Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 7:1

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 7:1” utilice nuestra app.

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman.

Ch. 1Co 7:1-9. Advice concerning Marriage and Celibacy

1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me ] The newly converted Corinthians had evidently found themselves in a difficulty concerning marriage. The Jews in general, whatever ascetics like the Essenes and Therapeut among them may have done, set a high value upon it; while the best of the heathen philosophers were inclined to depreciate it, and certain sayings of our Lord (see St Mat 19:5-12) seemed to support their view. The Corinthians had evidently written to consult St Paul on the point. The Apostle’s advice may be thus summarized: that though the unmarried were, from their freedom from all entangling ties, most at liberty to serve God in any way that He might put before them, and though in the present season of temptation and persecution (1Co 7:26; 1Co 7:28) the unmarried would be spared much trial and anguish which would fall heavily upon married persons, yet that it was the duty of those who, in an unmarried state, were in danger of offending against that solemn law of Christian purity which he had just laid down, to “marry, and so keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s Body.” The growth in these luxurious days of habits at variance with the simple and unostentatious life of the true Christian, places great difficulties in the way of those who would follow St Paul’s advice, and is, therefore, the cause of an amount of immorality and misery which it were better to prevent than to be compelled to cure.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Now, concerning … – In reply to your inquiries. The first, it seems, was in regard to the propriety of marriage; that is, whether it was lawful and expedient.

It is good – It is well. It is fit, convenient, or, it is suited to the present circumstances, or, the thing itself is well and expedient in certain circumstances. The apostle did not mean that marriage was unlawful, for he says Heb 13:4 that marriage is honorable in all. But he here admits, with one of the parties in Corinth, that it was well, and proper in some circumstances, not to enter into the marriage relation; see 1Co 7:7-8, 1Co 7:26, 1Co 7:28, 1Co 7:31-32.

Not to touch a woman – Not to be connected with her by marriage. Xenophon (Cyro. b. 1) uses the same word ( hapto, to touch) to denote marriage; compare Gen 20:4, Gen 20:6; Gen 26:11; Pro 6:29.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Co 7:1-17

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Marriage

I. Is not necessary for all (1Co 7:1).

1. Instituted by God, sanctified by Christ, it is pure and holy.

2. Yet circumstances, such as times of calamity, personal duty, &c., may render it undesirable

II. Is advisable for many (1Co 7:2-5). Because–

1. Of the force of natural passion.

2. It is a shelter from temptation.

III. It is nevertheless a matter of choice (1Co 7:6-9).

1. Paul only counsels, does not command

2. The choice must be determined by the gift of God, which may render celibacy preferable, but every one must carefully estimate his case. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Marriage

There are two preliminary considerations which throw some light on this passage.

1. Paul had to speak about marriage as he found it. Hence he makes no allusion to that which with us is the main argument and motive, viz., love. In the marriages of Jews and Greeks, love had, as a rule, little to do. The marriage was arranged by the parents.

2. He was here only giving answers to some special questions, and not discussing the whole subject (1Co 7:1). Certain scruples about marriage had arisen. Among the Jews marriage was a duty, so much so that he who at the age of twenty had not married was considered to have sinned. Among the Gentiles the tendency to celibacy was so strong that it was considered necessary to counteract it by legal enactment. The questions referred to Paul resolve themselves into two. So we have–

I. Pauls counsel to the unmarried. This is summed up in 1Co 7:8, It is good for them if they abide even as I; i.e., unmarried. But if any mans temperament be such that he cannot settle to his work without marrying; and if he is so full of natural cravings which make him feel sure he would be less distracted in married life–then, says Paul, let such an one by all means marry. But he adds, I do not say you ought to marry; I say you may, and in certain circumstances ought. Those among you who say a man sins if he do not marry, talk nonsense. Those among you who feel a quiet superiority because you are married are much mistaken. Personally, I would that all men were even as I myself, only I know that to many men it is not so easy as it is to me to live unmarried; and therefore I do not advise them to a single life.

1. This proceeds, not from any ascetic tendency, but from the practical bias of Pauls mind. He merely thought that unmarried men were likely to be most available for the work of Christ (1Co 7:32-33). No doubt a good wife may stimulate a man to liberality, and may greatly increase his tenderness towards deserving objects; but he who has seven mouths to fill cannot have so much to give away as if he had but, one. With the unmarried man there need be no other consideration than this: How can I best serve Christ? With the married man there must always be other considerations. It is therefore to the unmarried that the State looks for the manning of the army and navy, that society looks for the nursing of the sick and for the filling of posts of danger, that the Church depends for a large part of her work, from teaching in Sunday schools to occupying precarious outposts in the mission field.

2. But Paul says also, Beware how you individually think yourself a hero, and able to forego marriage. Beware lest, by choosing a part which you are not fit for, you give Satan an advantage over you (1Co 7:35, cf. 1Co 7:7). What is good for one man is not good for another; every man must ascertain for himself what is best for him. And this is precisely what is lacking in popular feeling about marriage. People start, and are encouraged to start in life, on the understanding that their happiness cannot be complete till they are married. Now, on the contrary, they should be taught to consider their own make and bent, and not to take this for granted. Marriage is but one path to happiness, and it is possible celibacy may be the straightest path for some. Above all life is very wide and multifarious, and to effect His ends God needs persons of all kinds and conditions.

3. This not only illustrates the judicial balance of the apostles mind, but gives us the key to the whole chapter. The capacity for celibacy is a gift of God which may be of eminent service, but no moral value can be attached to it. There are many gifts of immense value which may belong to bad as well as to good men. In the Roman Church celibacy is regarded as a virtue in itself, so that men with no natural gift for it have been encouraged to aim at it, with what results we need not say. But while there is no virtue in remaining unmarried, there is virtue in remaining unmarried for the sake of serving Christ better. Some persons are kept single by mere selfishness; but all honour to that eldest son of an orphaned family who sees that it is not for him to please himself, but to work for those who have none to look to but him! There are here and there persons who from the highest motives decline marriage: persons conscious of some hereditary weakness, &c. We may be thankful that there are men and women of sufficiently heroic mould to exemplify the wisdom of the apostles counsel. Such devotion is not for every one. There are persons of a domestic temperament who need the comforts of home-life, and nothing can be more ill-advised than to encourage such persons to turn their life into a channel in which it was never intended to run. But it is equally to be lamented that, where there are women quite capable of a life of self-devotion to some noble work, they should be discouraged from such a life by the false, foolish, and petty notions of society. No calling is nobler than marriage; but it is not the only calling.

II. St. Pauls counsel to the married.

1. Some of the Corinthians seem to have thought that, because they were new creatures in Christ, their old relations should be abandoned. Paul had shrewdness enough to see that if a Christian might separate from an unbelieving wife on the sole ground that he was a Christian, this easy mode of divorce might lead to a large influx of pretended Christians into the Church. He therefore lays down the law that the power of separation is to rest with the unbelieving, and not with the believing, partner (1Co 7:12-15). It frequently happened in the early ages that when a man was converted in middle life, and judged he could serve God better without the encumbrance of a family, he forsook his wife and children and betook himself to a monastery. This directly contravened the law here laid down (1Co 7:20), which is of wide application (1Co 7:21, &c.).

2. But the principle to which Paul chiefly trusts he enounces in 1Co 7:29-31. Whatever is temporary in our relation to the present world it is foolish so to set our heart on, for death may end all our joy and usefulness. The man who is sent abroad for five years would consider it folly to accumulate a large collection of the luxuries of life; how many times five years do we expect to live, that we should be much concerned to amass goods which we cannot remove to another world? This world is a means, and not an end; and those use it best who use it in relation to what is to be. It is the thought of our great future which alone gives us sufficient courage and wisdom to deal with present things in earnest. The very intensity of our interests and affections reminds us that we cannot root ourselves in this present life, but need a larger room. (M. Dods, D. D.)

Pauls conception of marriage

That it–

I. Is not a duty binding upon mankind–not a moral obligation like Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, &c. (1Co 7:1; 1Co 7:7-8; 1Co 7:40). Some may feel that celibacy is best for them, then let them remain single; others that marriage is most desirable, then let them marry Now does it seem strange that a condition upon which the continuation of the race depends should be thus left open? For were celibacy to rule, in about sixty years mankind would be extinct. But it may be replied that marriage is a law of nature and does not require a command any more than eating or drinking.

II. Is primarily for spiritual ends (1Co 7:14). Those who enter on this relation from fleshly impulses and with fleshly ends misunderstand the ordinance. True marriage means such a mutual spiritual affection as welds two souls into one moral personality.

III. Involves mutual obligations the most sacred. Mutual–

1. Benevolence (1Co 7:3), each wishing the well-being of the other.

2. Identification (1Co 7:4). The two are one. The equal rights of husband and wife are everywhere recognised in the Bible.

3. Honesty (1Co 7:5). Deception is inimical to the true union of souls. Nothing cuts united hearts asunder so easily and effectually as artfulness.

4. Forbearance (1Co 7:12; 1Co 7:14). Should difference of religious opinion crop up, do not separate; for the believing may correct the unbelieving.

5. Concession of personal freedom (1Co 7:15). Conclusion: Pauls conception is wise and just. We have made marriage simply a civil contract; but its essence is the strongest sympathies and aims that one can have for another; the bond of marriage is the solemn mutual pledge. Those who are thus married are united by a cord finer than the finest web; too weak to fetter, yet too strong to break. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Pauls view of celibacy

It is necessary to remember–

I. That we have here only half of the apostolic mind. Had this passage stood alone, we might then have been justified in taking it as an absolute preference of the single state. But inasmuch as Col 3:18-19; Eph 5:22-33; Heb 13:4; 1Pe 1:7; 1Th 4:4 speak of marriage with high commendation, it is obvious that this passage expresses only one side of the truth. And it is also clear that it is this passage which must be qualified by the others and vice versa, inasmuch as he is here addressing himself to the answer of a particular question put under particular circumstances; in the others he is speaking without reserve on the general duties of a Christian life. This conclusion is confirmed by a consideration of this passage in detail. The preference for celibacy, although stated absolutely at first (verses 1, 7, 8), is afterwards expressly founded on the impending calamities (verses 26-31), and, apparently in connection with this, on the greater freedom thereby afforded from worldly cares (verses 32-35). In one instance, that of recommending widows not to marry (verses 8, 40). We have a precept (1Ti 4:14) reversing this; and whilst there is no trace here of the superior sanctity of celibacy, the prohibition of marriage on that ground is in 1Ti 4:1-3 classed among the signs of a false and dangerous system.

II. That the apostles preference must be taken with three strong qualifications.

1. As being the expression of his natural temperament (verse 7). But he never confounds his individual peculiarity with Christianity itself. He warns us that it is he who speaks and not Christ, and claims for his recommendation no higher authority than the requirements of the time.

2. As given in expectation of calamities.

3. As given without regard to the moral purposes of marriage, To a certain extent the highest form of Roman marriage was a union for high moral purposes; and the same may be said of the Jewish marriages in the Old Testament and Apocrypha. But even in these the sterner rather than the gentler affections were called forth; and in the Greek and Eastern provinces generally marriage was little more than what the apostle describes it, good only as preventing great evils. And just as his denunciations of Greek wisdom must not be extended without qualification to that higher philosophy of Socrates and Plato; so his denunciations of marriage must not be extended without qualification to that intimate union of pure domestic affections which rose out of the combination of the Teutonic and Christian elements.

III. That taking this preference as it stands two practical inferences may be deduced.

1. That there are ordinary circumstances in Christian as well as in political life, under which the ordinary rules of right and expediency may be suspended or superseded by a higher claim. Philosophical historians have truly felt that the monastic system was to a great extent excused, if not justified, by the fact that it originated in an age when it seemed the only refuge from the dissolution of the existing fabric of society. An absolute dictatorship, whether of pope or emperor, has often been defended on the ground that it met the emergencies of a crisis of danger and transition. The enforcement of the celibacy of the clergy in the Middle Ages doubtless in part arose from the just instinct that they would else have sunk into an hereditary feudal caste. No one can deny that domestic ties must occasionally be severed by extraordinary calls, political, military, or religious. All these are instances of the adoption of a rule in peculiar circumstances which St. Pauls advice teaches us not to condemn at once, even though it may seem at variance with the broader principles of Christian life laid down elsewhere in the New Testament. Note in exact correspondence with this passage the declaration of Queen Elizabeth that England was her husband and all Englishmen her children, and that she desired no higher character or fairer remembrance of her than this inscription on her tombstone, Here lies Elizabeth, who lived and died a maiden queen.

2. That the highest duties of Christianity are compatible with every lawful condition of life. If the state of slavery be consistent with the cultivation of the true spirit of Christian liberty, if the great religious divisions of Jew and Gentile be alike compatible with the true service of God, then in all other states of life the spirit of the apostolic injunctions may be observed where, in the letter, they seem disregarded. Freedom from earthly cares may be maintained in the married as well as in the single state; indifference to worldly gain may exist in riches, no less than m poverty; our nearness to God depends not on our desertion of one religious community for another, but on our keeping His commandments. (Dean Stanley.)

