justify the new marriage. Unless the separation took place on account of the lewdness of the companion, it cannot be ground for remarriage. Frequently a woman lives with a lewd husband who is one with a harlot. She becomes one with him who is one with a harlot— lives this life of doubtful virtue, and some other trouble grows up.

She separates from him for this, and makes his lewdness merely the excuse for marrying again. This is not allowable. She is in adultery all the time. Not only must she have separated from the former husband because of his adultery, to jus¬tify her, but the present husband must have been satisfied that was the cause of it when he married her, else his marriage was in intent and at heart adultery. The intention has everything to do with obedience to the command of God. It must not be an incidental happening to obey God when we go and do as we please, but a clear and distinct purpose to be governed by the law, to justify it.

For a man and woman to reck¬lessly rush ahead in marriage, determined to do it, law or no law, and after it is done to look around and see if they can find any ground to justify, does not relieve them from intentional guilt of marrying whether there be law or no law. but God hath called us in peace.— The believer must make all the efforts in his power to live in peace with the unbeliever, sacrifice everything save obedience to God. Jesus said: “ If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26.)

16 For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?—If the unbelieving husband so will, the Christian wife must live with him because it is possible that she may be able to save him. “ In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives; beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear.” (1 Peter 3:1-2.) or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?—The unbelieving wife may often be won by the godly behavior of the husband. When a believer finds him or herself with an unbeliever, instead of seeking a separation, the believer should live in peace and seek by a godly behavior to win the unbelieving companion to Christ.

THE GENERAL JUST SET FORTH APPLIED TO OTHER CIVIL 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 17 Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk.—Whatever relation or surrounding one is in when he is called to the belief of the gospel, in that let him abide and seek to do the will of God, striving by his godly walk to win those to salvation with whom he comes in contact. [The mighty effect of the gospel when first proclaimed is only slightly appreciated. The equality of men which it announced; the precious and exceeding great promises which it contained; the short-lived character it ascribed to all earthly things; and the certainty of the coming of the Lord to judge the world in righteousness, which is predicted, produced a commotion in the minds of the people which was never expe¬rienced either before or since. It is no surprise, therefore, that many were disposed to break away from their old relaionships. This was an evil that called for repression. Paul endeavored to convince his readers that their relation to Christ was comparable with any social relation or position not sinful in itself. Their conversion to Christ involved, therefore, no necessity of breaking asunder their social ties. The gospel is not a revolutionary, disorganized element; but one which is designed to eliminate all evil, and exalt and purify that which is good.] And so ordain I in all the churches.— [This principle was of universal application, and so he lays it down authoritatively for all the churches. He now proceeds to give specific instances to which this rule applies.]

18 Was any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised.—[Reference is here made to certain efforts which were attempted by those who were ashamed of having been circumcised.] If any man has been circumcised, let him not seek to become uncircumcised or to be regarded as a Gentile. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.—If a Gentile is called, let him remain one, let him serve God in the relation in which he finds himself, and seek to reach and save whom he can in the relation.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing;—[They have no influence either favorable or unfavorable on our relation to God. No man is either the better or worse for being either circumcised or uncircumcised. This, of course, was said with reference to the standing before God in Christ Jesus. Before his coming it could not have been said without contravening the express command of God. (Genesis 17:9-14; Leviticus 12:3.)] Being a Jew does- not commend a man to God neither does it condemn him. The same is true of the Gentile. Circumcision as a family mark is not condemned; but as an act of service to God, it has no weight. The dispensation of which circumcision was the seal was contrary to the people of Israel, “ and he [Christ] hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” (Colossians 2:13-15.) but the keeping of the commandments of God.—[The great question concerning which the Christian should be solicitous above everything else is as to whether he brings his heart and life into conformity to the will of God as revealed through Jesus Christ. “ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working- through love.” (Galatians 5:6.) “ Faith working through love” and “ keeping the commandments of God” are the same thing. They express the idea of devotion of heart and life under different aspects.]

20 Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called.—He enlarges the thought by commanding every one to remain in the calling or in the relationship in which he was when he was called. Coming to Christ makes him faithful in the calling. [This is not intended to prohibit a man’ s endeavor to better his condition; but that there are certain conditions of life that to the Christian call there is a special form. Such as the great distinctions— national, social, and natural— - on the maintenance of which in any particular age or country the preservation of the principles of liberty and order and their legitimate development in human history mainly depend. Paul says: “ There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28.) This enumeration sets before us the three great fundamental conceptions that at once divide and unite the race— that of Jew and Greek, or the national distinction; that of slave and free, or the social distinction; and that of male and female, or the physical distinction. No one should desire to change the status of life on becoming a Christian. Paul was endeavoring to convince his readers that their relation to Christ was compatible with any of the conditions of life enumerated.

The gospel is just as well suited to people in one condition as another, and its blessings can be enjoyed in all their fullness equally in any condition of life. They were to continue to be Christians of the kind which God’ s call made them. If they were circumcised— and so God’ s call into Christ made them circumcised Christians— continue so. They were to do nothing which would seem to imply that some other change in addition to their becoming obedient to the gospel was necessary to complete their admission into the fullness of the blessings in Christ.]

21 Wast thou called being a bondservant? care not for it: —Bond servants that are called owe their service to their earthly masters. In serving them they cannot devote their whole time and means to the service of God that they would were they free. [But the fact of their being in slavery did not affect the reality or completeness of their relation to Christ, and their anxiety to escape from bondage was needless.] nay, even if thou canst become free, use it rather.—Some expositors claim that this teaches that if a slave could obtain his liberty he was to avail himself of the opportunity to do so. But such an interpretation is at variance with the whole drift of the argument, which is, that he is not to seek such a change. What Paul does say is that if the Christian slave could be free, he should prefer his condition as a converted slave. Slavery, as well as other positions of life, can be used to the glory of God. This interpretation is in perfect harmony, not only with the rest of the passage, but with all Paul’ s teaching and his universal practice on the subject. [One point which should certainly be well pondered in considering this question is, if one word from Christian teaching could have been quoted at Rome as tending to excite the slaves to revolt, it would have set the Roman Government in direct and active hostility to the faith in Christ. Nor would the danger of preaching the abolition of slavery be confined to that arising from external violence on the part of the Roman Government; but it would have been pregnant with danger to the purity of the church itself.

For it is altogether probable that many would have been led to join a communion which would have aided them in securing their social freedom. In these considerations we find ample reasons for the position of non-interference which Paul maintains in regard to slavery. Under a particular and exceptional round of circumstances, the Holy Spirit directed Paul not to interfere with it, but to teach fearlessly those imperishable principles which led in after ages to its extinction. He left slavery, therefore, unassailed, as he did civil relations in general, not asking, in his letter to Philemon, that Onesimus should be set free; but introduced the idea of love, unity, and equality. (1 Corinthians 13:13; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 6:8; Colossians 4:1; Philemon 1:16.)]

22 For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord’ s freedman:—God does not require so much from him, so he is the Lord’ s freedman. [The Lord’ s freedman was one set free from service to sin (Romans 6:22) by Christ. These words simply mean that the slave who hears and becomes obedient to “ the faith,” and is thus brought into union with Christ as his Master, is thereby made free (John 8:32 John 8:36) from every kind of bondage; and made free by Christ. So complete is this freedom that it cannot be destroyed or weakened even in civil bondage. He is even free while serving his earthly master to earn the highest possible reward; for the apostle teaches that if slaves do their duty to their earthly masters as to Christ they will receive the reward of the inheritance, for they “ serve the Lord Christ.” (Colossians 3:24.)] likewise he that was called being free, is Christ’ s bondservant.—He is under obligations to devote more of his time and means to the service of God, so is God’ s slave. [The distinction between master and slave is obliterated. To be the Lord’ s freedman and the Lord’ s bond servant are the same thing. The Lord’ s freedman is the one whom the Lord has redeemed from Satan and made his own; and the Lord’ s bond servant is also one whom “ he purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28.) So that master and slave stand on the same level before Christ.]

23 Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men.—Inasmuch as Christ had bought them with his blood, they were his bond servants. Now they were to serve Christ in continuing in submission to their earthly masters with the fidelity with which they served God and as service rendered to God. Paul gives the principle on which the slave was to serve: “ Servants, be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as unto the Lord, and not unto men: knowing that whatsoever good things each one doeth, the same shall he receive again from the Lord, whether he be bond or free.” (Ephesians 6:5-8.) The servant is to do service to the earthly master as to the Lord, and God will recompense him for the service done, as though rendered unto him.

24 Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.—Here is a summary and reiteration of the principles underlying the instruction contained in this paragraph. Let the bond servant who has become obedient to the faith abide, as regards his social state, as he was. His being a slave came to him without his choice and is powerless to destroy or lessen his Christian liberty or hinder his service to Christ, and his principle only justifies the exhortation here given.

ADVICE TO THE IN VIEW OF THEN IN 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 25 Now concerning virgins—Paul here introduces a different, but kindred, subject to that which he has been discussing. He had been discussing the relation of husband and wife. He now turns to that of those not yet given in marriage. I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy.—[Paul had no specific word from Jesus on the subject of virgins. They call for special treatment, but he had the command of Jesus concerning divorce to guide him. So he gives no command, but only a judgment, a deliberately formed decision from knowledge (2 Corinthians 8:10), not a mere passing fancy. The language, so far from being a disclaimer of inspiration, is an express claim to help from the Lord in forming this duly considered judgment.] From his familiarity with the teaching of the Lord he gives his judgment as one who has obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy.