Celibacy and marriage

I. Celibacy.

1. In what sense is it called good? Not in the sense of being in itself and always superior to marriage which is the image of the union between Christ and His Church (Eph 5:23-25). Forbidding to marry (1Ti 4:3) is a mark of false teaching. The law of consistency, then, bids us interpret Pauls statements here as in no sense depreciatory of the Divine ordinance of marriage. A single life is good in the sense of being in itself honourable, and in certain circumstances expedient. The apostles good must always be read in the light of the not good of Gen 2:18.

2. When is it to be preferred to marriage? Leaving out of view considerations of physical health, which may in certain cases render marriage imprudent or culpable, three answers are given in this chapter.

(1) In circumstances of peculiar distress (verse 26). In times of persecution or dearth it may be wise not to marry.

(2) When called to some peculiar service for the Lord (verses 32, 33; cf. Mat 19:12).

(3) Both these considerations must be taken with that in ver.

7. If a man has not the gift of continency, then his duty to marry is clear (verse 9); if he has the gift, then he is free to give weight to reasons which may turn the balance in favour of celibacy. Even then, however, the higher ends of wedlock are not to be overlooked.

3. It is not to be made obligatory. The Church of Rome ascribes a peculiar excellence to the celibate state, as fitted to promote greater sanctity. There is no warrant for this here; while experience testifies to the dreadful evils to which it leads.

II. Marriage.

1. Is a safeguard against incontinence. The apostle is not treating of it in general, or in its higher aspects. Still the use here referred to is not to be overlooked in view of such licentiousness as prevailed at Corinth.

2. Implies the rendering of conjugal duty (verses 3, 4). The one party exists for the other, and the other alone the twain having become one flesh (Gen 2:24).

3. It is a union between one man and one woman. In polygamy the true idea of marriage is lost. The testimony of Scripture is all in favour of monogamy (Gen 2:24; Mat 19:4-5; 1Ti 3:2); and the statements of the apostle here take this for granted. Domestic bliss is not to be found in the haunts of polygamy. (H. Bremner, B. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER VII.

A solution of several difficult cases concerning marriage and

married persons, 1-6.

God has given every man his proper gift, 7.

Directions to the unmarried and widows, 8, 9.

Directions to the married, 10, 11.

Directions to men married to heathen women, and to women

married to heathen men, 12-16.

Every man should abide in his vocation, 17-24.

Directions concerning virgins, and single persons in general,

25-28.

How all should behave themselves in the things of this life, in

reference to eternity, 29-31.

The trials of the married state, 39-35.

Directions concerning the state of virginity or celibacy, 36-38.

How the wife is bound to her husband during his life, and her

liberty to marry another after his death, 39, 40.

NOTES ON CHAP. VII.

Verse 1. The things whereof ye wrote unto me] It is sufficiently evident that the principal part of this epistle was written in answer to some questions which had been sent to the apostle in a letter from the Corinthian Church; and the first question seems to be this: “Is it proper for a man to marry in the present circumstances of the Church?”

The question concerning the expediency or inexpediency of marriage was often agitated among the ancient philosophers; and many, though inclined to decide against it, because of the troubles and cares connected with it, tolerated it in their opinions; because, though an evil, it was judged to be a necessary evil. The words of Menander are full to this effect: , , , ‘ “If a man consider marriage in a proper point of view, it is an evil; but then it is a necessary evil.” Metellus Numidicus spoke of it nearly in the same way. Si sine uxore possemus, Quirites, esse, omnes ea molestia careremus; sed quoniam ita natura tradidit, ut nec CUM ILLIS salis commode, nec SINE ILLIS ullo modo vivi possit, saluti perpetus potius quam brevi voluptati consulendum. “If, O ye Romans, we could live unmarried, we should be saved from a great deal of trouble; but, seeing that nature has so ordered it that we cannot live very comfortably with wives, and without them cannot live at all, marriage should be adopted, not for the sake of the short-lived pleasure, but rather for perpetual safety.” But this was not the common opinion; the Jews absolutely required that every man should marry, and reputed those as murderers who did not. – 1Cor 7:6. By the laws of Lycurgus unmarried persons were prohibited from seeing the public games. By the laws of the Spartans bachelors were punished. And Plato declares all such unworthy of any honour. And to this the commentator says, Amen.

Not to touch a woman] The learned reader need not be informed in what sense is used among the Greeks, and langere among the Latins. For examples Wetstein may be consulted.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

It seemeth, that though this church was very much corrupted, yet some of them retained a reverence for this great apostle, and had wrote one or more letters to him about some points, to which he returneth answer. It seemeth that one thing they had wrote to him about, was about marriage; not about the lawfulness of marrying, (that doctrine of devils was not broached so early in the world), but concerning the advisableness of marriage, and mens use of their wives, in that afflicted state of the church. The apostle answereth, that

it is good for a man not to touch a woman. When he saith: It is good, he means only more convenient, or better, with respect to the troubled state of the church, or that persons might be more at liberty for the service of God and the duties of religion. Upon these accounts it were more convenient for a man not to marry, for that he meaneth by touching a woman.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. The Corinthians in theirletter had probably asked questions which tended to disparagemarriage, and had implied that it was better to break it off whencontracted with an unbeliever.

goodthat is,”expedient,” because of “the present distress”;that is, the unsettled state of the world, and the likelihood ofpersecutions tearing rudely asunder those bound by marriage ties. Heb13:4, in opposition to ascetic and Romish notions of superiorsanctity in celibacy, declares, “Marriage is HONORABLEIN ALL.” Another reason why in some cases celibacy may bea matter of Christian expediency is stated in 1Co 7:34;1Co 7:35, “that ye mayattend upon the Lord without distraction.” But these areexceptional cases, and in exceptional times, such as those of Paul.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me,…. Though the false apostles had greatly influenced the members of this church, yet there were many among them that had a very great respect for the apostle, and kept up a correspondence with him, though at a distance from him, by writing; in which way they informed him of their doubts and difficulties, that arose in their minds about certain things, and desired his judgment in them, to which they paid a very great deference. The things they wrote to him about, here referred to, may be collected from the contents of this chapter, and some others following; as whether a Christian man ought not to abstain from the use of women; whether a believer ought to live with an unbelieving yoke fellow; whether such as had been circumcised should not make use of some methods to draw on the foreskin of their flesh; whether apprentices, who were called by the grace of God, ought to serve out their time with their masters; and concerning celibacy or virginity, the eating of things offered to idols, and the maintenance of ministers: and he begins with the first; to which he answers,

it is good for a man not to touch a woman; which is to be understood, not of merely touching a woman, which can neither be criminal, nor in all cases inexpedient, or be attended with any ill, or dangerous consequences; nor of the matrimonial contract, which is lawful and honourable; but of the act of carnal copulation with a woman: in this sense the Jews use the phrase,

“there are three (they say r) that fled from transgression, and the blessed God joined his name with them; and they are these, Joseph, and Joel, and Phalti. Joseph, as appears from what is said, Ps 81:5 “a testimony in Joseph is his name”; what is the meaning of the phrase “in Joseph?” this testifies concerning him,

, “that he did not touch Potiphar’s wife” (i.e. he did not lie with her); Jael, as is clear from what is said, Jud 4:18 “and Jael went forth to meet Sisera, and she covered him with a mantle”; what is the meaning of the phrase, ? (which is rendered, “with a mantle”;) our Rabbins here (in Babylon) say with a linen cloth; but our Rabbins there (in the land of Israel) say with bed clothes; says Resh Lekish, if we run over the whole Scripture, we shall not find any household goods so called; wherefore what is it? it is all one as , “my name is thus”: and the meaning is, my name witnesses concerning her, , “that that wicked one (Sisera) did not touch her” s; (i.e. had not carnal knowledge of her;) Phalti, as is evident from hence, one Scripture says, “and Saul gave Michal his daughter to Phalti”, 1Sa 25:44 and another Scripture says Phaltiel; sometimes he is called Phalti, and sometimes he is called Phaltiel; who takes Phalti? and who gives Phaltiel? but I testify concerning him; , “that he did not touch David’s wife”; (i.e. did not lie with her;)”

see Ge 20:6. And in this sense also is the word “touch” used, both by Greek and Latin authors. The apostle’s meaning is not that it is unlawful to marry, or that it is sinful to lie with a woman in lawful wedlock; but that it is much better, and more expedient on several accounts, to abstain from the use of women, when persons have the gift of continency.

r Vajikra Rabba, sect. 23. fol. 164. 4. & 165. 1. Vid Shemot Rabba, sect. 1. fol. 91. 4. s Vid. Kimchi in Jud. iv. 18.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Against Fornication.

A. D. 57.

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

The apostle comes now, as a faithful and skilful casuist, to answer some cases of conscience which the Corinthians had proposed to him. Those were things whereof they wrote to him, v. 1. As the lips of ministers should keep knowledge, so the people should ask the law at their mouths. The apostle was as ready to resolve as they were to propose their doubts. In the former chapter, he warns them to avoid fornication; here he gives some directions about marriage, the remedy God had appointed for it. He tells them in general,

I. That it was good, in that juncture of time at least, to abstain from marriage altogether: It is good for a man not to touch a woman (not to take her to wife), by good here not understanding what is so conformable to the mind and will of God as if to do otherwise were sin, an extreme into which many of the ancients have run in favour of celibacy and virginity. Should the apostle be understood in this sense, he would contradict much of the rest of his discourse. But it is good, that is, either abstracting from circumstances there are many things in which the state of celibacy has the advantage above the marriage state; or else at this juncture, by reason of the distress of the Christian church, it would be a convenience for Christians to keep themselves single, provided they have the gift of continency, and at the same time can keep themselves chaste. The expression also may carry in it an intimation that Christians must avoid all occasions of this sin, and flee all fleshly lusts, and incentives to them; must neither look on nor touch a woman, so as to provoke lustful inclinations. Yet,

II. He informs them that marriage, and the comforts and satisfactions of that state, are by divine wisdom prescribed for preventing fornication (v. 2), Porneias—Fornications, all sorts of lawless lust. To avoid these, Let every man, says he, have his own wife, and every woman her own husband; that is, marry, and confine themselves to their own mates. And, when they are married, let each render the other due benevolence (v. 3), consider the disposition and exigency of each other, and render conjugal duty, which is owing to each other. For, as the apostle argues (v. 4), in the married state neither person has power over his own body, but has delivered it into the power of the other, the wife hers into the power of the husband, the husband his into the power of the wife. Note, Polygamy, or the marriage of more persons than one, as well as adultery, must be a breach of marriage-covenants, and a violation of the partner’s rights. And therefore they should not defraud one another of the use of their bodies, nor any other of the comforts of the conjugal state, appointed of God for keeping the vessel in sanctification and honour, and preventing the lusts of uncleanness, except it be with mutual consent (v. 5) and for a time only, while they employ themselves in some extraordinary duties of religion, or give themselves to fasting and prayer. Note, Seasons of deep humiliation require abstinence from lawful pleasures. But this separation between husband and wife must not be for a continuance, lest they expose themselves to Satan’s temptations, by reason of their incontinence, or inability to contain. Note, Persons expose themselves to great danger by attempting to perform what is above their strength, and at the same time not bound upon them by any law of God. If they abstain from lawful enjoyments, they may be ensnared into unlawful ones. The remedies God hath provided against sinful inclinations are certainly best.

III. The apostle limits what he had said about every man’s having his own wife, c. (&lti>v. 2): I speak this by permission, not of command. He did not lay it as an injunction upon every man to marry without exception. Any man might marry. No law of God prohibited the thing. But, on the other hand, not law bound a man to marry so that he sinned if he did not; I mean, unless his circumstances required it for preventing the lust of uncleanness. It was a thing in which men, by the laws of God, were in a great measure left at liberty. And therefore Paul did not bind every man to marry, though every man had an allowance. No, he could wish all men were as himself (v. 7), that is, single, and capable of living continently in that state. There were several conveniences in it, which at that season, if not at others, made it more eligible in itself. Note, It is a mark of true goodness to wish all men as happy as ourselves. But it did not answer the intentions of divine Providence as well for all men to have as much command of this appetite as Paul had. It was a gift vouchsafed to such persons as Infinite Wisdom thought proper: Every one hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner and another after that. Natural constitutions vary; and, where there may not be much difference in the constitution, different degrees of grace are vouchsafed, which may give some a greater victory over natural inclination than others. Note, The gifts of God, both in nature and grace, are variously distributed. Some have them after this manner and some after that. Paul could wish all men were as himself, but all men cannot receive such a saying, save those to whom it is given, Matt. xix. 11.

IV. He sums up his sense on this head (1Co 7:9; 1Co 7:10): I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, to those in a state of virginity or widowhood, It is good for them if they abide even as I. There are many conveniences, and especially at this juncture, in a single state, to render it preferable to a married one. It is convenient therefore that the unmarried abide as I, which plainly implies that Paul was at that time unmarried. But, if they cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. This is God’s remedy for lust. The fire may be quenched by the means he has appointed. And marriage, with all its inconveniences, is much better than to burn with impure and lustful desires. Marriage is honourable in all; but it is a duty in those who cannot contain nor conquer those inclinations.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote ( ). An ellipsis of , the antecedent of , is easily supplied as in papyri. The church had written Paul a letter in which a number of specific problems about marriage were raised. He answers them seriatim. The questions must be clearly before one in order intelligently to interpret Paul’s replies. The first is whether a single life is wrong. Paul pointedly says that it is not wrong, but good (). One will get a one-sided view of Paul’s teaching on marriage unless he keeps a proper perspective. One of the marks of certain heretics will be forbidding to marry (1Ti 4:3). Paul uses marriage as a metaphor of our relation to Christ (2Cor 11:2; Rom 7:4; Eph 5:28-33). Paul is not here opposing marriage. He is only arguing that celibacy may be good in certain limitations. The genitive case with (touch) is the usual construction.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

It is good [] . See on Joh 10:11. Not merely expedient, but morally salutary. The statement, however, is made in the light of circumstances, see ver. 26, and is to be read with others, such as 2Co 11:2; Rom 7:4; Eph 5:28 – 33, in all which marriage is made the type of the union between Christ and His Church. See also Heb 13:4.

5 May give yourselves [] . Lit., may have leisure. Like the Latin phrase vacaare rei to be free for a thing, and so to devote one’s self to it.

Incontinency [] . Only here and Mt 23:35, on which see note.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

GOD ORDAINED MARRIAGE

1) Now concerning the things. (peri de on) Moreover concerning the numerous things, things relative to sex in marriage and outside of marriage relations.

2) “Whereof ye wrote unto me. (on egrapsate) of which things ye wrote (inquiring of) me.

3) It is good for a man. (Greek kalon anthropo) it is good or ideal for a man. Instructions regarding this sensitive matter of biological cause and effect of sex stimuli and response. Verses 1-6 Paul gave under permissive will of the Holy Spirit.

4) Not to touch a woman. (hunaikos me aptesthai) not to touch a woman. Excitement caused -by touch of stimuli and response between the unmarried in physical contact is to be avoided or discouraged to guard the Christian against fornication and incest.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

As he had spoken of fornication, he now appropriately proceeds to speak of marriage which is the remedy for avoiding fornication. Now it appears, that, notwithstanding the greatly scattered state of the Corinthian Church, they still retained some respect for Paul, inasmuch as they consulted him on doubtful points. What their questions had been is uncertain, except in so far as we may gather them from his reply. This, however, is perfectly well known, that immediately after the first rise of the Church, there crept into it, through Satan’s artifice, a superstition of such a kind, that a large proportion of them, through a foolish admiration of celibacy, (367) despised the sacred connection of marriage; nay more, many regarded it with abhorrence, as a profane thing. This contagion had perhaps spread itself among the Corinthians also; or at least there were idly-disposed spirits, who, by immoderately extolling celibacy, endeavored to alienate the minds of the pious from marriage. At the same time, as the Apostle treats of many other subjects, he intimates that he had been consulted on a variety of points. What is chiefly of importance is, that we listen to his doctrine as to each of them.

1. It is good for a man. The answer consists of two parts. In the first, he teaches that it were good for every one to abstain from connection with a woman, provided it was in his power to do so. In the second, he subjoins a correction to this effect, that as many cannot do this, in consequence of the weakness of their flesh, these persons must not neglect the remedy which they have in their power, as appointed for them by the Lord. Now we must observe what he means by the word good, when he declares that it is good to abstain from marriage, that we may not conclude, on the other hand, that the marriage connection is therefore evil — a mistake which Jerome has fallen into, not so much from ignorance, in my opinion, as from the heat of controversy. For though that great man was endowed with distinguished excellences, he labored, at the same time, under one serious defect, that when disputing he allowed himself to be hurried away into great extravagancies, so that he did not keep within the bounds of truth. The inference then which he draws is this “It is good not to touch a woman: it is therefore wrong to do so.” (368) Paul, however, does not make use of the word good here in such a signification as to be opposed to what is evil or vicious, but simply points out what is expedient on account of there being so many troubles, vexations, and anxieties that are incident to married persons. Besides, we must always keep in view the limitation which he subjoins. Nothing farther, therefore, can be elicited from Paul’s words than this — that it is indeed expedient and profitable for a man not to be bound to a wife, provided he can do otherwise. Let us explain this by a comparison. Should any one speak in this way: “It were good for a man not to eat, or to drink, or to sleep” — he would not thereby condemn eating, or drinking, or sleeping, as things that were wrong — but as the time that is devoted to these things is just so (369) much taken from the soul, his meaning would be, that we would be happier if we could be free from these hindrances, and devote ourselves wholly (370) to meditation on heavenly things. Hence, as there are in married life many impediments which keep a man entangled, it were on that account good not to be connected in marriage.

But here another question presents itself, for these words of Paul have some appearance of inconsistency with the words of the Lord, in Gen 2:18, where he declares, that it is not good for a man to be without a wife. What the Lord there pronounces to be evil Paul here declares to be good I answer, that in so far as a wife is a help to her husband, so as to make his life happy, that is in accordance with God’s institution; for in the beginning God appointed it so, that the man without the woman was, as it were, but half a man, and felt himself destitute of special and necessary assistance, and the wife is, as it were, the completing of the man. Sin afterwards came in to corrupt that institution of God; for in place of so great a blessing there has been substituted a grievous punishment, so that marriage is the source and occasion of many miseries. Hence, whatever evil or inconvenience there is in marriage, that arises from the corruption of the divine institution. Now, although there are in the meantime some remains still existing of the original blessing, so that a single life is often much more unhappy than the married life; yet, as married persons are involved in many inconveniences, it is with good reason that Paul teaches that it would be good for a man to abstain. In this way, there is no concealment of the troubles that are attendant upon marriage; and yet, in the meantime, there is no countenance given to those profane jests which are commonly in vogue with a view to bring it into discredit, such as the following: that a wife is a necessary evil, and that a wife is one of the greatest evils. For such sayings as these have come from Satan’s workshop, and have a direct tendency to brand with disgrace God’s holy institution; and farther, to lead men to regard marriage with abhorrence, as though it were a deadly evil and pest.

The sum is this, that we must remember to distinguish between the pure ordinance of God and the punishment of sin, which came in subsequently. According to this distinction, it was in the beginning good for a man, without any exception, to be joined to a wife, and even yet, it is good in such a way, that there is in the meantime a mixture of bitter and sweet, in consequence of the curse of God. To those, however, who have not the gift of continency, it is a necessary and salutary remedy in accordance with what follows.

(367) “ C’est a dire, l’abstinence du mariage;” — “That is to say, abstinence from marriage.”

(368) Our Author, when commenting on Mat 19:10, animadverts in strong terms on Jerome’s manner of handling the subject of marriage, as discovering “a malicious and wicked disposition.” Harmony, volume 2 p. 386. — Ed.

(369) “ C’est autant de perdu quant aux choses spirituelles;” — “It is so much of loss as to spiritual things.”

(370) “ Nous employer entierement et incessaumment;” — “Employ ourselves entirely and unceasingly.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

1. Observe: With this chapter commences a new section of the Epistle; the topics, and perhaps their order, suggested by a letter of formal inquiry brought from Corinth: vii. Marriage; viii. Things offered to Idols; ix. Support of Ministry; x. Lords Supper and Love-feast; xi. Women in Public Services, Lords Supper; [x., xi. Public Worship, sundry topics connected with;] xii. Spiritual Gifts; (xiii. parenthetic, Charity;) xiv. Spiritual Gifts resumed; xv. The Resurrection.

2. Observe also: Stanley thinks the questions were proposed by the loyal party, and, on the whole, most likely by the Gentile element in the Church. The tendency to celibacy was at this period strong in the Gentile world generally. [But celibacy by no means meant personal purity.] Others rather see the motive in the Gentile, quasi-philosophic idea that matter was evil, and a celibates life nobler, as being spiritual, in comparison with marriage.
3. Observe further: In all these chapters are good instances of one mode and method of divinely inspired teaching. Particular cases (even of quite temporary importance, and now mainly interesting to us historically, as, e.g., much in chap. 11) are examined with constant reference to, and are decided upon, great and abiding principles of Divine order for the Church of Christ. [Just as elsewhere the biographies and character portraits, the histories, and their course and consequences, are an integral part of the Revelation. In them God is declaring His will in concrete instances, rather than in general, didactic language.]

B. 1Co. 7:1. Good.Not exactly morally good, as if the opposite were sinful. Plainly so, from drift of chapter, and particularly 1Co. 7:35; 1Co. 7:40. Relatively good; an excellent thing, in many circumstances, and for many reasons, but, etc. Touch.Euphemistic, for a more significant word.

1Co. 7:2. (The) fornications (, accurately).Q.d. which notoriously abound in your heathen, social surroundings. [Perhaps not specially at Corinth, beyond any other great centre of Gentile life. See Introduction.] Own.Christianity allows no polygamy. Own own are interestingly different in Greek, having a slight trace of the different conception, even in Judaism, of the respective propriety of husband and wife in each other. On his side is something of ownership; on hers of exclusive relation. Have.Like touch, is euphemistic; expanded in 1Co. 7:3.

1Co. 7:3.follows the ancient, correct, expressive reading: Let not married persons fancy [as, e.g., Edward the Confessor] that there is any perfection in living with each other as if they were unmarried.

1Co. 7:4. Power.Obviously is the sense of authority. N.B. the perfect equality of the sexes; a particular case of a great principle asserted for the woman by Christianity.

1Co. 7:5 Fasting.Omit, as Act. 10:30 (certainly); Mat. 17:21 (probably); Mar. 9:29 (not unlikely). These various readings affect materially the teaching of Scripture about fasting (Beet). Question of textual criticism, basing itself on diplomatic evidence; as likely to have been dropped in a lax age, as to have been inserted by an ascetic one. N.B. Ascetic counsels and practice might create new occasions for the Tempters attack. N.B. also how abstinence is valued, not for prudential or selfish reasons, but according as it affects the spiritual life and its exercises. Everything dealt with here with delicacy of thought and language, and every topic lifted up into, and judged in, the light of great spiritual verities. Be together [not come], again euphemistic.

1Co. 7:6.See Bible-class Talk, infra.

1Co. 7:7.Paul evidently now unmarried, or at least wifeless; was he a widower? Only facts are: The prevalent Jewish judgment that a man of twenty sinned in remaining unmarried even so long; that a member of the Sanhedrin must be married. Inferences from 1Co. 9:5 and 1Co. 7:8 are very precarious. Php. 4:3 is now never understood as referring to any possible wife of Paul. Not quite certain that Paul was formally a member of the Council; the one fact is, I gave my vote (Act. 26:10, if the word means quite so much). His gift.His charism; the word used of the gifts of chap. 12 Great rule; in arrest of hard judgments of other people (Mat. 19:11).

1Co. 7:8.How relative all these judgments are is evident from, e.g., 1Ti. 5:9-16.

1Co. 7:10.See Bible-class Talk, infra. Mat. 5:32; Mat. 19:3-9; Mar. 10:2-12 [a chapter full of suggestive side-lights upon Christs attitude towards home, family, wife, children].

1Co. 7:11. If she depart.Under such a supposed necessity as seems to her to overbear all other considerations [local, not legal, separation or divorce being supposed], at any rate let her not be led to go further and[A Greek or Roman wife could divorce her husband.]

1Co. 7:12. The rest.Viz. to the unmarried, the widows, [and widowers] (of whom I just made mention); and now, further, to those involved in a marriage which has become, by the conversion of one party, a mixed one.

1Co. 7:12-17. Sanctified, holy.Plainly not with a real, only with a relational, holiness. So unclean as in Act. 10:14. Husband and children stand in a different, and nearer, relation to Christ, if the wife and mother be a Christian. N.B. the children are holy: a great dictum, with the authority of 1Co. 7:17; 1Co. 7:40 behind it. Let him depart.The Christian is never to initiate the separation; but needs not absolutely resist it, if the step be taken from the other side. In (not to) peace.Therefore the believer needs not enforce union upon a reluctant unbeliever, or one determined to separate; to acquiesce in the inevitable is peace for both, and the way is open for resuming the old relation, if good may (1Co. 7:16) result from it. Shalt save.Perhaps hardly so much as, If you remain with the unconverted one, is it not the sure way to save? Nor so little as, How do you knowhow can you thinkthat you will, if even you persist? Lies between. Who can tell? Perhaps you may. There is at least a chance. (He is reverting to 1214.) But (1Co. 7:17).Only, Difficult to translate, very elliptical. Indeed, I give hardly any fixed rule, only let this be the great guiding principle. So ordain I.Word of full Apostolic authority. [1Co. 14:37 very definite and important upon this point.] Distributed.Not as 1Co. 7:7; but only of station in life.

1Co. 7:19.Join this with Gal. 5:6; Gal. 6:15.

1Co. 7:20. Calling.From this verse, very largely, rose our common use of the phrase for a mans occupation or pursuit in life. True we really are appointed to, guided into, this by God. Yet in the word here is only the sacred sense: the calling into fellowship of His people. (Was any man ever called of God to be a slave?) Whatever you were when the call reached you and saved you, in that, as a rule, abide. Cf. 1Co. 7:17-18; 1Co. 7:21; 1Co. 7:24 also.

1Co. 7:21. Servant.A slave. Care not.Do not anxiously seek liberty. Use it.Use what?