26 I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is.—He says again, on account of the present distress, that it is good for every man to remain as he is, whether married or unmarried. (See note on verse 1.)

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.—Neither the married nor the unmarried are to seek for a change. [This is an explanation and reassertion of “ to be as he is” in the preced¬ing verse. He dissuades from the spirit of change in consideration of the distress that was pending.]

28 But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.—But if he cannot restrain himself and he marries, he does not sin. And if a virgin marries, she does not sin. But under persecutions, such will have trouble in the flesh. Childbearing, family duties, and obligations will increase the troubles that will come upon them. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you.— He would save them from these added troubles and afflictions, so he gives this advice as prudential, not as a command from God. The following or not following the advice does not involve disobedience to God, or sin; but he would spare them added troubles brought on by marriage.

29-30 But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none; and those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and those that buy, as though they possessed not;—In this Paul breaks off into one of his characteristic digressions, in which he shows that time here on earth was so short to them when they would leave the world, that what they are while here matters but little. [Paul here means that the present epoch will embrace a greater or less number of years, and its character is its being contained between precise limits— drawn together into brief compass which does not admit of its being extended indefinitely. These limits are, on the one side, Christ’ s coming at the end of the Jewish dispensation (Acts 2:17; Hebrews 9:26) and, on the other, his coming again, which may be expected at any hour— the time is limited as to what remains (Matthew 24:42-44 Matthew 25:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3; 2 Peter 3:8-13).]

31 and those that use the world, as not using it to the full: —All things mentioned in this series are right things; and the warning is against eagerly using up all opportunities of gain or pleasure as if they were the end of life. We are not to try to get all we can out of externals. The man who remembers that he is only a sojourner in the world is likely to remember also that worldly possessions are not everything, and that worldly surroundings cannot be made permanent. for the fashion of this world passeth away.— [John says: “ And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof.” (1 John 2:17.) The fact that their present condition was not to last long, and their participation in its joys and sorrows was to be so short-lived, is the reason which the apostle urges why they should not be wedded to earthly things.] It is probable that raging persecution threatened to burst upon them with such fury as to add force to this exhortation.

32 But I would have you to be free from cares.—When persecutions came upon them, he would like to have them without the additional cares which marriage would impose upon them. [It must be borne in mind that this advice was given solely to guide those under the distress that was then upon them (verse 26), and not to be applied in normal times.] He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord:—[The unmarried man, having no family to provide for and to protect in times of distress and persecution, is less encumbered with worldly cares than the married man who was compelled to take care of his wife and dependent children; and might be thus kept back from that unswerving courage which in those dark days full loyalty to Christ demanded.]

33-34 but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided. So also the woman that is unmarried and the virgin is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.—Paul here states a truth that is applicable in a general way only to those who live continently and contentedly without marriage, free from the cares that grow with a family both of men and women. Generally unmarried men, and women too, with the sexual desires active, give less care, place their affections less on the Lord, than the married. Paul himself states this truth: “ But younger widows refuse: for when they have waxed wanton against Christ, they desire to marry.” (1 Timothy 5:11.) That his language here was only for the time of the distress that was then upon them is seen in this statement: “ I desire therefore that the younger widows marry, bear children, rule the household, give no occasion to the adversary for reviling: for already some are turned aside after Satan.” (1 Timothy 5:14-15.) As a rule among men and women the married state is more promotive of virtue and devotion than that of the unmarried.

35 And this I say for your own profit;—[The advice was given that they might avail themselves of all their advantages and privileges, and pursue such a course as would tend to ad¬vance their personal piety and spiritual growth. Nothing here was ever designed to be of general application; it con¬cerned the church at Corinth alone; or churches in similar cir¬cumstances.] not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is seemly, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.—He did not wish to lead them into temptation which they could not withstand, so become ensnared to sin; but he spoke it that they might do that which was for their well-being and what would leave them time to serve the Lord without the care and distractions which a family would im¬pose upon them.

FOR FATHERS AS TO THE OF THEIR UNDER THE IN VIEW 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 36 But if any man—In that age and country the father disposed of his daughters in marriage without consulting them, and his will was the law in the matter. thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter,—If he thinks he treats her wrong in withholding her from marriage, exposing her to a temptation to sin with her lover, or at least, bringing on her the imputation of it. if she be past the flower of her age,—Past the usual age of marriage. and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.—If, then, a man thinks he treats his virgin daughter wrong in witholding her from marriage, he must act according to her requirements. That is, if she cannot live satisfied in the unmarried state, let him give her in marriage, and he need not fear that in doing so he does wrong.

37 But he that standeth stedfast in his heart,—Whose judgment is settled and firm, being fully persuaded of the inexpeiency of his daughter’ s marrying. having no necessity,—Being controlled by no external necessity ; nothing, in other words, rendering it necessary for him to act contrary to his own judgment. but hath power as touching his own will,—Is able to act as he deems best. and hath determined this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter,—Has fully made up his mind to keep his daughter in those perilous times from marriage and under his own control. shall do well.—In either of these cases he does right.

38 So then both he that giveth his own virgin daughter in marriage doeth well;—He violates no law in so doing, and is not to be censured for it. and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better.—He more certainly under the trying circumstances considered her happiness by holding her from entering into the married state than he would by allowing her to enter into it. [And yet, when all is said, Paul leaves the whole problem of getting married an open question to be settled by each individual case.]

AS TO THE OF WIDOWS1 Corinthians 7:39-40 39 A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth;-—He adds advice concerning widows marrying, probably in answer to a question that had been propounded to him. but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will;—[It is the teaching of the New Testament that marriage is a contract for life, between one man and one woman, indissoluble by the will of the parties or by human law; but that the death of either party leaves the survivor free to contract another marriage. (Romans 7:1-3.) Such being the teaching of the Holy Spirit, no civil or ecclesiastical body can rightfully enact a different law. All efforts to change God’ s law only render men and women worse.] only in the Lord.—This prohibits the widow marrying one not a Christian. I know no reason why a widow should be more restricted as to whom she marry than a virgin. This restriction however, together with the general principles laid down regulating the association of Christians with unbeliev¬ers, indicates that it was not contemplated that Christians should marry those not in the Lord. Under the law of Moses the man was prohibited marrying out of the family of Israel, save when the woman would identify herself with the chosen people. The reason given was, lest they should draw them into idolatry. Solomon violated the law, and, despite his wisdom and power, his wives drew him into idolatry. Influence is frequently more potent for evil than authority or power.

The law of Moses is an earthly type of the law of Christ. The inference would be that the children of God could not marry out of the family of God. “ Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial ? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a tem¬ple of God with idols ? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be to you a Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daugh-ters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18.) To be unequally yoked would be to be so connected with the unbeliever that the Christian would be controlled by the unbeliever.

I know of no relation in which this would be more so than in the marriage relation. The whole drift and tenor of the Scriptures, both of the Old Testament and the New, is that in the close and intimate relations of life the people of God should seek the companionship of servants of God, that they might help and encourage each other in the Christian life. When both are w’orking together, man in his weakness often becomes discouraged; it is greatly worse when the nearest and dearest one pulls away from Christ and duty. Then, too, w’hen people marry, they ought to consider the probability of rearing children. It is the duty of Christian parents to rear their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. How can one do this when the other sets the example of unbelief and disobedience to God? I conclude, therefore, that the spirit and teaching of the Bible is against Christians marrying those not members of the body of Christ, and yet there is no direct and specific prohibition of it, other than for widows.

40 But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment:—While Paul gives this permission to the widow, she will be happier according to his judgment, if she remains unmarried. [This was said because she would have the same cares and troubles as those referred to in the preceding verses.] and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.—[Not that there was any doubt in Paul’ s mind on this point. The word implies full persuasion that in the advice he had given he was speaking under the direction of the Holy Spirit.]