(1) The condition of slavery, or
(2) the opportunity of liberty? Curiously ambiguous. Both senses defended from very early times. For
(1) is the general drift of Pauls advice, Incline on the whole to make no change. And this, it is suggested, with the idea in the background, It will not matter long; the Lord will soon be here. Also Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon to be received as a servant. For
(2) is the asserted unnaturalness of the other counsel, and, as things were, its cruel requirement that a slave should remain at the mercy of such masters as were many of those days, It is pointed out that Paul sent Onesimus back to a Christian master, and at least suggested his manumission. Also that, though certainly the Christian religion has usually wrought great revolutions by the inoculation of great principles into the social system, rather than by change imposed ab extra, yet that from the beginning it has favoured, and worked for, manumission whereever possible.

1Co. 7:24.Contrast Of men with God.

1Co. 7:25. Virgins.Might include both sexes (Rev. 14:4). In point of fact (except perhaps in 1Co. 7:26-27) young women are in his thought. Origin here of distinction between consilia and prcepta. (See again infra, Bible-class Talk.)

1Co. 7:26.A perplexing verse again. well presents the again curiously ambiguous original. On the whole present is preferable to pressing (q.d. the pressing cares of the married state); distress being then the uncertainties and dangers involved or risked by being Christians in such times of change and, always possible, persecution. So to be.How?

(1) As he is;
(2) As I am;
(3) Unmarried;
(4) As I go on to say in detail. Probably
(1).

1Co. 7:28. I spare you.Choose between

(1) I speak as little and as tenderly as possible;
(2) I want to save you from such risks and cares and dangers, as, just now, must come upon married people.

1Co. 7:29 sqq.See Separate Homily.

1Co. 7:32. Carefulness.Favours 1Co. 7:28,

(2); as does 1Co. 7:35, latter half. But 1Co. 7:35 also favours

(1). Both are true and good reasons for cautious pronouncements. Without any avoidable anxieties to burden your thoughts. gives all needful indication of the effect of the different punctuations here, and of the different translations of There is difference.

1Co. 7:34.The ideal of unmarried life. Would that they all did!

1Co. 7:35. Attend upon.Stanley finds apt illustration of the three leading words of this clause in Luk. 10:39-42.

1Co. 7:36. Uncomely.Unhandsomely (Evans). Spoken of the parent or guardian, not of the possible husband. He is presumed to wish to do what the need of the case requires. Very good; the way is quite clear; he may consent to her marrying her betrothed. Also, probably, unhandsomely toward her; not unhandsomely as regards public opinion about keeping virgin daughters at home. This only true of Jewish opinion.

1Co. 7:37.Conybeare and Howson, and Stanley, remark that no other statement of a daughters position was then conceived or then practicable; she was absolutely under her fathers power. See, for the fearful extent of this power, Pressens, Early Years, Life and Practice, p. 363. As in the case of slavery, or the position of woman, Christianity did not change the social order ab extra, but ab intra. It attacked the sinful thing, polygamy (1Co. 7:2), directly, by definite prohibition; it left this, not intrinsically sinful, relation between father and daughter to be changed by the working of the principle of the equal dignity of redeemed human nature in all races, ages, conditions, and in both sexes. He speaks here of a father who is not swayed by any external opinion, and who has no necessity arising from any circumstances of his daughter or her betrothed; in the then present distress he might do the excellent thing in marrying her, but the more excellent in keeping her at home.

1Co. 7:39. In the Lord.Christian must only wed Christian.

1Co. 7:40. I.Emphatic. Perhaps, q.d., As well as your Cephas and the rest.

HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.Whole Chapter

[An indirect treatment is suggested; thus:] Observe

I. How purely Paul deals with such matters.

II. How wisely.

III. How authoritatively.

IV. How spiritually.

I. How purely.

1. His language is euphemistic. Touch (1Co. 7:1); have (1Co. 7:2); the debt (1Co. 7:3); be together (1Co. 7:5). [So the true reading, as, e.g., R.V.] Yet only with the euphemism which provides a seemly covering of what, though in itself neutral, has been debased, and has now no native, unshamed, simplicity in which it may present itself to the mind. Nothing of the wrong euphemism which robes sin with a vesture of innocence and even poetry and beauty, till it flaunts itself before us in what should only have been a necessary covering of its repulsive evil. Pauls language rather indicates than mentions; there is no unhealthy suggestiveness of more than he dares unveil. His thought touches as lightly as may be; his mind and heart look with halfaverted gaze. Model for all who must, on occasion, speak. So the Lord Himself dealt with sin and sinners. Some (poets) will tune their harps to sensual pleasures, and by the enchantment of their genius well-nigh commend their unholy theme to the imagination of saints (Edw. Irving, Divine Oracles, Oration I.).

2. The topic must be touched, or the Bible were not a complete directory for life. The young need pure, but plain, words. Every missionary in heathen lands finds the value of such definite, holy, wise, authoritative pronouncement upon what are questions arising every day in heathen life, or in the nascent stage of a Christianised society. Such passages as these lifted up the whole relation between man and woman to the Christian level in the early Christian centuries. Such chapters as these, privately read, still keep the conscience sensitive and the standard true.
3. May be thankful that Bible has such pages, so healthy and pure. The tendencynot to say the aimof natural thinking and writing is always to minimise the sinfulness of sin. Happy for the world that one Book in the world is unaffected by the fashions or the passions of an age, and stands forth unvaryingly the testimony of God; an objective standard by which the perverted judgment or conscience may be regulated, an objectivised conscience, to arouse or embolden the conscience within to resume its old, instinctive testimony, when dulled, or drugged, or hardened into silence.
4. Paul and the Bible might say, with Jeremy Taylor: I have used all the care I could, in the following periods, that I might neither be wanting to assist those that need it, nor yet minister any occasion of fancy or vainer thoughts to those who need them not. If any man will snatch the pure taper from my hand, and hold it to the Devil, he will only burn his own fingers, but shall not rob me of the reward of my care and good intention; since I have taken heed how to express the following duties, and given him caution how to read them (Holy Living, sect. iii.). Paul speaks of them as under the physicians necessity, and with the physicians abstinence from needless words. The Bible supplies abundant material for a holy estimate of sensual sin, even though existent only in thought.

II. How wisely.

1. Recognises that the question arises out of a necessity of human nature, as God has made it. All men not alike (1Co. 7:7) by their very God-given constitution. To have nothing to say on the topic would have been for the Bible to make the same mistake as the philosophies, which disregarded the matter as altogether beneath their exalted notice. Satan (1Co. 7:5), or surrounding conditions (1Co. 7:2), may make the very faculty and desire, which are per se neutral, and have their useful part to play, the occasion of temptation. God has therefore ordained the marriage institution (1Co. 7:9); and, given marriage, there follow reciprocal obligations perfectly legitimate in their fulfilment (1Co. 7:3-5).

2. Yet the freedom and the self-mastery, the self-sufficient continence, of the unmarried have their excellence (1Co. 7:1; 1Co. 7:8; 1Co. 7:32; 1Co. 7:34), and especially in times of difficulty and possible persecution (1Co. 7:26). [Paul should have full weight given to Rev. 14:4 on the side of his slight preference for the unmarried condition.]

3.He sees that the order of the world is not ideal in its simplicity, and the complex conditions of life do not permit, in some instances, of hard-and-fast rules. E.g. the very success of the Gospel, finding its way into heathen (or Jewish) homes, would create a difficulty and add a new element of complication to a Christian life. Husband or wife might become Christian, whilst the other remained an obstinate, perhaps persecuting, heathen (1Co. 7:12-16). [Where both are Christians, and indeed as the fundamental principle of the marriage institution, there are to be no separations. The rule is plain. Divorce, only permissible in one case, even then simply recognises a union already broken by the wrongdoer. Nothing else must break it (1Co. 7:10-11).] The Christian must not move in the direction of separation; there is already a blessing to the other party, and to the children, in the fact that one member of the house is Christs (1Co. 7:14), andwho can tell?there may arise a greater blessing yet (1Co. 7:16). Still, the Christian need not, without exception and in all cases, resist separation forced on from the other side. It may be best to acquiesce in the parting; it may do more harm to seek to enforce the continued association; and God is tender of His children, and does not desire what may conduce to strife and misery, and almost make impossible peaceful service to Him (1Co. 7:15).

4. Indeed, the general rule, applying not only to such cases as those particularly under discussion, is: Make as little change as possible. Where, and what, the call of God which led you to Christ, found you, there, and that, remain; provided always that (as, e.g., with the now neutral circumcision) there is no wrong or right involved. Seek to abide therein with God. Do all things as unto God, and as in His immediate presence (Bengel) (1Co. 7:17-24). Circumcision is now become a mere piece of surgery; never mind it, either way. As to slavery; be not restlessly anxious for freedom (1Co. 7:21); above all, do not, voluntarily, become any mans slave (1Co. 7:23); it will be a harder thing there than anywhere to be the freeman of Christ (1Co. 7:22). You are not to choose to give the slaves absolute subjection of your life, your will, your self, to any but to Christ; to Him you ought to give it; you are the bondservant of Jesus Christ (1Co. 7:22; cf. Pauls frequent description of himself in these terms). And if He open the door for freedom, be free, the better to serve Him.

5. Shall the unmarried make no change? There is no unvarying rule. The Lord has given none. I must not create difficulties for any of you by laying down one myself (1Co. 7:25; 1Co. 7:28). Case by case, each must be dealt with by itself. Though I do judge that, for the present, as things are, and are likely to be, the fewer new obligations man or woman assumes the better (1Co. 7:26). [And so, in effect, 1Co. 7:32-35.]

6. Shall a father consent to, and even promote, or shall he refuse, the marriage of his daughters? Given, as before, that marriage is not per se sinful, but recognised and ordained by God; given also that, in the particular instance, there is no sin,(e.g. given that both parties are in the Lord (1Co. 7:39)this is obligatory; to disregard this were sin),let him give consent, if there be any apparent desirableness or necessity in it. He may promote the marriage; the course is quite clear. Still, if he do not desire it, nor the daughter herself desire and require it, he is at liberty to say that she must remain at home with him. Make no change, Paul said; but he makes no absolute rule; only saying that, as things are, she is better free (1Co. 7:36-38).

7. Lastly, the bond between husband and wife is lifelong, but not longer. Death gives liberty for remarriage, subject always to thisIn the Lord (1Co. 7:39).

8. A perfect code all this for the regulation of home and family life, of marital and parental authority. Removed, on one hand, from undue freedom, such as might become licence; on the other from unnatural, and perhaps impracticable, restriction. Absolute veto, in any direction where the express command of Christ or the original law of marriage plants a barrier. Freedom, where no considerations of moral wrong intervene; but limited by considerations of temporary fitness or of general expediency, variable, modifiable, dispensable, from age to age, from case to case. The inviolable, indissoluble, sacredness of the marriage bond is safeguarded; the mere comfort (1Co. 7:3; 1Co. 7:9; 1Co. 7:15; 1Co. 7:39) of the parties, or of one of them, is not deemed unworthy of consideration. [The possible wider application of these principles to similar cases is suggested by their employment in 1Co. 7:17; 1Co. 7:24.] [They not only apply in heathen lands reached by Christian missions to-day, but have analogues at home. E.g. wife with drunkard or adulterous husband, inquiring her duty in regard to him; a wife [or son] converted in, and bound to reside with husband [or father] at, low public-house; man converted in some, not exactly sinful, but exceedingly difficult, position for maintaining a Christian walk.]

III. How authoritatively.

1. Any word of Christ is absolute legislation for His Church (1Co. 7:10).

2. Paul also can, on occasion, claim that his own pronouncements are in effect Christs, and carry Christs authority with them (2Co. 13:3; 2 Cor. 14:37).

3. If here he gives permissions, not injunctions, the permissions are authoritative (1Co. 7:25; 1Co. 7:40). The alternation, oscillationnot between yes and no (cf. 2Co. 1:18), but between good and better, between counsel in a negative sense and consent in an opposite directiondo not indicate any misgiving as to his power to speak, or as to his own soundness of judgment. The absence of positiveness is itself, in these cases, sound judgment. The nature of the case forbids anything further. Even the Lord would have said, would say, no more, in cases where Paul does not; Paul will go no further than his Lord has done or would do (1Co. 7:25).

4. The contrast between Paul and Christ is only as between supplementary and earlier-given dicta, between complementary and primary, but both equally authentative. [The relation of Paul to Christ in this chapter is more nearly analogous to that of the prophets to the Law of Sinai. The one leading, fundamental, Divine utterance having been once given, the prophets and the Apostle deal with the applications of it to the ramifying, multiplying, cases which are ever arising; but not with less Divine authority of utterance.]

IV. How spiritually.Next to this, Christ says so, which is the final appeal, the test is the bearing of the matter upon the religious life of the individual.

1. Even the one duty and mutual obligation which differentiates marriage from all other unions between man and woman, may, with consent, be subordinated to a higher duty: from time to time to have special seasons for prayer, and the cultivation of the spiritual life (1Co. 7:5). When its fulfilment is resumed, it is as a safeguard for the spiritual life against fleshly, devilish, temptation.

2. The inconvenience, and perhaps opposition and suffering, which a Christian may suffer from a heathen partner are not indeed to be borne as if of unalterable obligation. Peace may sometimes best be secured by acquiescence in the departure of the heathen one (1Co. 7:15). Yet very much should be borne, very long and patiently, for the sake of the blessed effect upon the position, and perhaps hereafter on the heart, of the heathen one (1Co. 7:14; 1Co. 7:16). What if that one may be saved?