Verse 1 1 Corinthians 7This is one of the most interesting chapters in the New Testament, due to the nature of its being Paul’s apostolic answers to no less than six questions propounded in a letter from the church at Corinth, that letter being lost, of course, and thus leaving the communications in this chapter to be understood very much in the same manner as listening to one end of a telephone conversation. Significantly, Paul had sternly reprimanded the Corinthians for the various sins already noted in the first six chapters, before getting down to the problem of their questions. Therefore, the second major division of the epistle begins at this point, from whence through the next nine chapters he would deal with questions raised in the lost letter. The six questions treated in this chapter are: (1) Should married couples continue normal sexual relations after becoming Christians? Answer: Yes, it is their duty to do this (1 Corinthians 7:1-7). (2) Should single persons get married? Answer: Yes, in all normal situations; but for the gifted, such as Paul, celibacy was advantageous, especially in unsettled times (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). (3) Is divorce permitted for Christians? Answer: No (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). (4) When one partner of a pagan couple becomes a Christian, the other refusing to do so, is such a marriage binding? Answer: Yes, except when the unbeliever deserts the Christian partner (1 Corinthians 7:12-16). A brief digression. At this point Paul, having given an exception in the matter of mixed marriages, allowing liberty in certain cases, interjected a comment on the general rule that becoming a Christian does not free any man from obligations already binding upon him. Evidently there was at Corinth, even at this early date, some impression that becoming a Christian wiped out all prior debts, contracts, even marriages and all other obligations existing prior to conversion. It will be recalled that this very error was the principal motivation for vast numbers of knights and princes who participated in the Crusades at a much later time (1 Corinthians 7:17-24). (5) Should Christian fathers (or guardians) give their daughters in marriage? Answer: The fathers and guardians were given authority to solve their individual problems, there being no sin involved, however the decision went; but certain guidelines were suggested (1 Corinthians 7:25-38). (6) May a Christian widow remarry? Answer: Yes, provided that she marry “only in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39-40). Like many other chapters which are sometimes labeled “difficult,” this one contains some of the most instructive teaching in the New Testament, and affords glimpses of the apostolic method which add greatly to one’s faith in the integrity of the apostles. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (1 Corinthians 7:1) The development of this paragraph a little later indicates that the question regards the conduct of Christian couples toward each other, a question no doubt related to the broader question of celibacy as a way of life, this being a deduction from the terminology “not to touch a woman.” “Epictetus used this word to denote one’s ."[1] Morris also agreed that “In this context TOUCH refers to marriage."[2]It is good not to touch a woman … Paul first addressed himself to the prior question of celibacy, admitting here that, in a sense, it was “good.” The word “good” in this place “does not mean morally good, but that it is for man’s best interests in some circumstances to remain single."[3] “He is teaching that because of the persecution of Christians, it is better not to get married and bring children into the world to be killed and suffer persecution.[4] It should be carefully observed, however, that Paul in no sense advocated celibacy, except in certain situations and circumstances, and that even in those cases it was merely “allowable,” and not commanded. There is no disparagement of marriage here, Paul’s writings in Ephesians 5:22-23, etc., making it abundantly clear that he held the institution of marriage in the very highest esteem. As Marsh said, “He is not writing a treatise on marriage, but answering their questions within the context of current attitudes and circumstances."[5] Marsh translated this place, “It is WELL for a man not to touch a woman … meaningC, but not morally or intrinsically better."[6] It is true now, even as it was in the beginning, that “It is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). As Lipscomb noted, “Paul’s teaching here regards the persecution then raging against the Christians; and, on account of these, if a man could restrain his lusts, it was better not to marry."[7]The background of this paragraph included widespread agitation of the question of the desirability of marriage. Many of the Greek philosophers, such as Menander, held marriage to be “an evil, but a necessary evil”;[8] but the Jews, on the other hand, “absolutely required that every man should marry, and reputed those as murderers who did not."[9][1] James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1969), p. 98. [2] Leon Morris, Tyndale Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), p. 105. [3] Donald S. Metz, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 372. [4] George W. DeHoff, Sermons on First Corinthians (Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1947), p. 63. [5] Paul W. Marsh, A New Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 387. [6] Ibid. [7] David Lipscomb, Commentary on First Corinthians (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1935), p. 95. [8] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1831), Vol. VI, p. 220. [9] Ibid. Verse 2 But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.Christianity is opposed to polygamy, concubinage, divorce and all related evils. Also, there is implicit in this verse a practical condemnation of celibacy. Celibacy being an absolutely unattainable state for the vast majority of mankind, marriage is required as the only practical alternative. But because of fornications … By these words and the command following, Paul refuted absolutely the false argument of Jerome who said, “If it is good for a man not to touch a woman, it must be bad to do so; and therefore celibacy is a holier state than marriage."[10] Far from being a holier state than marriage, celibacy, enforced upon the clergy of the historic church contrary to nature, became the worst of evils. As Barnes said: How much evil, how much deep pollution, how many abominable crimes would have been avoided, which have grown out of the monastic system, and the celibacy of the clergy … if Paul’s advice had been followed by all professed Christians![11]Let every man have … This was an apostolic order, “a rule, and not a mere permission”;[12] and Paul applied it equally to women as to men. Such a commandment does not allow any exception for persons who, early in life, take vows of perpetual chastity; because, as Macknight observed, “No person in early life can foresee what his future state of mind may be … therefore vows of celibacy and virginity taken in early life, must in both sexes be sinful."[13][10] F. W. Farrar, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), Vol. 19, p. 223. [11] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1949), 1Cor., p. 111. [12] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 224. [13] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 98. Verse 3 Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto her husband.In marriage, the sensuous impulse, by being controlled and placed under religious sanctions is refined and purified … Instead of being any longer the source of untold curses to mankind, it becomes a condition of their continuance and an element in their peace, because it is then placed under the blessing of God and of his church.[14]Unto the wife her due … also unto the husband … The sexual relationship in married couples, far from being wrong, is a lawful and necessary function of Christian marriage. This verse establishes the idea that “Among some of the Corinthians there existed an exaggerated spiritualistic tendency which threatened to injure conjugal relations."[15] There existed a view among ascetics that sex relations were in and of themselves wicked, or evil; and the blight of this monastic error has fallen upon all succeeding generation. [14] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 224. [15] Donald S. Metz, op. cit., p. 373. Verse 4 The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife.It may be assumed that Paul delivered such teachings as here, not through any love of the subject, but because all kinds of unnatural and immoral propositions were being advocated by ascetics and “super-spirituals” among the Corinthians. The equality of husband and wife in the marriage partnership is in the foreground here. Neither partner in marriage was to subscribe to any form of “sexless” behavior, because there was a positive duty that each owed the other in marriage. Verse 5 Defraud ye not one another, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.Except it be for a season … In such an apostolic directive as this, there disappears totally the notion that sexual relations between Christian marriage partners were allowable only for procreation. On the other hand, the refusal of one of the partners to cohabit is designated as fraud. May give yourselves unto prayer … Abstinence from the normal marital relations was allowable only upon the consent of both partners, and even then only for purposes of prayer (in some special sense), and only “for a season.” Fasting … in this verse (KJV) was an interpolation, being not found in any of the primary manuscripts; but despite this, the requirement that married couples live apart during Lent was grounded on this interpolation.[16]ENDNOTE: [16] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 224. Verse 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment.This verse has been grossly misunderstood as a denial of his inspiration on Paul’s part, as if he had said that he was in some manner unsure of the advice he gave. This is not true at all; but it indicates that such behavior as celibacy and married couples refraining from cohabitation for “a season” were allowable, but not required, a concession not a commandment. There is no restriction whatever upon Paul’s inspiration visible in this verse. Verse 7 Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.Would that all men … Paul could not have meant that he wished that all men were unmarried, like himself, but rather that all men had the gift of continence, which is clearly “his own gift from God.” Even as I myself … The question of whether or not Paul was ever married always surfaces here, there being many dogmatic opinions supporting either view. One thing is certain, Paul was at this time not married. Halley gave his opinion that “This chapter seems to have been written by one who knew something of the intimacies of the married life,"[17] and combined this with the fact of Paul’s voting in the Sanhedrin (Acts 26:10), for which, it was said, marriage was a prerequisite, making these the two reasons for supposing that Paul had been married. Shore, however, declared that “The almost universal tradition of the early church was that Paul was never married."[18] However, that tradition appears to be weak. Farrar stated that it “has no certain support of tradition”;[19] and the testimony of both Tertullian and Jerome (in favor of the “unmarried” view) he wrote off as inadmissible, because both of them “were biased witnesses."[20] It is not a matter of great import either way, but this student inclines to the belief that Paul was a widower, his wife having deserted him at the time of his conversion. Moreover, the tradition of Paul’s never having been married was most likely fostered by the historic church as a support of their unscriptural doctrine of celibacy for the clergy. [17] Henry H. Halley, Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1927), p. 546. [18] T. Teignmouth Shore, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 307. [19] F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 225. [20] Ibid. Verse 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.Paul here began his answer to the question of whether unmarried persons (widows, naturally included) should marry or not. It is good for them if they abide even as I … This was the permission of the apostle, and even his approval, that for those who were able to live chastely without marriage, it would be better for them not to marry due to “the distress that is upon us” (1 Corinthians 7:26). A savage persecution against the church was then raging, and it was an inopportune time for marrying; but, even so, Paul did not forbid it. Verse 9 But if they have no continency, let them marry: for it better to marry than to burn.McGarvey’s analysis of Paul’s answer has this: “He advises the unmarried who have the gift of self-control to remain unmarried, but those lacking it should avoid unlawful lusts by marriage."[21]Better to marry than to burn … has reference to being on fire with passion. ENDNOTE: [21] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on First Corinthians (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 80. Verse 10 But unto the married I give charge, yet not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband.Not I but the Lord … The third question from Corinth had asked if divorce was permitted; and Paul here answered in the negative. The words “not I but the Lord” have been construed by some as an admission on Paul’s part that some of his advice in this chapter was not inspired, but no such meaning is logically derived from what is said here. What Paul declared here is that it was unnecessary for him to give any inspired utterance on such a subject, because the Lord himself had given specific commandment on this very thing (Matthew 5:32 Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:9; Luke 16:18). “Paul here distinguished between Jesus’ command during his ministry and his own apostolic rulings, for which inspiration is claimed."[22]ENDNOTE: [22] Donald Guthrie, The New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1059. Verse 11 (But should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.Paul left out of view in this verse the exception Jesus gave in Matthew 19:9, “except it be for fornication”; but this may not be construed as a denial of it. Paul’s failure to mention the exception was likely due to the fact that it did not apply in the case propounded by the letter from Corinth. As DeHoff said, “Paul told her either to remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. Divorce never solves a problem; it only creates more problems.” Of course, exactly the same rule applied to husbands who left their wives. Verse 12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.Say I, not the Lord … The meaning here is not that Paul’s injunction here had any less inspiration and authority behind it, but that its authority derived from his own apostolic commission, and not from any direct commandment uttered by Jesus during his ministry, such as that he had just cited. There is not the slightest disclaimer here of full and absolute authority for what Paul commanded in the Spirit of God. As Marsh expressed it, “In this instance Paul cannot refer to any direct command of Christ, as he could for the previous case; but his words carry the full weight of inspiration and authority."[23] One must deplore the blindness of many commentators on this exceedingly important point. Jesus’ teaching on marriage was directed to the Jews who were all in covenant relationship with God; and his words had no application at all to mixed marriages which Paul dealt with here; hence the necessity for Paul to issue the command himself in the fullness of his apostolic authority. How easy it would have been for him to attribute some saying to Jesus on this, instead of assuming full responsibility for it himself; but, in the light of his example, we may be sure that no apostle ever did such a thing. How vain, therefore, are the speculations of a certain school of critics who accuse the apostles of attributing to Jesus words which were, in fact, their own deductions and not the words of the Lord. Paul’s distinguishing such things in this verse is an overwhelmingly powerful testimony to the truth of the entire New Testament. This verse through 1 Corinthians 7:16 deals with the problem of divorce in mixed marriages, that is, marriages between Christians and pagans, a situation which arose, not from Christians marrying pagans, but from the conversion of one out of a pagan couple. Paul’s command here is that the marriage stands, unless the unbeliever is unwilling and will not allow it to stand. ENDNOTE: [23] Paul W. Marsh, op. cit., p. 388. Verse 13 And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband.The teaching here is the same as in the previous verse, except it applies to the Christian woman, just as 1 Corinthians 7:12 applied to the Christian man, with an unbelieving marriage partner. See under above verse. Verse 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.Sanctified … “This verb cannot mean holy in Christ before God,' because that kind of holiness cannot be predicated of an unbeliever."[24] Paul here uses such a term in a ceremonial sense, rather than in a sense suggesting the salvation either of the unbelieving partner or of the children. As Johnson said: Paul simply means that the Old Testament principle of the communication of uncleanness does not hold. The union is lawful and confers privileges on the members, such as the protection of God and the opportunity of being in close contact with one in God's family.[25]Those who seek to find here any authority for infant church membership are frustrated by the fact that nothing of the kind is even intimated. "There is not one word about baptism here, not one allusion to it; nor does the argument in the remotest degree bear upon it."[26] Furthermore, as Morris pointed out, the "holiness" here ascribed to children applies only "until the child is old enough to take responsibility upon himself."[27][24] Donald S. Metz, op. cit., p. 378. [25] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 608. [26] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 117. [27] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 110. Verse 15 Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.The brother or sister is not under bondage ... Some question whether or not such a brother or sister might remarry; but the view here is that, if not, then the brother or sister would still be in bondage. This is another exception, distinguished from the "adultery" mentioned by the Lord (<a href="/bible/parallel/MAT/19/9" class="green-link">Matthew 19:9</a>), but the desertion of a Christian partner by an unbeliever is thought by some to be presumptive proof of adultery also.] Besides that, Paul was dealing with mixed marriages, which were not in the purview of Jesus' teaching at all. Many have disputed this interpretation. DeHoff declared that "This does not mean that he (the forsaken one) is free to marry again."[28] David Lipscomb also believed that, "In such cases, remarriage is not approved";[29]but he went on to add that if the departing unbeliever should marry again, the wife or husband forsaken would be at liberty to remarry. It seems to this student, however, that Macknight's view of this place is correct. He said: Here he declares that the party who was willing to continue the marriage, but who was deserted notwithstanding a reconciliation had been attempted, was at liberty to marry. And his decision is just, because there is no reason why the innocent party, through the fault of the guilty party, should be exposed to the danger of committing adultery.[30]See the note at end of chapter 7. Metz was doubtless correct in the comment that "Paul's directive does not grant permission for a Christian to marry an unbeliever."[31] The guidelines apply to situations in which one of a pagan couple accepts Christianity, and the other does not. Even then, the marriage is binding unless the unbeliever deserts the faithful partner. [28] George W. DeHoff, op. cit., p. 66. [29] David Lipscomb, op. cit., p. 102. [30] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 107. [31] Donald R. Metz, op. cit., p. 379. Verse 16 For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?Bruce believed that "A mixed marriage of the kind Paul had in mind is fraught with missionary possibility,"[32]indicating that Paul's meaning here is that perhaps the faithful partner might be able to convert the unbeliever. There is another possible meaning of this somewhat ambiguous verse. It could mean, "God's aim for us is peace, which will best be secured by separation; the possibility of saving the heathen partner is, after all, quite uncertain."