3. Circumcision, uncircumcision; slavery, freedom,the Lords apportionment was as truly in them all as it was in the call (1Co. 7:17). Keeping the commandments is the whole of man (Ecc. 12:13); the rest is accident (1Co. 7:19). The slave has a freedom, the freeman a bondage, to Christ, which should not be forgotten (1Co. 7:22). Let him bear himself as a man bought with a price, and in any, every, station and condition as having God with him for his aid and defence (1Co. 7:24). [

4. The outburst of 1Co. 7:29 sqq. is dealt with separately.]

5. On all grounds it is worth something to be without carefulness,undue, distracting, anxiety. But it is chiefly worth, as the leisure of mind and heart are leisure for Christ and His service (1Co. 7:32; 1Co. 7:34). A single life finds its glory and its best justification in becoming a consecrated leisure for Him, with the opportunity, Mary-like, of oftener sitting at His feet, attending upon the Lord Christ (1Co. 7:35) without Marthas distraction.

6. The father who marries his daughter to a Christian man sinneth not, for the highest question is not one of prudence, but of sin.

7. And the one primary, all-embracing, all-qualifying condition of any liberty of action for those who are Christs is Only in the Lord. The member of the Body must not go beyond the Body for its fellowships. Everything is thus judged in the light of its bearing upon the life in Christ. Next to the fundamental wrong, which bars anything, comes Christian expediency, and this must mainly be estimated by those who are in Christ, and who judge by His Spirits grace of how their life in Him will be affected.

Whole chapter may also be organised homiletically thus, as

A Christian Directory of Relative Duties in Household Life.A Christian home begins with marriage. First therefore come:

I. Husband and wife.Celibacy has its advantages in its freedom from responsibility (1Co. 7:32 sqq.), its opportunity for choosing ones place and ones work for God, with no obligatory reference to any will but His. [Except that the Christian daughter will pay right deference to her fathers judgment and command (1Co. 7:36-38)]. Where it does not occasion difficulty and become a point of assault for the Evil One, a man or woman may choose it, if they will. Yet married life is as honourable a condition. The foundations of a home may be laid with every hope of the blessing of God. It is a doctrine of devils to say otherwise (1Ti. 4:3). It is the safest condition for some natures and physical temperaments. It has its own special helps and endearments. It is traced on the lines of a higher, closer, mystical union. One flesh may be all; or the Christian man and wife may make this lead them up to one spirit with Christ (1Co. 6:17). See them heirs together of the grace of life (1Pe. 3:7), joint-heirs in the same great expectations, with a parallel share in the reversionary estate, Life. See them kneeling together, night and morning, giving themselves to prayer. Or with special, consentaneous, self-denial, making way for some longer, more emphatic time of joint waiting upon God (1Co. 7:5). Neither wronging the other; each belonging wholly to the other; gladly giving all that may help the other to all purity and holiness of thought and life. And over all the union there is inscribed the Lords own law, No separation. They were joined for absolute, entire, exclusive, lifelong, property in each other (1Co. 7:10). If unhappily some fatal disagreement should arise, or even the wrong-doing of the husband should seem to compel the wife to quit her husbands roof, still she belongs to him. She may not give herself to another whilst he lives. [And if his death release her, let her only look at a Christian husband again (1Co. 7:39).] Let her heart be open to a reconciliation and to a return, if a repentant man desire it (1Co. 7:11). Suppose God sends

II. Children, then these are holy. They are not the Devils children, not nobodys [not Jewish, nor Mahometan, nor heathen]; from their very coming into a home which belongs to Christ, they belong to Him. Born of a redeemed human stock, every child born into a home enters it a redeemed child. Paul himself baptized (at Philippi, and Corinth, certainly) households, andwhether or not these happened to include very young children or infants matters littlehis act recognised that the baptism and faith of the responsible head of the house carried with it the principle of the baptism of the house. Father, or even mother, becoming converted, the whole household becomes one on which Christ has a larger claim. It is holiness to the Lord Christ, from that moment. If the father or the mother stand alone, without sympathy or support, perhaps indeed distinctly persecuted, as a Christian, that one need not despond, nor hastily think of quitting the home. The presence of the one Christian sanctifies the children, and even the opposing partner. And if so in a divided home, how much more are the children holy where both parents are agreed, and are one in Christ! They may, with abundant confidencethey will, with no less assurance than if, as proselytes, they had even entered into the Jewish foldbring them to that baptism which, at its lowest of significance, includes them all in the Christian community, that Christian Church whose census man can take. With no less boldness than did a Jewish father, they will claim for their holy children, under the sign and seal of the Grace itself, that Holy Spirit who is the gift and grace and privilege of the Christian form of the covenant before confirmed of God in Christ, which runs on in unbroken continuity from the day of Gods promise to Abraham and his seed (Gal. 3:14-18). Nor will that Lord refuse them Who once and again made the childs spirit of docility and of simple, direct inclination to believe, the model of the spirit which alone can find its way into the kingdom of heaven, or be greatest when it is in (Mat. 18:3-4). And with how many prayers, and with what thankfulness, will these Christian ones seek to train and lead these, relatively, holy children to appreciate and seek a real holiness, by a personal choice of, and trust in, and life for, Christ! If that mother, busy within her home, not able to do outside work for Christ, only helps a Christian husband and Christian children to be holy, she may lie down to die feeling that she has not been an inconsiderable worker for Christ and His Church.

III. When the children are old enough to be married, what then?

1. That Christian father is not to put frivolous, selfish, tyrannous obstacles in the way of his childrens marriage. If the Lord have found for the maiden daughter a Christian man to be her mate, the father should not lightly say they must not marry. He is to remember that all the same reasons which made it better, safer, holier, helpful, needful (1Co. 7:36), for himself and her mother to marry, may point to the right of the girls happy, holy union too, for her sake and her suitors. Fulfil Gods order once again and lay the foundation of another Christian home: let them marry.

2. He needs be swayed by no undue regard for outside opinion. If he think indeed that there is anything in it worth his regard, and that it were an unhandsome thing to compel girl and suitor to wait and wait, whilst her best life is slipping away, let him follow his judgment, and further their marriage [with dowry and outfit perhaps, but certainly] with his consent and blessing (1Co. 7:22).

3. It may be that she has not any strong reason or claim upon her to leave his side; a widower father then may keep his one child to be his comfort. Two parents grown old may lovingly require her attendance and the ministrations of love and duty, so it be not with tyrannous and unfair control over her liberty, but with her free consent. He may keep his virgin daughter (1Co. 7:23) till she close his eyes in death. If like Lydias or the gaolers or Philemons, the home has its servants, or even its slaves, then as to

IV. The servant in the house.

1. The foundation of all is that the Lord put him or found him in a slaves condition. That is his post; there he must stay until the Commander relieves him.
2. The Gospel and its Lord, the God who is its Author, does not forget him, has indeed deigned to ennoble him, lifting him up to the honour of being a freeman in the citizenship of Christs kingdom. [The slave might hold office in the Church.] He is a man; a man for whom Christ died. The same redeemed human nature in him as in his master, saves him from any ignoble condition, and gives him rights never conceded before to slaves. He need not therefore fear but that even as a slave he shall have God continually near him.

3. He goes about his work cheerful, content, with an eye in every duty to his Master Christ. Servility, slavish fear, unlawful submissionthese are chased out of his life; the servility is out of his heart.
4. As belonging to Christ he is not to be indolent, untruthful, impure, a centre of intrigue and moral corruption, as slaves proverbially were in antiquity. With new rights, owed to Christ, come new responsibilities to Him, and the slave may be, should be, holy, even in an unholy household. And how transformed will the home life be in the one fact that master, mistress, children, servants, all are equally in Christ, and are only apportioned to different stations by Him, for His glory and their mutual help!

SEPARATE HOMILIES

1Co. 7:14. Sanctified by the wife; sanctified by the husband.Query, wife named first here (not above in 1Co. 7:12-13) as the case of greater hardship for the one Christian, more affecting to consider, more hopeful for the conversion of the other? Wife will sooner convert husband, than husband wife?

I. Great principle of Gods dealings.

1. Noahs sons saved with, and for sake of, their father. Lot blessed for Abrahams sake (Gen. 19:29); Lots wife and daughters brought out for their fathers sake; Potiphars house blessed for Josephs sake (Gen. 39:5); the crew of the Castor and Pollux all saved for Pauls sake (Act. 27:4)all given to him. How much blessing on an ungodly mans house or business is accounted for by the presence and prayers of the godly wife, or even the godly servant or clerk? How much blessing on unholy children because of their connection with a godly, praying parent? How many a safe journey or voyage because of the presence of one of Gods peculiar ones amongst the company?

2. The world blessed for Christs sake, though ignorant of Him, or rejecting Him.
3. The Christian Churchthis one isolated Christianholy because of the connection with Christ.

II. Natural to expect that the one Christian will lead the rest into a real, saving, holy relation to Christ.

1. By example. Great responsibility to be the first Christian in a family, or family circle; great grace given to meet it. Did the conversion of Andronicus and Junias (Rom. 16:7), Pauls kinsmen, in Christ before him, prove the first prick of the goad which he really felt? Who is this Nazarenewhat is there in his religionthat even our own family cannot be kept pure from the taint of heresy? The one light shining amidst the darkness reveals the darkness to itself, and convicts it (Eph. 5:13); the first step towards its removal. Believe, thou shalt be saved, and thy house (Act. 16:31); not indeed without their own repentance and faith, but yet the more probably, now that the head of the house has believed.

2. By praying.

3. By direct effort. Part of the purpose of the family institution, that by the training of Christian parents a succession of godly offspring may be secured. Large principle in Luk. 22:31-32. Satan desired all (you); Christ prayed for one, Peter (thee); and saved the rest mediately, though Peter. (When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.) God saves one in a house, a circle, not that that one may simply concentrate thought and effort on self preservation, self-cultivation, but that, through that one, appeal, conversion, holiness, may come to the rest.

1Co. 7:19. The Indifference of Circumcision and Uncircumcision.

I. Circumcision, uncircumcisionnothing. (Connect with Gal. 5:6; Gal. 6:15.)

1. These [three passages] describe the same threefold aspect of Christianity with regard to man, which, in speaking of God, is described under the names of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. In this passage man is viewed chiefly in his relation to the natural order of the world. In the two in the Galatians, the more distinct reference to faith in Christ, and to the new creation wrought by His Spirit, is brought out. (Stanley, in loco.)

2. (1Co. 7:19.) Circumcision or Uncircumcision nothing for a Christian to be distressed about or hindered by. They do not prejudice his status before God; such external accidents cannot hinder living for God. (Gal. 5:6.) Circumcision [or Uncircumcision] nothing for him to trust to as a sinner for acceptance with God. Faith the one condition, if evidenced as living, saving faith by its work in love to God and to man. (Gal. 6:15.) Circumcision or Uncircumcision nothing for Churches to wrangle about, to compete in propagating, to press upon their members as necessities of salvation. Can they show, do their work and teaching produce, or help and train, new creatures in Christ Jesus? That is the aim; all else subsidiary; worthless, or even mischievous, unless it contributes to that. Nothing! Then why insist upon it? Nothing! Then why quarrel over it?

3. Then, dont tell me what are a mans accidents of birth or station; does he there walk in all practical commandment-keeping? He may find grace to do it. The level of the supply of grace will rise and fall as the difficulty or disadvantage does. Dont tell medont let a man tell himselfthat he has been baptized; that he belongs to a covenant, Christian stock. Is he a believer, whose faith is plainly rooted in, and is renewing, his heart? Dont tell me how a Church is winning adherents to its ceremonial, its creed, or confession; dont let it, on the other hand, boast how it is getting rid of ritual or dogma; dont let the member boast of his orthodoxy, or of his liberalism. Does this mean a membership of renewed men and women? That only is vital. Yet

II. Circumcision, uncircumcision, may come to be something.

1. Controversy made it such to Paul.

(1) He circumcised Timothy, to give him greater freedom of access to Jewish work (Act. 16:3), and this even after (1Co. 15:1) the circumcision controversy had begun. Had to him become merely concision (Php. 3:2), a mere piece of surgery. Old meaning had evaporated, leaving as residuum a mere cutting of flesh. If it might facilitate work of Christ amongst Jews, it was an innocent, expedient concession to prejudice and training.

(2) He refused to circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:3), [or, at the least, if he were circumcised, made it clear that it was not by compulsion. or by subjection]. Others were making circumcision a co-ordinate, or supplementary, ground of salvation, in a conjunction with faith which really involved disloyalty to Christ, as alone and in Himself a sufficient Saviour. [So baptism at the hands of an episcopally ordained minister in an exclusive line of succession may in some circumstances not be worth a word of controversy, but in others may become a matter involving deepest issues, and requiring most thorough, strenuous discussion. So ritual may be merely question of the style and taste of the conduct of public worship; or may become full of significance as to the priesthood of Christ, the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Calvary, the ground and means of the regenerate life; deserving then most earnest discussion. So a creed may become a test of loyalty to Christ and to Truth.]

2. God, had made circumcision much to His people.The symbol of a complete sanctification of human lifeeven bodily, animal (Deu. 10:16; Deu. 30:6). The seal between Him and them of a blessing not only promised to them, but thus pledged to them. [As baptism may in parents and in children help faith to claim what God has not only promised, but covenanted to giveChrist and the Spirit.]

3. Should be remembered how the importance of such things varies with Gods appointment or repeal, with the knowledge or the needs of a Church, an age, a generation, an individual. Value relative, not absolute.

1Co. 7:21. Use it rather.It is surprisingly ambiguous to us. [Was it also so to Paul? Did he mean it to read ambiguously, lest the letter should fall into hands of heathen masters, and cause trouble to Christian slaves? (As some assume the number 666 in Rev. 13:18 to be a cipher, intelligible to Christians through orally given and transmitted explanation, but, prudently, left unintelligible to any chance heathen reader.) Would this be the simplicity which is in Christ? (2Co. 11:3.)] Like so to be (in 1Co. 7:26), can be read in more than one way; like some well-known oracles of Delphi (to Crsus and others). Said to be unnatural, cruel, to counsel a slave to refuse liberty if offered. Probably so; and this is then parallel to the permission given to a Christian wife to accept her freedom from a determined, troublesome, heathen husband, who himself leaves her, without provocation on her part, except that she is Christian. Spirit of paragraph (1Co. 7:17-24) may be summed up thus:

I. Do not force change; do not be anxiously concerned to make a change; where the call found a man, there let him walk. Care not.

1. Very natural to Christians whose providential (1Co. 7:17) place presents difficulties in being godly, to wish themselves somewhere else. The saint-slaves in Csars household (Php. 4:22) naturally look wistfully, in some day of special hardship, toward the position of the poorest Roman free citizen in the Church. A modern Obadiahfinding every day in some Ahabs house, with a Jezebel for a mistress, that he walks constantly as between red-hot ploughshares, every step an ordeal and a perilwishes he were something else than Ahabs steward.

2. Feeling shapes itself, Ah, now! if I were only in So-and-sos position; or, If I had only So-and-sos husband; or, If, instead of what I am, I could only be such-and-such a thing;then I would serve Christ! If I only had that mans opportunities, would I not be a saint and a worker! And a step farther is common, and easy to take: to assume that no thorough-going service, no fulness of happy Christian life, is possible in our actual providential position, and to give up effort and hope, acquiescing in being an average, a minimum, Christian; just holding on; not quite giving up Christ, but no more. And then a step farther: to be fretful under and rebellious against the appointment of the Father, Who guided us to the position, or converted us in it, and has not yet seen fit to open a way out.

3. No. First, is there any sin in remaining in the present position? If there is, then duty is plain: at all costs get out of it. But if not,as seems likely from the fact that God does not open a way out,until He does, that is a mans place, as before God. Christ, the Lord of his life, wants him there for the presentthere and nowhere else. To be the light there, the salt, the leaven. For the testing, the moral probation, perhaps the salvation, of some set over him, or in daily association with him. Where He puts a man, converts him, keeps him, there it is possible to live near to God (1Co. 7:24), and to exemplify and honour the Christian profession. [Said a wise mother to her boy, smitten with some boyish longing to be something (other than his apprenticed trade) which had smitten his fancy, and who urged, I shall never do any good at; if I were only put to, then I should do well. Thou has nothing to do but to be what thou is.Known to H. J. F.] If it be only difficulty, not sin, that is involved, there is no insuperable barrier to being very holy under any conditions. Conversion in them, no providential way out of them offering itself, set up fair presumption that God says, Stay there as My witness. I am with thee always. Abide there with Me. The slave, the circumcised man, the uncircumcised man, the Christian wife of a heathen husband, can glorify, and enjoy, God where they are.

II. Accept thankfully Gods providential relief.Use it.

1. The moment He sees that the sevenfold heat of the furnace can, and need, no longer be borne, He will, depend upon it, open the door. Then Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-nego, should use their opportunity. Their work for God in the furnace is done; now they are called to continue their work for Him outside. Paul had learnedhe wrote from a Roman dungeonin whatever state therewithwith dungeon and daily peril from Neros capricious, cruel justiceto be content (Php. 4:11). Yet when the prison doors were opened, there would have been no contentment in not coming out to the wider field, larger opportunities, greater comfort, outside.

2. Whilst under the pressure of the difficulty, nothing forbids earnest, childlike, submissive prayer that a way out may, if it please God, be found or shown; especially if the difficulty verge upon sinful conditions, and an impossibility of retaining the favour of God or being holy.

III. The relief, the release, is to be used, not for our own comfort, but for Christ.The free man, or the liberated, is not his own master. He belongs to Christ (1Co. 7:22). His liberty gives the opportunity of a self-devotion to Christ, unfettered by conditions or the rule of another. If God take off the pressure from the Christian employ, or wife; if His providence set the feet in a large place after long straitness; grace will be needed to keep in the new conditions as really as in the old. The change means that He desires him to go on with his work for Christ somewhere else, which He chooses shall be more favourable. [Same principle as in the case of the freedom of the unmarried. Miss Havergal is a very ready-to-hand illustration of the consecrated leisure of an unmarried life (1Co. 7:34).] With none of the spirit of bondage, he must use his new positionperhaps its wealth after povertywith as strict a sense of obligation to his Master, as a slave is forced to recognise towards his. Every added privilegeliberty from persecution, from care, from a trying association, from an unhappy marriage,all is so much the more facility for serving the Lord Christ. Use it rather, but for Christ in all things.

IV. Be careful not to create bondage or difficulty for oneself.The free man is not voluntarily to become the slave of man [whether literally, or in a sense perhaps obliquely glancing at the Corinthian subjection to their party leaders] (1Co. 7:23). In self-created, self-incurred, difficulty or trial, there is still blessing and help, indeed; God never takes the attitude: There, I told you so. Now you must take the consequences. But there is no such claim to it as where the call finds and saves a man in the bondage. The young girl who does not marry in the Lord may lose her religion, or, at the best, has created for herself a bondage or a cross, perhaps for life. Let the Christian remember the dignity of the freedom which belongs to his status in Christ. He will not go into a partnership, or take up a calling or business, which will fetter him, and limit or destroy his freedom to serve Christ and be holy. Keep and use liberty rather. Ye are bought with a price. Your lifeyourselftoo precious to play into Devils hands, or to assume mans fetters in any sense.

1Co. 7:29-32. As not abusing it.An eruptive burst of solemnly intense feeling. On a higher level than the preceding and following verses. As if all such discussion of small points of prudential regulation were uncongenial. Brethren, I answer the questions of your letter. But why do I spendwhy do yeso much time and thought upon matters which if the Lord came, or life ended, would in an instant cease to have any importance for us. I answer you, but, above all, this I say, etc.

I. Two great considerations.

1. The time is short.

(1) The time has lengthened out to nearly twenty centuries! Yet there should be no haste to assume Paul to have been mistaken in expecting the Parousia during his own lifetime. Remember how closely Christ had associated His coming with the fall of Jerusalem; remember how, practically, the Lord does come to every man in his death-hour. Practically we are ever in the presence of His Coming.
(2) Short and has been shortened (so the Greek). Illustrate by the cell discovered when the French captured Madrid in 1808, and overhauled the Palace of the Inquisition. Its walls iron plates, removable; each night one taken out, and the opening closed up, till at last three only left; then one removed; two left, which closed fatally upon the prisoner. So Paul reminds us how the end is being made to close in upon us; nor have we the power to stay this constant narrowing in of our opportunity for making ready to meet our Lord. Every night, and another wall has been removed; our space by that much the narrower, our time shortened by a day.

(3) That prisoner might count his days, and, if that were his temperament, might give himself up to some employment, reckoning with all human certainty upon such-and-such a margin of time, and regarding the inevitable end lightly until it was actually upon him. Our danger is that, knowing nothing whether one day or a thousand be ours, and believing (with more or less of reality of faith) that any mistake will be irreparable, we should so give up ourselves to home (1Co. 7:29), pleasure (1Co. 7:30), business (ib.), as to find the end upon us, and ourselves unprepared for the Lord.

(4) Time never seems short until gone, and too late to repair an error. True of some temperaments more than others. The special danger of young hearts. Time stretches away in such a long, long vista that no end is seen at all. Sir Philip Sidney hits off that characteristic in a well-known description of a pastoral landscape in his Arcadia, book i. [Describes proudly high hills with stately trees; humble valleys with silver rivers; meadows enamelled with flowers; thickets full of well-tuned birds; and concludes:] Here a shepherds boy piping, as though he should never be old.

(5) Yet not the danger of young people only and of inexperienced ages of life. The danger of every eager, active nature. Older men, with their half-century or more behind them, are found planning and working and hoping, on a scale and with an intensity which seems to count on staying here for ever. It is the secular temper always. A worthy, noble side to it. The restless, untiring, hopeful, inventive energy, to the last planning something new or larger, is a witness to a nature in man made for a larger life than the earthly. Such men vindicate for man a nature which can only in an eternity find room for its development and activity. [True, there is eternity for a harvest, but the sowing-time has each day been shortened, with solemn inevitableness.]

2. The fashion passeth away.

(1) Pauls word suggests all the incessant change of men and circumstances in our busy life, as the change of scenes and action and business in a great stage-play. The Christian is as much an actor in the ever-shifting scene as any other. But. Paul asks men to moderate their eagerness by doing what is so hard to do: Come off the stage for a few moments. Be a spectator, a critic, instead of an actor. See how things change, and how fast they change! See how little they all mean when the play is over!

(2) [Of course his word only slightly connected with fashion in dress. Yet illustrate by it.] Take up book of old fashion-plates! How you laugh! How grotesque! Yet those odd, absurd dresses were to many objects of life-absorbing, soul-destroying, interest once. Odd that the actors should lose life over the dress in which they play their parts. You think so? Look, thenlaugh, learn! In an old library, you come across dusty bundle of old political pamphlets and election literature. Dry as dust! Yet all England once rang from end to end with that strife. Never heard of many of these names. Yet they once were on every lip; around them raged the fiercest party feeling. Yourselves remember some old political contest; to-day you wonder, laugh, at the eagerness you felt. Learn, then, to measure the real importance of the present-day Act of the Drama. Men are losing their souls over it. Yet it is the merest stage-play passion and business, passing away. Or, remove from a town, long your place of residence. How soon the newspaper becomes uninteresting. How small the play they are acting there, the little personages, of whom fewer and fewer are known to you! Difficult to keep up correspondence with a friend there; you soon drift into different worlds. As to all the drama of the towns life, its busy world of buying, selling, marrying, burying, weeping, rejoicing,you soon find yourself very much off the stage. It seems thin; but to the actors on those boards there is danger lest they be so swallowed up in it as to forget the end.

(3) In truth, we cannot be only spectators. Whether we will or not, we change with the changing scene. Loves, friendship, habits,all change. We ought to take our part. The passages and personages in the daily drama have their importance. They are our work. The stage is our place, for the time.

(4) But we are not to forget, amidst the bustle of the acting and the shifting of the scenery, or the interest of the drama, that all is passingthe play and the actorsand the coming of the Lord is drawing near. Not to let this stage-play of a life make us forget that the world of eternity is the world of reality, and that its first fact is the Coming and Assize of the Lord and Judge.

II. A great rule for conduct

1. Not abusing it, or, more exactly, not using it to the full. [Illustrate by child with hand thrust into narrow-necked jar of filberts. Hand too full to allow of its being drawn out again. Child too greedy to take smaller handful.] Others besides children make the mistake, and need the lesson. Use the world; you must, you shall; its work is duty. Home has legitimate claims. No reason in religion why a man should feel no natural sorrow or joy. God gave the heart that feels, and the dear ones who give the joy, or, in their removal, cause the anguish. Be the good business man God made you. Some things indeed are out of all question; no place possible for them in a Christian life at all. But for the rest, take care! Do not fill your hand too full! Not quite as full as in the abstract perhaps you might, lest the world get grip upon your heart till you cannot get release at will. Do, enjoy, a little less than is lawful. Keep well within the limit; keep yourself free. Not to the full! [Paul saw how the comforts, pleasures, cares, responsibilities, of home might so steal away, or swallow up, the whole man, as to leave little time, and less and less energy, for the kingdom of God. Men are paralysed with sorrow or stupefied into uselessness; or nurse grief till it becomes a reason for doing less, or nothing, for the Lord, if, indeed, they are not soured and made rebellious towards Him. The very joy in the abundance of Gods gifts may ensnare hearts, until the outlook, the future, the Coming, is forgotten. Danger in buying and selling, whether successfully or unsuccessfully.] [R. Cecil said, I want to see no more sea, hills, fields, valleys, abbeys, castles; I feel vanity pervading everything but eternity and its concerns, and perceive these things to be suited to children. The weakness and the strength of the Evangelical school there. The weakness; repellant, e.g., to such as Kingsley (compare, in Wesleys Journal, his vivid interest in everything). The strength; This one thing I do.] When first go to stay by seaside one sound always in ones ears. Amidst the merry play of the children, behind the music of the shore, in the background of conversation, or reading, or dreamy thoughtthe roar of the waves. By-and-by we get accustomed to it, and forget it. The spirit of Pauls outburst is: Dont be unpractical. Dont be unhealthily ascetic. No need to wish, or to try, not to take part in life. But behind all do not lose out of your ears and thoughts the ocean of Eternity, and the coming of the Lord which launches you upon it.