[33] Morris preferred the latter view, adding that "Marriage is not to be regarded simply as an instrument of evangelism."[34] Despite this, it seems that the first view, advocated by Bruce, is preferable. The principal deterrent to this is the reference to God's having called us to peace (at the end of <a href="/bible/parallel/1CO/7/15" class="green-link">1 Corinthians 7:15</a>). It is a known fact that many a marriage with unbelievers has proved to be the means of converting the unbeliever; but Paul certainly did not advocate marriage with such an end in view. This verse concludes Paul's teaching on mixed marriages; and, as always, there is evident in it the most devout and sincere desire for the salvation of people's souls. Everything else is secondary. [32] F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 92. [33] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 903. [34] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 111. Verse 17 Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.The problem of the innocent party in a mixed marriage disposed of, Paul here made a digression to legislate in the power of the Holy Spirit on the larger question behind it, that greater question deriving from an error being advocated at Corinth by certain false teachers. "The Judaizers taught that, by embracing the true religion, all former obligations under which the convert lay were dissolved."[35] Any widespread acceptance of such an error would have resulted in social chaos and precipitated even more savage and relentless persecutions against the church; therefore, for both practical and ethical reasons the error had to be struck down. As the Lord hath distributed to each man ... refers to the status of each man in the fabric of the social order, some being wealthy, others poor, some free, others slaves, etc. As God hath called each, so let him walk ... Accepting the gospel did not change prior conditions and obligations of the convert in any legal sense, despite the fact that the holy principles of Christianity were inherently charged with power to destroy many shameful institutions in the pagan society. "The gospel, instead of weakening any moral or just political obligation, strengthened them all."[36][35] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 108. [36] Ibid. Verse 18 Was any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but keeping the commandments of God.Let him not become uncircumcised ... Through surgery, it was possible to do this; and Macknight related how "Apostate Jews (by such action) fancied that they freed themselves from their obligation to obey the law of Moses."[37]Circumcision is nothing ... Three times Paul made this statement, each time concluding with a powerful statement of that which is everything; here it is "keeping the commandments of God." In <a href="/bible/parallel/GAL/5/6" class="green-link">Galatians 5:6</a>, it is "faith working through love"; and in <a href="/bible/parallel/GAL/6/15" class="green-link">Galatians 6:15</a>, it is "a new creation." Any reconciliation of these epic pronouncements with the Protestant heresy of salvation "by faith alone" is impossible. As the apostle John said, "And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments" (<a href="/bible/parallel/1JN/2/3" class="green-link">1 John 2:3</a>). Let him not be circumcised ... is an order applicable to all of every class who become Christians; and it may not be allowed that the practice of this rite, which is essentially racial and religious, could be acceptable under any circumstances in the church for any persons whomsoever. Paul's circumcision of Timothy has no bearing whatever on this. ENDNOTE: [37] Ibid. Verse 20 Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Wast thou called being a bondservant? care not for it: nay, even if thou canst become free, use it rather.There is nothing in this passage which forbids any man to strive for betterment of conditions in his life; but what is forbidden is any thought that such "better conditions" could denote any higher spiritual condition. A slave could be just as noble and successful a Christian as anyone else. Furthermore, many Christians have destroyed their spiritual lives, or greatly damaged them, by inordinate desire to improve their economic or social status. There is something of what Paul wrote to Timothy in this admonition here: "Godliness with contentment is great gain ... having food and covering we shall be therewith content" (<a href="/bible/parallel/1TI/6/6" class="green-link">1 Timothy 6:6-8</a>). Even if thou canst become free, use it rather ... There is an amazing uncertainty among the wisest scholars as to what Paul meant by this, and this is reflected in the various versions. RSV: If you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. (Footnote on last clause: make use of your present condition instead.) the New English Bible (1961): If a chance of liberty should come, take it. (Footnote: But even if a chance of liberty should come, choose rather to make good use of your servitude.) Practically all scholars agree with Shore that the interpretation given in the footnotes "is most in accordance with the construction of the sentence in the original Greek."[38] Furthermore, that view is in perfect harmony with the whole thrust of Paul's paragraph here, as well as with his teaching elsewhere and his invariable practice. Perhaps, if the circumstances of the slaves at Corinth to whom these words were originally addressed could be known, more light on the true meaning would be available. For example, was Paul addressing the slaves of pagans, or of Christians? If it should be allowed here that Paul advised continuation in servitude, even for one who might have procured his liberty, it would not necessarily follow that such was intended as the will of God for all ages to come. McGarvey believed that Paul meant that "If freedom can be obtained, it is to be preferred";[39] and if master and slave are both Christians, it should be bestowed, as Paul clearly suggested to Philemon. Thus, there can be no doubt of the repugnance in which the apostle held the whole institution of slavery; but he held that conviction in the caution of a very wise restraint. Although the word seemed to be always trembling upon Paul's lips, he never uttered it. Why? If one single word could have been quoted in Rome as tending to excite slaves to revolt, it would have quadrupled the intensity and savagery of the imperial government's hatred and persecution of Christians at a time when persecution was already under way; and that fact could have resulted in Paul's recommendation here. Furthermore, Lipscomb gave this further analysis: Nor would the danger of preaching the abolition of slavery be confined to that arising from external violence of Rome against the church; it would have been pregnant with danger to the purity of the church itself. Many would have been led to join a communion which would have aided them in securing their freedom. In these considerations, we find ample reasons for the position of non-interference with slavery which Paul maintained.[40]In keeping with such circumstances, Paul only hinted that Philemon should free Onesimus; and here he advised that slaves continue to serve God in their condition of servitude. Lipscomb preferred the rendition of Paul's words as, "If the Christian slave could be free, he should prefer his condition as a converted slave."[41]Before leaving this, it should be noted that the apostolic commandment regarding what was preferable under those peculiar and exceptional circumstances may not be understood as binding at the present time and in far different circumstances. [38] T. Teignmouth Shore, op. cit., p. 310. [39] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 82. [40] David Lipscomb, op. cit., p. 107. [41] Ibid. Verse 22 For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord's freedman: likewise he that was called being free, is Christ's bondservant."The man who is a slave is free in Christ, and the man who is free is the servant of Christ."[42] Thus there is the fulfillment of the principle, "Let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate: and the rich, in that he is made low" (<a href="/bible/parallel/JAS/1/9" class="green-link">James 1:9-10</a>). ENDNOTE: [42] Donald R. Metz, op. cit., p. 382. Verse 23 Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men.Bruce favored the preferred renditions of RSV and New English Bible (1961) in <a href="/bible/parallel/1CO/7/21" class="green-link">1 Corinthians 7:21</a>, because, he said, "This interpretation is more in line with the principle of <a href="/bible/parallel/1CO/7/23" class="green-link">1 Corinthians 7:23</a>."[43] However, it is the conviction here that Paul used the word "bondservants" in a different sense here, it being extremely unlikely that anyone would voluntarily have become a bondservant of another. What is meant is that "Christians should not be dragooned by others in the way they should live.[44] In context (which we do not certainly know), Paul could have meant, "Do not allow yourselves to be made bondservants of those who are agitating the slavery question. You do not belong to them; you belong to Christ, having been purchased by his precious blood." [43] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 92. [44] Donald Guthrie, op. cit., p. 1061. Verse 24 Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.This is a pointed recapitulation of the whole paragraph (<a href="/bible/parallel/1CO/7/17" class="green-link">1 Corinthians 7:17-24</a>). Verse 25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy.This is the fifth question answered in this chapter; and, "Apparently, the church at Corinth had asked Paul's opinion regarding unmarried daughters and the responsibilities of parents in such instances."[45] This comment is correct as far as it goes; but the duties of guardians as well as those of parents must be included; and sons as well as daughters were also included by the term "virgins" as used here. Virgins ... Wesley said this means "of either sex."[46] Barclay's objection that "It is hard to see why Paul used the word VIRGIN if he meant "[47] is refuted by the fact that Paul did not mean daughter, but unmarried young people of both sexes. As Adam Clarke noted, "The word in this place means young unmarried persons of either sex, as is plain from <a href="/bible/parallel/1CO/7/26" class="green-link">1 Corinthians 7:26-27</a> <a href="/bible/parallel/1CO/7/32" class="green-link">1 Corinthians 7:32-34</a>, and from <a href="/bible/parallel/REV/14/4" class="green-link">Revelation 14:4</a>."[48]The fact that the word VIRGIN has a different meaning in our day does not alter its evident meaning in this place. I have no commandment of the Lord ... is not a disclaimer of inspiration on Paul's part at all; it is a statement that the Lord during his ministry did not make a specific pronouncement upon this subject. The meaning is like that in <a href="/bible/parallel/1CO/7/12" class="green-link">1 Corinthians 7:12</a>, above; Paul made a distinction between words that Jesus delivered during his ministry and his own inspired teachings, doing so, no doubt, out of respect to the Lord, but with no sense of diminishing the authority of his own inspired teachings. As Morris said: Moffatt points out that Paul's careful discrimination between a saying of the Lord and his own injunction tells strongly against those who maintain that the early church was in the habit of producing the sayings it needed and then ascribing them to Christ.[49]As one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy ... In context, this is a full affirmation of Paul's apostolic power and authority, added to prevent any misunderstanding of the fact that the Lord had not personally legislated on this question. [45] Donald R. Metz, op. cit., p. 383. [46] John Wesley, One Volume New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), in loco. [47] William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), p. 74. [48] Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 225. [49] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 109. Verse 26 I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is.That the meaning of "virgins" in <a href="/bible/parallel/1CO/7/25" class="green-link">1 Corinthians 7:25</a> includes both sexes is implicit in the specific mention of "men" here. As Macknight said, "Paul declared, beginning with the case of the male virgin, that it was good in the present distress to remain unmarried."[50] Here again, as in verse 1, "good" denotes not what was commanded but what was advisable. ENDNOTE: [50] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 97. Verse 27 Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.The present distress ... mentioned in the previous verse looms ominously in the background of these remarks. History has not revealed the nature of the awful persecution inflicted upon the Christians at this particular point, but it should be remembered that both Jewish and Gentile enemies of the faith would have seized any opportunity to exterminate, if possible, the Christian religion. The situation at Corinth was probably a local outburst of the persecutions which became more general at a later date. In any case, it may not be denied that some terrible onslaught against the faith of Christ was under way in Corinth at this very time. It was simply no favorable time for any man to be seeking to alter his marital status. Verse 28 But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you.Regardless of the practical wisdom against it, Paul still allowed that marriage was honorable and that those entering such a state did not sin. If a virgin marry ... This refers to virgin daughters, making it clear that BOTH sexes are in view here, men having been mentioned in <a href="/bible/parallel/1CO/7/26" class="green-link">1 Corinthians 7:26</a>. Tribulation in the flesh ... is a reference to the sufferings and deprivations invariably associated with persecutions in the first century. Such tribulations would be far more severe upon the married than upon the unmarried. Verse 29 But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none; and those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice as though they rejoiced not; and those that buy as though they possessed not.This affectionate warning was given in the light of the transience of life, man's span upon the earth being indeed "shortened" as compared with the longevity of the patriarchs. All earthly pursuits should be made and all obligations and conditions considered in the light of the tragic fact that "Upon my day of life the night is falling!" "Let us not for one moment think that this principle was evolved by Paul from a mistaken belief that the Second Advent was close at hand."[51] There is not the slightest hint in this passage of Christ's second coming, except in the general sense of its being always proper for Christians to live as expecting it and being prepared for it. The time of Christ's return was one point upon which Jesus declared that the apostles could not be informed; and it was the only point upon which they were not informed. It is a weariness to read the carpings of the exegetes always prating about how the apostles and the early church were mistaken about this. All of them with even elementary knowledge of what Jesus taught knew that the time of the Second Coming had not been revealed, not even to the Son of God (<a href="/bible/parallel/MAT/24/36" class="green-link">Matthew 24:36</a>); and the various apostolic exhortations with respect to "expecting" it were given in the light of that knowledge. Instead of a conceited glorying in their so-called "mistake" on such exhortations, it would be far better for Christians today to take the same attitude as the apostles and pray, "Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus" (<a href="/bible/parallel/REV/21/20" class="green-link">Revelation 21:20</a>), such words having exactly the same meaning for us as they had for the apostles who uttered them, and in neither case being any kind of "mistake"! ENDNOTE: [51] T. Teignmouth Shore, op. cit., p. 312. Verse 31 And those that use the world, as not using it to the full: for the fashion of this world passeth away.This really belongs with the two previous verses, being a part of the same exhortation to prudence in view of the transcience of earthly existence and the swift changes that accompany our mortality. Verse 32 But I would have you to be free from cares. He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.This was the basis of Paul's recommendation of the single status for those whose self-restraint made it possible, the unencumbered being able more wholeheartedly to serve the interests of true religion than those pressed down with cares and obligations. Verse 33 But he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided.Paul did not condemn man's efforts in the secular sphere, but was pointing out the preemption of time and efforts required in the support of a wife and family, such a division of the Christian's energies being inherent in such a thing as marriage. All of this was said as persuasion to induce any who could to avoid marriage during that "present distress." Verse 34 So also the woman that is unmarried and the virgin is careful for the things of the Lord, that he may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.This verse properly begins with "is divided," which was included with verse 33 above. The teaching here is the same as there, except that it would appear that Paul, in the word "unmarried," included widows along with virgin daughters as subjects of the same advice. However, Macknight very probably has the true meaning in his rendition of this verse thus: There is difference also between a wife and a virgin: the unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit: but she that is married careth for things of the world, how she may please her husband.[52]Also, note that the antecedent of the masculine pronoun here is "virgin." ENDNOTE: [52] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 114. Verse 35 And this I say for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is seemly, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.Paul's personal preference for celibacy on the part of persons who were capable of it, and in certain circumstances, for more complete dedication, has always appealed to some in every age; and it is not right to depreciate such behavior. Shore pointed out that England's Queen Elizabeth I was one who made exactly the choice Paul recommended in these verses, although for a different purpose, and yet a high purpose. Elizabeth I declared that England was her husband and all Englishmen her children, and that she desired no higher character or fairer remembrance of her to be transmitted to posterity than this inscription engraved upon her tombstone: "Here lies Elizabeth, who lived and died a maiden queen.[53]ENDNOTE: [53] T. Teignmouth Shore, op. cit., p. 313. Verse 36 But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.The RSV has butchered this text in the most deplorable and high-handed mistranslation of it that could possibly be imagined. If any man ... was used by Paul here for the purpose of including guardians of young women of marriageable age as well as parents; and to make "any man" in this passage refer to any man shacked up in some kind of platonic partnership with a member of the opposite sex is nothing but a shameful rape of this passage. As Foy E. Wallace noted, "They made the virgin daughter in this place the girlfriend of another man to whom the virgin was betrothed, advising him to be free in his behavior."[54] Wallace caught the spirit of the RSV exactly in his words: "The passage is perverted to allow sexual satisfaction if his passions are strong,’ and to do what he will,' and he does not sin’ in such pre-marital relations."[55]Dummelow affirmed unequivocally that “any man” in the above passage means “any parent or guardian."[56]There is no way to understand this passage except in the light of the customs of the day, “And the father (or guardian) had control of the arrangements for his daughter’s marriage."[57] The kind of situation assumed to have been the object of Paul’s remarks (as in the RSV and New English Bible (1961)) was absolutely impossible in the first century. No father or guardian would have allowed such an arrangement (as that supposed) under any threat or circumstance whatever. Therefore, with the utmost confidence, the perversion of this place by some of the new translations and even by the RSV is condemned as being sinful, incorrect, and even blasphemous. It was not some passionate suitor Paul had in mind, but the daughter’s father; because, as F.