1Co. 7:6. (Connect with 1Co. 7:12; 1Co. 7:25, and 2Co. 8:8-10.)

Permission and Commandment. A Bible-class Talk

Does not Paul say plainly that he writes some things without the help of the Holy Ghost, and simply on his own responsibility? For example? I speak this by permission, not of commandment; and, more plainly (1Co. 7:12), to the rest speak I, not the Lord; and further (1Co. 7:25), I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment, etc. As to 1Co. 7:6, the difficulty only lies in the English phrase employed. [R.V. makes this perfectly plain.] 2Co. 8:8; 2Co. 8:10 also uses [what are really in Greek] the same phrases, and where the meaning, even in English, is clearer. Paul is making a great Relief collection for poor Christians at Jerusalem. The Corinthians are not too well disposed towards him, and (1Co. 7:20) perhaps a little suspicious about all this money-getting. He had foregone his right to maintenance amongst them, lest there should be any chance for any one to say that he made a gain of them or of the Gospel (chap. 9). So here he will not command them to finish up the collection, but gives his deliberately formed advice, guided by the Spirit of God; [for when he says (1Co. 7:40), I think that I also have the Spirit of God, there is no doubt in I think, but only a modestly restrained expression of perfect assurance.] Explain similarly 1Co. 7:6 and its paragraph. In this whole matter of marrying, I do not speak by way of commandment. I do not say Marry, for it seems to me just now expedient, because of the present and impending evils of the Church, that a man should have as few ties and responsibilities as possible. But I do not say, Do not marry; as an apostle I give you full permission to marry if you wish. Is that clear? Yes; but go on to 1Co. 7:10. Well, next he forbids frivolous, capricious separation between husband and wife, such as was a common scandal in Greece and Rome. I command that there be none of this, he says. And then, to make this important point more emphatic, he backs up his own Apostolic judgment with the express words of the Lord Jesus Christ on this very matter (Mar. 10:11-12). He adds, therefore, But here the Lord commands as well as I. There is no hope that disobedience will be blameless. But (1Co. 7:12) to the restthe unmarried and the widowsI only say that they are prayerfully and soberly to follow their own judgment of what is prudent or necessary. There is no express word of Christ on record as to this particular point. Now 1Co. 7:25 will present no difficulty. Does he mean to say that, as to the marriage of their young women, he has no express command of Christ on record, or in the Apostolic oral report of the life of Jesus to fall back upon, but that he once more gives his decision as one found worthy to be entrusted with an apostles commission and grace?H. J. F., Wesleyan Methodist Sunday-School Magazine, 1876, p. 131 (condensed).

[Farrar, in loc., reflects another type of estimate of Paul: In the abstract, somewhat hesitatingly, and with the confession that he is not sure of his ground, and is therefore offering no authoritative decision, St. Paul on the whole agrees with those who regarded celibacy as the only perfect form of life. In a footnote he adds: The chapter is the best manual for the ductor dubitantium, because it teaches him that he must not give himself airs of certainty on points where certainty is not to be had (Maurice, Unity, p. 429).]

[Bearing on this point are 1Co. 7:10; 1Co. 7:12; 1Co. 7:17; 1Co. 7:25; 1Co. 7:39; 1Co. 4:1; 1Co. 4:17; 1Co. 10:15; 1Co. 11:23 (1Co. 12:3; 1Co. 11:3); 1Co. 14:37 (my words are the words of Christ), 1Co. 15:3 (2Co. 1:24), (1Co. 10:8-9); also 1Th. 4:2; 1Th. 5:27; Col. 4:16.]

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Butlers Comments

SECTION 1

The Purity of Marriage (1Co. 7:1-9)

7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 6I say this by way of concession, not of command. 7I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

1Co. 7:1 a Provocation for This Discussion: Paul was not married when he wrote this epistle to the Corinthians (see 1Co. 7:7-8). Many people have difficulty accepting advice on marriage from a bachelor. It is possible that Paul had previously been married. Some scholars think Paul implies a former marriage by his question in 1Co. 9:5 about his right to be accompanied by a wife as other apostles did. It is doubtful that he could have been a member of the Sanhedrin (if he was) had he been unmarried. This chapter does seem to be written by someone who knew by experience the intimacies and problems of married life. He may have been a widower. And no one has ever glorified marriage more than the apostle Paul (cf. Eph. 5:22-23). His great tribute to Timothys mother and grandmother shows something of the esteem with which he looked upon marriage and the home. But whether he was married or not makes no difference. He was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and therefore what he teaches, even about marriage, is to be believed, trusted and obeyed.

The Christians of Corinth had previously written to Paul asking questions about sexuality and marriage. These questions would have been provoked by their constant exposure to three conflicting ideologies in respect to sexuality and marriage: (1) Jewish Christians in the Corinthian church would consider celibacy inimical to godliness. The idea of not marrying was so foreign to the Jewish mentality that the Old Testament does not even have a word for bachelor. The godly life for the Jew meant not only marriage, but children; (2) Apparently there was already some kind of Christian asceticism or monasticism among some Christians at Corinth. They believed that the most spiritual people were those who were celibates. Some were teaching that those who abstained from physical marriage were the holiest of people, and if men and women insisted on marriage they should unite only in a spiritual marriage, a sort of Christian brother-sister platonic relationship. Such a marriage would not permit sexual intercourse. Paul warned Timothy that such a teaching was a denial of the faith and demonic in origin (1Ti. 4:1-5). The same apostle wrote, Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled . . . (Heb. 13:4), and, . . . each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor . . . (1Th. 4:4). This has been an ever recurring departure from scriptural truth. One large segment of Christendom today teaches that celibacy is the holiest state of all and that those who minister must be unmarried; (3) and finally, these Christians of Corinth were trying to practice the holiness of the gospel surrounded by the loose and wicked morals of Greco-Roman culture. Rape, fornication, homosexuality and other perversions were glorified in the theatre and in the cultic religions of that world. From the context of this chapter, it appears these three cultural factors provoked the Christians at Corinth to write to the apostle for his inspired guidance.

1Co. 7:1 b 1Co. 7:2 Pressure of Desire: Pauls statement, It is well for a man not to a touch a woman . . . uses the Greek present middle infinitive, haptesthai, for the word touch. This word, in the middle voice, would be more accurately translated, cling to, fasten oneself to, assimilate to oneself. In other words, Paul is not stating that men should never touch a woman at allhe was revealing (because of stressful circumstances at the time he wrote) that the wisest thing for a man to do was not fasten himself to a woman in marriage. Pauls command, as is clear later in the context, hinges entirely on the circumstances Christians were about to face in the Roman persecutions (1Co. 7:26).

But there is an even stronger stress that might override the dreadful separation of husband and wife by martyrdom. That stress would be the drive to fulfill the human sexual urge (1Co. 7:2; 1Co. 7:5; 1Co. 7:9; 1Co. 7:36). God created the sexual drive in mankind, and it is good so long as it is fulfilled within biblically sanctioned marriage. So Paul writes, But because of fornication (the word for temptation is not in the Greek text), each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. Sexual immorality (fornication) was not only practiced almost universally in first century Greco-Roman society, it was glorified in art and religion. Paul plainly states that one, (if not the one) primary reason for marriage is to guard against succumbing to the temptation for illicit sexual intercourse! He reemphasizes this in 1Co. 7:8-9. The Greek verb echeto, translated have, is in the imperative mood, and means Paul is giving a command herenot simply making a suggestion. Now, of course, Paul did not think relaxation from the temptation to illicit sexual intercourse was the only basis upon which Christian marriage is founded. He certainly emphasizes agape (Godlike love) (see Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19) in marriage. The Bible also indicates that human marriage is to serve the even higher spiritual goal of exemplifying to the world the commitment and intimate relationship of believers to Christ (cf. Eph. 5:22-33; Isa. 54:4-8; Isa. 62:1-5; Eze. 16:1-34; Hosea, chapters 13). On the other hand, it may surprise even Christians to know that the Bible says little about a man and a woman loving one another as a prerequisite to marriage. The Bible says a great deal about love within a marriage. In the Old Testament marriages were most often arranged by godly parents. The young couple then married and learned to love one another during the marriage. Most of them never went through the alleged experience of falling in love before marriage, Love is not an accident. No one falls into love. True love is from the willnot from the emotions. True love is caring and doing good for another even when one does not feel like caring. A man or woman must know what love is and how to love before marrying or the marriage will fail. Love doesnt happenit is not something one waits to experienceit is something done, something practiced.

The apostles statement that each should have his own wife or husband incidentally eliminates polygamy as a Christian option. Paul did not mean that every man and woman must marry since he cites celibacy as the most viable choice in light of first century circumstances (1Co. 7:26).

1Co. 7:3-7 Practical Direction: Paul here reinforces his teaching that the pressure of sexual desire is the main reason to seek marriage. The Greek words Paul used to give directions about sexual needs in marriage are interesting. Literally, he would say, To the wife let the husband pay the good affection due her, and likewise also the wife to the husband. The Greek word apodidoto (pay) is an imperative verb and is therefore a command. The use of the word pay implies obligation. The word eunoian is a Greek word literally meaning, well-minded but is here used to connote (as 1Co. 7:4 indicates) the conjugal duties involved in marriage. God instituted marriage as the state in which man and woman are privileged to fulfill sexual desires. But within that state there are also certain duties! When God created man he saw that it was not good for man to be alone so he created woman (see Gen. 1:27-28; Gen. 2:18-25). It is clear from Pauls instruction here that sexual intercourse within marriage is not sinful, and is not restricted to procreative purposes. Sexual intercourse, as befits a happy, godly and uninhibited marriage, is the God-ordained right of each partner in a marriage. Less than this (especially for a Christian) is to miss the mark of Gods will. Marriage is Gods practical way for men and women to enjoy their sexual desire in wisdom, health (both physical and psychological) and social order. Any other application of the human sexual drive results (as history verifies) in mental and physical sickness and social chaos.

In 1Co. 7:4 Paul states a principle which is at variance with modern self-assertion hucksters. J. B. Phillips translates, The wife has no longer full rights over her own person, but shares them with her husband. In the same way the husband shares his personal rights with his wife. In the Greek text the word used is exousiazei, and is literally, authority. That is stronger than the English translation, full rights. It could be translated rule. In marriage each partner surrenders to be ruled by the other. Paul specifies this in regard to their bodies (Gr. somatos), but in other epistles he applies it to the whole realm of married life (cf. Eph. 5:21 ff.; Col. 3:18-19). In marriage, both husband and wife give up exclusive rights to their own bodies (and lives), agreeing to share them fully and freely with their partner. The happiest marriages are those characterized by complete liberty, few inhibitions, and absence of any guilt complex about sexuality within the will of God. The cause of much marital trouble today is selfishness, not only, but certainly foremost, in the area of sexuality. The Greek word exousiazei is in the present tense indicating that this reciprocal surrendering of husband and wife to one another is a continuing and permanent relationship. The New Testament teaches that marriage was intended by God to be a permanent relationship between one man and one woman in which the two, by surrendering all personal rights to one another, become one.

Pauls teaching here should convince anyone that he was not a Woman-hating antagonist of marriage nor victorian in his attitude toward sexuality in marriage. He may have been a bachelor all his life; he definitely believed he was led by God to advise celibacy, because of the exigencies of the times, for those who could endure the single life. But he does not enjoin bachelorhood or celibacy as an absolute commandment of God.

In 1Co. 7:5 Paul states one exception to the sexual responsibilities of Christian husbands and wives. But even in this one exception Paul is quick to limit sexual abstinence lest Satan tempt a man or a woman through lack of self-control! Once again, emphasis is placed on marriage as Gods primary provision for the controlled practice of the human sexual drive. The apostles one exception is in case one of the partners in a marriage wants to devote himself completely to prayer. But Paul warns against any lengthy abstinence even for prayer! The RSV translates the Greek word apostereite, Do not refuse one another. . . . The KJV translates it, Defraud ye not one the other. . . . Actually the Greek word is more emphatic than refuseit is often translated, rob, despoil, defraud, leave destitute. The idea is that lengthy abstinence by one married partner in sexual intimacy will leave the other partner robbed, defrauded and destitute, and clearly vulnerable to Satans temptation to illicit sexual gratification. This, too, is an apostolic command, for the Greek verb apostereite is in the imperative mood. There may come times when a personal time for seeking the Lord comes before the one dearest on earth (ones spouse), but only for a limited time. Church work cannot be used as an excuse for neglecting ones marriage. What is accomplished for the kingdom of God if ones marriage partner is tempted and lost?

The English word concession (RSV) in 1Co. 7:6 is not a good translation of the Greek word sungnomen. The Greek literally means, to think the same as. In 2Ma. 14:31 it is translated aware. It could be translated, with understanding. To translate the word concession or permission (KJV) implies that the rigid apostolic standard in human sexuality was celibacy but that Paul would concede to the less holy relationship of marriage by bending the revelation of the Holy Spirit slightly. But that cannot be correct. To Paul marriage was God-ordained. What Paul is saying here is precisely the same thing the Lord said to the Twelve in Perea (see Mat. 19:1-12). Paul was aware that the majority of humanity would never have the gift to remain celibate without being tempted to fornication. He was writing with understanding of that fact and so, he declared, I wish that all were as I myself (celibate) am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of anotherand I do not say that celibacy is an absolute command of God.