F. Bruce said, “The word rendered GIVETH IN twice in 1 Corinthians 7:38(English Revised Version (1885)) is normally used of a father’s giving his daughter in marriage."[58] “The then universal custom of Jews, Greeks and Romans (was) that the father or guardian disposed of the daughter’s hand (in marriage)."[59]If she be past the flower of her age … and need so requireth … Any denial of marriage to an aging daughter would indeed seem unseemly to a loving parent, who should feel no sense of sin in giving his daughter’s hand in marriage. Let them marry … This was the injunction to parents and guardians, and it has no reference at all to some passionate suitor shacked up with his girlfriend. Let him do what he will … he sinneth not … This means allow the parents or guardians in such cases to do what they believe is best; no sin is involved in contracting marriages, despite all that Paul had said about celibacy. [54] Foy E. Wallace, Jr., A Review of the New Versions (Fort Worth, Texas: The Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Publications, 1973), p. 433. [55] Ibid. [56] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 904. [57] S. Lewis Johnson, op. cit., p. 610. [58] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 93. [59] John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 415. Verse 37 But he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power as touching his own will, and hath determined this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, shall do well.To keep his own virgin daughter … here is the opposite of “giveth his own virgin daughter in marriage” in the next verse, absolutely requiring the sense in 1 Corinthians 7:37 to be that of not giving her in marriage, making it absolutely certain that the problem of whether or not to give daughters in marriage was the problem Paul was discussing in this passage. The sense of this verse is that a Christian parent or guardian fully determined to withhold his daughter’s hand in marriage might do so without sin, and might even be commended for it. Verse 38 So then both he that giveth his own virgin daughter in marriage does well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better.Either solution of the problem on the part of parents and guardians was acceptable; but, as throughout this chapter, due to the present distress, Paul still recommended (although he did not command) not to give the daughter’s hand in marriage. Verse 39 A wife is bound for so long a time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment: and I think that I have the Spirit of God.This was the sixth question Paul answered in this chapter; and the answer to this one was easy. Yes, widows might indeed marry again, but “only in the Lord.” It was never intended that Christians marry unbelievers, as Paul spelled out more fully in 2 Corinthians 6:14 ff. It is a rare and exceptional thing indeed that mixed marriages between Christians and unbelievers can produce anything but sorrow. As Barclay said: One thing it must be, Paul laid down here; it must be a marriage in the Lord … Long, long ago, Plutarch, the wise old Greek, laid it down that “marriage cannot be happy unless husband and wife are of the same religion.[60]I think that I have the Spirit of God … This is not the expression of any uncertainty but the polite insistence of Paul that his words in this chapter and throughout his writings were inspired by God’s Spirit. The judgment of the church through the ages concurs in this. As Wesley said: Whoever would conclude from this that Paul was not certain he had the Holy Spirit neither understands the true import of the words, nor considers how expressly he lays claim to the Spirit, both in this epistle (1 Corinthians 2:16 1 Corinthians 14:37) and the other (2 Corinthians 13:3).[61]Wesley also thought that the words “I think,” as used by Paul here and elsewhere, “ALWAYS imply the fullest and strongest assurance."[62] Leon Morris, one of the MORE able scholars, also believed this. He wrote: There is nothing tentative about the authority with which Paul speaks. He has throughout this discussion made it clear when he is quoting Christ and when he is not. Now he gives his firm opinion that in what he says he has the Spirit of God. He is conscious of the divine enablement. What he says is more than the opinion merely of a private individual.[63]See the note on 1 Corinthians 7:15 : The view that desertion of a Christian partner by an unbeliever is also presumptive proof of adultery is actually irrelevant to the meaning of this passage. The exception granted by the apostle Paul is grounded upon the fact, not of adultery, but of by an unbelieving partner. The authority of this lies in the plenary authority of the blessed apostle, inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit, making this therefore to be an additional exception given by Christ himself THROUGH the apostle Paul. Any other view of the apostolic writings is absolutely untenable. It is our view that God, through the Holy Spirit, is the author of ALL the New Testament. Furthermore, we do not believe that any man or any group of men is endowed with authority to set aside or countermand any declaration in the sacred text upon the basis of their interpretations of related passages. What Paul said, STANDS. Let people keep their hands off of it! Also, there is no conflict between Paul’s word here and Matthew 19:9. There is a covenant relationship there which is NOT in this situation. Paul and Jesus were speaking of two utterly different situations. [60] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 79. [61] John Wesley, op. cit., in loco. [62] Ibid. [63] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 123.

“THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE "

Chapter Seven IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To be impressed with basic principles governing marriage and the single life

2. To see the importance of studying scripture in its proper context

SUMMARY At this point in Paul’s letter, he begins to address those things about which the Corinthians had written to him (1 Corinthians 7:1). In this chapter he discusses matters relating to marriage and the single life. The first half deals with issues involving those married ((1 Corinthians 7:1-24), and the last half covers those who are single (1 Corinthians 7:25-40). It is important to notice that some of what Paul says is in light of the “present distress” being experienced by the Corinthians; also that much of what he says is clearly identified as his personal judgment, not necessarily the commandments of the Lord. In such cases, it is not a matter of right versus wrong, but good versus better.

OUTLINE I. THOSE MARRIED (1 Corinthians 7:1-24) A. IN GENERAL (1 Corinthians 7:1-9)1. It is good to marry to avoid sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 7:1-2) 2. Proper attitudes to govern the marriage relationship (1 Corinthians 7:3-4) 3. Abstinence appropriate for short times devoted to fasting and prayer (1 Corinthians 7:5-6) 4. Living the single life with self-control a gift from God, so unmarried and widows should marry if they cannot exercise self-control (1 Corinthians 7:7-9)

B. IN REGARDS TO DIVORCE (1 Corinthians 7:10-16)1. As commanded by the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) a. A wife is not to depart from her husband; if she does, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 a) b. A husband is not to divorce his wife (1 Corinthians 7:11 b) 2. As instructed by Paul (1 Corinthians 7:12-16) a. Christians are not to divorce their unbelieving spouses (1 Corinthians 7:12-13) b. Because of the “sanctifying influence” the believer can have on the family (1 Corinthians 7:14) c. If the unbeliever departs, the believer is not under bondage, let the unbeliever depart (1 Corinthians 7:15) d. These instructions given in view of the possibility of the believer being able to save the unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:16)

C. PAUL’S (1 Corinthians 7:17-24)1. As the Lord has called each one, so let him walk (1 Corinthians 7:17) 2. The example of circumcision versus uncircumcision, where keeping the commandments of God is what is important (1 Corinthians 7:18-20) 3. The example of being a slave versus being free, where one might improve their condition if it is possible and profitable (1 Corinthians 7:19-24)

II. THOSE SINGLE (1 Corinthians 7:25-40) A. FOR THOSE WHO ARE VIRGINS (1 Corinthians 7:25-38)1. Paul gives his personal judgment in light of the “present distress”: remain as you are (1 Corinthians 7:25-26) 2. Of course if you are married, remain so; but those who are single would be spared much trouble in the flesh in light of what is to come (1 Corinthians 7:27-31) 3. Remaining unmarried enables them to serve the Lord without distraction, and be totally devoted to Him (1 Corinthians 7:32-35) 4. If it is necessary, the single may marry (1 Corinthians 7:36) 5. The choice is not between good and bad, but between good and better (1 Corinthians 7:37-38)

B. FOR THOSE WHO ARE WIDOWS (1 Corinthians 7:39-40)1. They are free to marry, but only “in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39) 2. Though Paul’s personal judgment is that such a one will be happier to remain single, which is also the advice (though not demanded) of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 7:40)

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. List the main points of this chapter- Instructions Concerning Those Married (1 Corinthians 7:1-24)

• Instructions Concerning Those Single (1 Corinthians 7:25-40)

2. What are Paul’s instructions to married Christians? (1 Corinthians 7:3-5 1 Corinthians 7:10-11)- Render affection that is due to one another

• Do not deprive one another, except for short periods of fasting and prayer
• Do not leave or divorce your spouse

3. What does he advise those who are unmarried and widows? (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 1 Corinthians 7:25-40)- It is better to remain as they are

• But if they marry, that is alright

4. What does he tell Christians married to unbelievers? (1 Corinthians 7:12-16)- If the unbelievers are willing to live with them, do not divorce them

• If the unbelievers depart, the Christians are not under bondage, let the unbelievers go

5. What underlying principle is governing Paul’s instructions in this chapter? (1 Corinthians 7:17-24)- For people to remain in whatever position they find themselves when they are called by God

• Though where change is possible and profitable, such is permitted

6. What advantage do the single have over the married? (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)- They are better able to serve the Lord without distraction

7. What restriction does Paul place on widows who desire to remarry? (1 Corinthians 7:39)- They are to marry “only in the Lord”

Questions by E.M. Zerr For 1st Corinthians Chapter 71. What occasioned this chapter? 2. What does Paul say is a good thing? 3. Does he give this as a positive requirement? 4. Rather than sin what should each man and woman do? 5. State the mutual command to husbands and wives. 6. State the mutual obligations as to their bodies. 7. To what does “ defraud” verse 5 refer? 8. Under what condition may this be done? 9. Could it be continued indefinitely? 10. For what purpose could it be agreed upon? 11. Why not prolong it? 12. Was Paul commanded to give this instruction? 13. Was he permitted to give it? 14. What is the gift of 7th verse? 15. Was it miraculous? 16. State his advice to widows and unmarried. 17. But what is better than dangerous temptation? 18. What did the Lord command here ? 19. What if a married woman departs from her husband? 20. May a brother retain an unbelieving wife ? 21. Does this apply also to a sister and husband? 22. State the mutual effect over each other. 23. How does this affect their children? 24. Must a brother retain an unbelieving wife? 25. What is the bondage of verse 16 ? 26. Might a brother possibly save his wife? 27. How should every one walk? 28. What may a man retain after becoming a Christian? 29. What is more important than circumcision? 30. Must one change his trade on becoming a Christian? 31. Will temporal servitude hinder one’ s becoming a Christian? 32. How does this agree with 23rd verse? 33. What is the “price” of this verse? 34. Was Paul given command concerning virgins? 35. What did he say to Corinthians concerning them? 36. On what ground did he say it? 37. What was the basic reason for all this advice? 38. Would this make marriage wrong? 39. Did he advise any change in their social state? 40. If they married what would they have ? 41. From what did Paul wish to spare them ? 42. What did he say about the time? 43. State the proper attitude toward social relations. 44. How about those who use this world? 45. What is destined to pass away? 46. From what did he wish them to be free ? 47. For what do the unmarried care ? 48. How does this differ from the married ? 49. Does this mean married folks will not serve Christ? 50. For what purpose did Paul write these things? 51. State the advice as to a man’ s behaviour. 52. What should he do on discovering dangerous passions ? 53. In doing so does he sin? 54. What control must he have to avoid above action ? 55. What sort of man is said to be the better? 56. Is man ever referred to in N. T. as a virgin? 57. Could the virgin of verses 36, 37 be a man ? 58. How long is the wife bound to her husband ? 59. With what restriction may a Christian widow marry? 60. What mind did Paul think he had?

1 Corinthians 7:1

1 Corinthians 7:1. General remarks. This chapter was occasioned by a condition existing at that time, due no doubt to the activities of the Roman Empire in its military oppression of various religions, which finally affected the church. The general existence of immorality also entered into the teaching of Paul in answer to the letter that was sent to him. The key to many of the expressions of the chapter is in the 26th verse which mentions the “present distress,” brought about by the oppression just mentioned. That made it inadvisable to take on further obligations, especially those brought upon a man who begins to organize a family.

Under these conditions someone wrote to Paul for advice as to what they should do, and it was that it would be better to remain just as they were, and not take upon themselves the obligations of married life. However, the marriage relation is the Lord’s means of meeting the desires of the flesh on this subject, and unless a man is sure that he can resist all temptation to immorality, then he is to discard Paul’s advice and enter the state of marriage for the lawful gratification of his desires. While discussing the specific subject brought up by the letter, the apostle will include some teaching on other matters, that are to be observed by disciples today. I urge the reader to become familiar with this paragraph, as it will be helpful for reference at various places, for it will not be repeated in every verse as the comments on the chapter continue. Touch is defined in Thayer’s lexicon, “to fasten to, make adhere to,” and in this verse it means to have intimate relations with a woman in marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:2

1 Corinthians 7:2. Nevertheless. See the paragraph at the beginning of the chapter, about when the advice against marriage was to be discarded.

1 Corinthians 7:3

1 Corinthians 7:3. Since the primary object of marriage (aside from reproduction) is to give lawful gratification of sexual desires, the husband and wife should cooperate with each other to that end.

1 Corinthians 7:4

1 Corinthians 7:4. Power is from EXOUSlA, which means authority or control. This verse teaches that neither husband nor wife has exclusive right about the use of his body, regarding whether it should be used for the gratification of the other. This idea, especially as it pertains to the woman, is taught in Genesis 3:16.

1 Corinthians 7:5

1 Corinthians 7:5. The context shows that defraud means to withhold from each other the intimate relation. They are permitted to do so only on condition that both consent, so as to be free for exclusive religious devotions. Even then, they should not stay apart too long, lest they be tempted to seek gratification unlawfully; incontinency means lack of control of the fleshly desires.

1 Corinthians 7:6

1 Corinthians 7:6. I speak this by permission. Whether the pronoun this refers to what Paul has just said, or to what he is about to say, is relatively unimportant. The point to learn is the meaning of permission. It is taught by some that Paul was only permitted to write on some things and not commanded to do so, and therefore what he said by permission would have no binding force. I believe the distinction is unimportant, for the Lord would certainly not permit Paul to write any instruction that was not right for the benefit of all concerned.

1 Corinthians 7:7

1 Corinthians 7:7. Paul’s general teaching on the marriage institution, as well as what he says in this chapter, would show us he does not mean to wish that every man would abstain from marriage as a permanent way of life. But if all men had the self-control over their nature that the apostle had, they would have no difficulty in following the advice during the “present distress.” The gift means the natural ability to maintain control over the passions.

1 Corinthians 7:8

1 Corinthians 7:8. See the advice explained in the first paragraph.

1 Corinthians 7:9

1 Corinthians 7:9. Cannot contain denotes they cannot have complete control over the desires. Burn is from PUROO which Thayer explains at this place to mean, “to be inflamed with sexual desire.”

1 Corinthians 7:10

1 Corinthians 7:10. Yet not I, but the Lord. This teaching was not given to them merely by the permission of the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:6), but He commanded him to give it. Let not the wife depart. Some might think that if it was better not to marry, it would likewise be proper for a wife to relieve her husband of these “added obligations,” and Paul is teaching against such an action.

1 Corinthians 7:11

1 Corinthians 7:11. Regardless of what might cause a wife to depart, she would have no right to remarry some other man. The husband had no right to put away his wife on the ground of Paul’s advice about the “present distress.”

1 Corinthians 7:12

1 Corinthians 7:12. 1, not the Lord means by Paul’s permission and not by command of the Lord. (See the notes on 1 Corinthians 7:6.) A man might have been tired of married life and thought he could be relieved of the burden by putting his wife away, using as a special excuse that she was an unbeliever. Paul means that he should not do so if the wife is willing to remain with him.

1 Corinthians 7:13

1 Corinthians 7:13. This takes the same comments as the preceding verse.

1 Corinthians 7:14

1 Corinthians 7:14. The unbelieving partner is not sanctified by the other in the sense of religious holiness before God, for in that sense no person can sanctify another. It means that the marriage of one person to another makes their cohabitation moral, since the marriage relation is a fleshly one, primarily for fleshly purposes (see the comments at 1 Corinthians 7:3). Were this not true, then children born of parents one of whom is an unbeliever would be unclean, which means ceremonially improper, whereas, all children of parents who are married to each other are holy as far as their orgin is concerned.

1 Corinthians 7:15

1 Corinthians 7:15. It should be noted in this verse that it is the unbeliever that is determined to desert the marriage, in spite of the willingness of the other to continue even under the “present distress.” The believer is told to let him depart, which denotes that he is not obligated (is not under bondage) to hold the unbeliever with him if it would have to be done under continual strife or “family quarrels,” for God is wanting his creatures to live in peace if possible, in which they were called. But that has nothing to do with the question of remarriage for either of them. In truth, 1 Corinthians 7:11 orders that if the departing wife should change her mind and desire the marriage relation again, she must go back to her husband. And that would mean also that the husband would be required to remain single, else the wife could not obey 1 Corinthians 7:11 even if she wanted to. All of this is in keeping with Matthew 19:9 which clearly teaches that no married person may be remarried to another, except upon the immorality of the present marriage companion.

1 Corinthians 7:16

1 Corinthians 7:16. The preceding verse was rather a break into the line of thought being set forth in 1 Corinthians 7:14. In that Paul was showing that a believing husband or wife need not break up their marriage on account of the unbelief of the other; that the morality of the marriage was not affected by the unbelief of one of them. The present verse continues the thought, and gives another reason why he should remain in the marriage, namely, he might be able to convert his partner. This idea is taught in 1 Peter 3:1-2.

1 Corinthians 7:17

1 Corinthians 7:17. Whatever condition may be the lot of a man who has accepted the call of the Lord, let him be faithful to his profession. This command is announced as being applicable to all the churches. (See notes at John 15:16 on ordain.)

1 Corinthians 7:18

1 Corinthians 7:18. Become uncircumcised. This refers to a surgical trick whereby It could not be known from appearances whether a man was circumcised or not. The verse :means for a Jew not to resort to that if he decides to become a Christian. This surgery is mentioned in Josephus, Antiquities, Book 12, Chapter 5, Section 1.

1 Corinthians 7:19

1 Corinthians 7:19. The teaching of the preceding verse is based on the truth of this. Under Christ it makes no difference whether a man is circumcised or not, just so he keeps the commandments of God. (See Galatians 5:6 Galatians 6:15.)

1 Corinthians 7:20

1 Corinthians 7:20. This verse is a general application of the preceding several verses.

1 Corinthians 7:21

1 Corinthians 7:21. A great part of the people were slaves in the Roman Empire. The fact that a man was in that “calling” or station in life, need not hold him back from accepting the Gospel call, for salvation is for all classes. However, if his master sees fit to release him, he should accept it for the advantages it would give.

1 Corinthians 7:22

1 Corinthians 7:22. Two kinds of service and freedom are meant here, the temporal under a human master, and the spiritual under Christ. Hence a man can be a servant under the former and yet be free from sin while being a servant of Christ.

1 Corinthians 7:23

1 Corinthians 7:23. This does not contradict 1 Corinthians 7:21. It means not to serve men as to any religious directions. The temporal masters often bought their slaves, and likewise Christ has purchased his with his own blood. (See chapter 6:19, 20.)

1 Corinthians 7:24

1 Corinthians 7:24. This is the same as 1 Corinthians 7:20.

1 Corinthians 7:25

1 Corinthians 7:25. No commandment in the same sense as 1 Corinthians 7:6. Give my judgment under the permission of the verse just cited. Paul had shown himself faithful to the Lord, and hence he was given the permission to use his judgment in the case.

1 Corinthians 7:26

1 Corinthians 7:26. So to be means for him to remain just as he is, on account of the present distress. (See the paragraph at the beginning of the chapter.

1 Corinthians 7:27

1 Corinthians 7:27. This repeats the teaching running through much of the chapter.

1 Corinthians 7:28

1 Corinthians 7:28. If thou marry, thou host not sinned. Paul had never forbidden marriage as being wrong, but only advised against it on account of the present distress. While not a sin, yet the marriage will bring them trouble in the flesh which means the hardships caused by the condition of the country. I spare you is a brief way of saying “I wish to spare you these troubles by advising you not to marry while the present conditions prevail.”

1 Corinthians 7:29-30

1 Corinthians 7:29-30. The original Greek word for short is defined by Thayer at this place, “is shortened,” and Robinson defines it, “the time is contracted, shortened.” The time referred to in this passage is the period of the distress caused by the oppression under Rome. Naturally the passing days made that period shorter, and the teaching of this verse :is that disciples should not be so concerned about these various conditions in their earthly life. Give chief attention to their obligations as Christians until the conflict was over, which was not to be very long in comparison.

1 Corinthians 7:31

1 Corinthians 7:31. The good things of this world are necessary to man’s existence as a temporal being, therefore he must make some use of them. Abusing is from a word similar to the one for use, with a prefix in the Greek composition that makes it mean “to overdo” the use of them. The logical reason the apostle gives for the exhortation is that all these things are temporary; they will pass away.

1 Corinthians 7:32-33

1 Corinthians 7:32-33. Carefulness means anxiety over the handicaps of the present distress. A married man would have to give his attention to the things of the world, such as those necessary to care for his wife. That would really be his duty if he had a wife, but he could avoid such anxiety for the time being if he took Paul’s advice and remained single.

1 Corinthians 7:34

1 Corinthians 7:34. The same things apply to women in that a married woman would be obligated to give some attention to the rightful requirements of her husband. If she remained single she would be free to give her sole attention to religious devotions. Be holy both in body and in spirit does not mean that her relations with her husband would be wrong, but they would be temporal and would thus require some of the time she otherwise could devote to these spiritual matters.

1 Corinthians 7:36

1 Corinthians 7:36. This verse (as here translated) is entirely out of line with the general teaching of the chapter. Note the pronoun her is in italics which is because the King James translators did not understand the verse. Some later commentators even insert the word “daughter” after virgin, for which there is not the slightest ground in the original. They make this verse refer to a father’s willingness for his daughter to marry. What would a man’s control over his own passions have to do with his consent to his daughter’s marriage? The confusion is caused by a common but erroneous notion that virgin always means a woman. A look at Revelation 14:4 would show that to be wrong, even if one could not consult the original. That passage says the persons were “not defiled by women; for they are virgins.”

When the word in question is used as a state or condition in life, it means virginity. The Englishman’s Greek New Testament renders this verse as follows: “But if anyone thinks he behaves unseemly [improperly] to his virginity, if he be beyond his prime, and so it ought to be, let him do what he wills, he does not sin; let them marry.” It is easy to see this verse means the same as Paul’s teaching in the rest of the chapter, namely, that it is best to remain single if one has control of his desires. But if he begins to doubt his ability to remain chaste in an unmarried state, then he should marry, and in so doing he would not commit any sin. It is true it says let them marry, which is because any marriage requires two persons. The word virgin is from , and Thayer gives the following definition as it applies to men: “One who has never had commerce [intimacy] with women.” Pass the flower of her [his] age means a male who has reached the age when his sexual na ture has become fully developed and more insistent on gratification. By changing the pronouns from the feminine to the masculine, as the inflection of composition in the Greek text requires, the verse will be easily understood.

It will then give the same advice that the apostle has given throughout the chapter, namely, that moral chastity is more important than freedom from the burdens of family life. If a man cannot have sure control over his desires, he should avail himself of marriage which is the Lord’s plan for lawful gratification of them. This is directly taught in 1 Corinthians 7:28, where Paul explains that his purpose in giving the advice was to have them avoid the trouble in the flesh that would come to married people in the present distress.

1 Corinthians 7:37

1 Corinthians 7:37. This is the same in meaning as the preceding verse.

1 Corinthians 7:38

1 Corinthians 7:38. The pronoun her is in italics in both sentences and is not justified by the original. The phrase giveth in marriage means to give himself in marriage to another. He that becomes married doeth well because he avoids the guilt of immorality, but he that is able to remain unmarried doeth better because he not only maintains his moral chastity, but avoids the burdens of married life.

1 Corinthians 7:39

1 Corinthians 7:39. It is sometimes asked if the requirements of this verse would not be on the same proviso of present distress, as the advice of Paul about the marriage of those single at the time he was writing. The cases are not the same, for it is expressly stated that if a man married in the first place he would not do any sin (1 Corinthians 7:28), since that instruction was given as advice only to avoid the burdens of married life. The present verse plainly says the wife is bound by the law (not a temporary condition caused by the present distress) as long as her husband lived; not as long as the “distress” continued. Hence the verse involves a matter of right and wrong (not one of expediency as is the other). At liberty to be married means she has the right to be married, with the stipulation that it must be in the Lord.

All marriages are in the Lord in the sense that the Lord is the author of the basis of the physical relation (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5), hence the phrase here has a special sense since it is applied only to second marriages. To be in the Lord, therefore, can mean nothing else than being in His body which is the church. A Christian widow has no right to marry a man outside of the church. The same principle would logically apply to a Christian man. The woman is mentioned only because the greater part of the other verses have been dealing with the wives.

1 Corinthians 7:40

1 Corinthians 7:40. Happier if she so abide, but not more righteous, which again brings in the advisability of any single person entering marriage at that time. I think does not mean that Paul was uncertain, for it is from the same Greek word as Jesus used in Matthew 22:42, where he asked the Pharisees, “What think ye of Christ?” We know Jesus did not wish them to give him any answer on which they were doubtful. It simply means to state some idea or conclusion that a person has. Paul had no doubt as to the source of his idea at this place, for it came from the same One who had given him the “permission” to speak in 1 Corinthians 7:6. Acting under that privilege, he gave it as his judgment that the woman would be happier were she to remain unmarried.