Jesus made plain the high ideal for human marriage (Mat. 19:3-9) and his disciples jumped to the hasty conclusion that every man should be celibate (Mat. 19:10-12). Jesus replied, Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. He said there were a few men who had to be celibate because of circumstances beyond their control; and there were a few men who were able to remain celibate by their own choice, for the sake of the kingdom of God. But Jesus recognized that most men are not able to receive the condition of celibacy. Jesus made it plain that celibacy is not a matter of divine commandment but a matter of capability. Here (1Co. 1:6-7) Paul says celibacy is a matter of being gifted (Gr. charisma). . . . But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. . . . Some people have charisma to remain celibate and some people have charisma to marry. The word special as in the RSV, or the word proper as in KJV, is not in the Greek text. Celibacy is not a special gift like speaking in a foreign language, prophesying, interpreting, healing, etc. (see I Cor. ch. 1214). It is apparently an innate ability. Regarding the matter of celibacy (Mat. 19:10-12) Matthew reports Jesus as saying, ho dunamenos chorein choreito, the one with the ability to have this, let him have it! There are some with the ability and some who do not have it. When God made man, he saw that it was not good for man to dwell alone so he made a helper fit for him (Gen. 2:18). Some people may be able to find completion and fulfillment without a marriage partnerbut not many. Applebury states the meaning of 1Co. 7:6-7 clearly: Each one has his own gift from God; for one it may be the gift of continence; for another it may be the ability to bear patiently and lovingly the responsibilities of the home with Christian consideration for the other partner. Those who have innate ability to remain celibate in life apparently do not have the ability to deal with the responsibilities of married life. This text, incidentally, proves that the word charisma does not always refer to special, miraculous gifts. There are some gifts from God (Gr. charisma) with which individuals are born (see Rom. 12:4-13). God gives every human being some charisma! In special, miraculous gifts men exercised no decisions; these gifts came by divine intervention of the natural order; they were exercised by the operation of the Holy Spirit. But in the matter of marriage or celibacy, it is clear men are called upon to make their own choice, based upon the teachings of the apostles and their own evaluations of their innate capabilities.

1Co. 7:8-9 Passion Disciplined: Paul addresses the remarks in these verses to the unmarried males (Greek, agamois, masculine, dative, plural, noun) and to the widows (Greek, cherais, feminine, dative plural, noun). It is addressed to unmarried males because in ancient times only men were allowed to take the initiative in choosing marriage partners. Unmarried males could mean either bachelors or widowers. Paul, under the direction of the Holy Spirit (see 1Co. 7:40), states it would be well (Gr. kalon) for anyone unmarried at that time (for reasons of the impending distress 1Co. 7:26) to remain even as he was. Paul does not say in the text that he was unmarried. The Greek text is, kalon autois estin ean meinosin hos kago, or well for them it is if they remain as I also am being. We assume he was single from the context. Some think Paul had been previously married and was a widower at the writing of I Corinthians. In stating that celibacy would be good, Paul is not saying that marriage would be bad. There seem to be only two reasons Paul has for celibacy being goodbecause of the impending distress and because the celibate is able to concentrate more fully on the things of the kingdom of God than the married person is (1Co. 7:25-35).

Paul is quick, however, to qualify his statement that celibacy is good. Celibacy is good only if a person is able to exercise sexual self-control. The Greek phrase is: ei de ouk enkrateuontai, gamesatosan, or, However, if they have no self-control, let them marry. The Greek verb enkrateuontai means literally, continuing power within since it is in the present tense. There can be no doubt that the power within is self-control over sexual impulses. The context demands that interpretation, The apostolic wisdom in the matter is: It is better (Gr. kreisson, more profitable) to marry than to be inflamed. There is no word for passion in the Greek text as in the RSV translation. There is only the word purousthai in the Greek text which literally means, to burn. Again, the context demands we interpret Paul to mean burn with sexual passion. For those able to live a constant life of sexual sublimation, the unmarried state is good. But for those who cannot, it is more profitable to marry.

Paul wrote to the young evangelist (we presume Timothy was unmarried) that the theology which forbade marriage was a theology departing from the faithin other words, apostasy (1Ti. 4:3). In a later section of this chapter we will be asking whether Pauls statement to Timothy means no one has the right to forbid marriage to those never previously married, or does it mean that no one has the right to forbid marriage to any one in an unmarried state regardless of past circumstances. But one thing is certain, Paul agrees with the rest of Biblical teaching that marriage is a godly estate.

Marriage is the only human relationship in which sexual intercourse is approved by God! The person who cannot sublimate sexual urges, fulfilling them in something higher, should get married. It should be noted that Paul advises marriage when it is first apparent that a person is not able to control sexual urgesnot after sexual experimentation has occurred. This may seem to some that Paul is taking a rather crude view of marriage. But Paul enunciates some of the highest ideals and purposes for marriage in all the Bible (cf. Eph. 5:21 ff.). What Paul says in our text here shows that God is aware of the significance and power of human sexuality. The sexual urge in mankind, if not the strongest, is certainly one of the most powerful. And that is undoubtedly Gods will in order to motivate man to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth (cf. Gen. 1:28; Gen. 9:1, etc.). The Greek word gamesatosan is in the imperative mood in this text. That is more than a suggestion; they should marry is an apostolic command! It is crucial to later comments on remarriage that this command be remembered. Certainly, those who have once been married and later widowed or divorced would be as apt to burn with passion as those who have never been married. If those who once were married now burn with passion in an unmarried state, it would be better for them, too, to get married. It does not seem in keeping with Gods grace to forbid divorced persons to remarry, placing them in the position of burning with passion until they engage in illicit sexual intercourse.

Appleburys Comments

Things About Which They had Written (19)

Commentary

Now concerning things whereof ye wrote.Up to this point Paul had been writing about things that had been reported to him by those of the house of Chloe. These things were division, neglect of duty in relation to moral issues, going to court before pagan judges, and the abuse of the body which the Lord intended to be a temple of the Holy Spirit.

The Corinthians, evidently desiring additional information on certain matters, had written to the apostle. Was this in response to what he had taught in the lost epistle or was it because they felt a need for more information than they had received when he was present with them? There is no good way for us to answer these thought provoking questions. Interpretation of his answers does not depend on our knowledge of what prompted them to ask for the information.

They were concerned about the problem of marriage. We can not be sure just what other questions were asked, but it may be that the rest of the book is given over to the answer of their questions. It is possible, of course, that their only question was about marriage. The rest of the book, then, is additional help which he knew they needed as they faced the problems of their day. We might also ask if chapters twelve through fifteen come under the heading of things about which they had written? In all probability they do, but we cannot be sure. The expression, now concerning is an indication that all this section may have been written in response to their letter. See 1Co. 7:1; 1Co. 7:25; 1Co. 8:1; 1Co. 12:1; 1Co. 16:1.

The topics discussed in this section pertain to marriage, idolatry, worship, the Lords supper, spiritual gifts, the resurrection, and the collection for the saints.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman.The question back of this answer was something like this: Is it commendable for a Christian not to marry? Or it may have been framed like this: Is it better to remain unmarried than to assume the responsibilities of marriage in this time of distress. The answer is: It is commendable for a man not to touch a woman. This is to those who had never married. It simply states that the unmarried state is commendable. It does not say that the unmarried state is superior to the married state or that there is anything wrong about marriage, for marriage is honorable (Heb. 13:4).

But, because of fornication.The low state of morals in Corinth was well known. Pauls answer takes this into consideration as well as what he had just written in chapters five and six on the subject. This is not to say that the only reason for getting married is to avoid immoral relationships. Some have taken this as an indication of Pauls low estimate of marriage. On the contrary, we should remember what he wrote to the Ephesians on the subject (Eph. 5:22-23). See also 2Co. 11:1-3. The relation of husband to wife is like that of Christ to the church. The husband is to love his wife, and the wife is to be faithful to her own husband. No one has ever glorified marriage more than the apostle Paul.

Two things were faced by the church at Corinth that led to Pauls answer: (1) the prevalence of the sin of fornication, and (2) the fact that some of them did not have the gift of continence such as he had.

each man his own wife, each woman her own husband.Paul upholds the original standard for the home as seen in Gen. 2:18-25. He most assuredly forbids immoral conduct. Faithfulness to the marriage vows is required of both husband and wifenothing one-sided about this. Each one has an obligation to the other. The husband is to give to the wife what he owes her, and the wife is to give to the husband what she owes to him. This regulation points to the cause of so much marital troubleselfishness on the part of husband or of wife. While Paul is speaking in this context about sex, the problem is far greater than that one issue. It involves every relationship of husband and wife. In lowliness of mind each counting other better than self is a principle that would save many a marriage (Php. 2:3). When each partner is concerned about the other more than self, the problems of married life are greatly reduced.

power over her own body, power over his own body.How many think about this when they enter into the marriage contract? As to the Christians body, Paul said, you are not your own. The body is the Lords. As to partners in marriage, neither husband nor wife can say, I have the right over my own body. That right, Paul declares, belongs to the other partnerthe wife over the husbands body and the husband over the wifes body. With selfishness excluded and love serving as the guiding principle of married life, this is an ideal arrangement. It cannot be safely ignored except at the peril of the marriage itself. Paul adds, Defraud not one another. Do some husbands or some wives cheat in this matter? Check the divorce records for the answer.

except it be by consent for a season.An exception to the principle just announced is granted. This exception, however, is under rigid regulations. It must be by mutual consent and for a holy purpose, and it can be for a limited time only. Selfishness is ruled out. This cant be a whim of either partner; both are to agree to it. Where love for each other and unselfishness govern the actions of husband and wife, such agreement should not be difficult to arrange.

that ye may give yourselves unto prayer.Just what situation would make it desirable for husband or wife to be relieved of the home responsibilities in order to give ones self to prayer is not stated. It may be entirely personal, for the Lord must come before even the dearest one in the earthly relationship. But the need to be alone in prayer is not to be prolonged indefinitely; it is for a limited time only. It would be quite easy for a selfish person to pretend that his desire to attend to religious duties is adequate reason for avoiding responsibilities that belong to the home life. God ordained both the home and the church relationship, and it is not necessary to neglect one to care for the other except, as Paul indicates, for a brief season.

Prayer in the home by both husband and wife is essential to the best relationship in the home. Children should be reared in the atmosphere of prayer. They should learn that prayer is the holy privilege which God gives to His children to talk to Him at any time about anything anywhere. This puts a grave responsibility on parents to conduct themselves and their families in such a manner that they can really pray together. A quarreling family, a nagging wife, or an abusive husband will make it utterly impossible to maintain an atmosphere of prayer about the home.
There are times when each person needs to be alone with his God. Jesus often withdrew alone to a quiet place to pray. If Our Lord needed this quiet time for meditation and prayer, how much more do we need it? Paul recognized such a need, but he reminded the church that this did not free them from other responsibilities within the family. After the brief time that was mutually agreed upon, husband and wife were to be together again.

that Satan tempt you not.Satans power to temp either husband or wife is an important factor in all that Paul has said on the expediency of marriage. Lack of self-control in sexual matters is Satans invitation to attack. The wise husband or the wise wife will guard the one he or she loves to prevent this from happening. Sex can become the most degrading thing in the experience of man and woman, but when it is controlled by Christian love and an unselfish spirit, it can became a beautiful relationship which God has granted to husband and wife.

concession, not commandment.What Paul has said about agreement as to a time of prayer is not be taken as a command. It is permissive. It is left to the intelligence of husband and wife. Perhaps no two people are alike in their ability to exercise self-control in these matters. No general command could be given to regulate such periods of devotion to prayer. Therefore the apostles says that this suggestion is a matter of concession, not commandment.

I would that all men were even as I myself.Paul evidently is referring to his gift of continence which was a gift from God. This in no way condemns another who may not possess such a gift. Each one has his own gift from God; for one it may be the gift of continence; for another it may be the ability to bear patiently and lovingly the responsibilities of the home with Christian consideration for the other partner.

Jesus mentioned those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake (Mat. 19:12). This is undoubtedly the same gift that Paul possessed. He was content to give all his time and concern to the preaching of the word of the cross. He in no way, however, leaves room for one to assume that he was not entirely in favor of marriage within the regulations of the Lord.

This passage is sometimes used to raise the question about Pauls marital status. Was Paul a married man when he wrote this? Had he ever been married? We have no good answer to these questions. Some assume that his remark about giving his consent to the death of Stephen (Act. 22:20) meant that he was a member of the Sanhedrin and that would require him to be a married man. There is no real evidence that he was ever a member of that body. He could have agreed to what was being done without being an official. He mentions his right to lead about a wife that is a believer (1Co. 9:5), but this does not indicate that he was or ever had been married. It seems quite certain that he was not accompanied by a wife at the time of his writing to the Corinthians.

Pauls great love for Timothy (1Ti. 1:2) and his beautiful tribute to Timothys home background show something of the esteem with which he looked upon home ties.

Whether he was married or not makes no difference in what he teaches on the subject for he writes as the apostle of Christ. Hence what he says is Christs teaching given through His inspired apostle.

to the unmarried and to widows.This returns to the question about which they had written: Is it commendable not to marry? The answer, given after explaining regulations for marriage, is yes. Later in this chapter he discusses the situation which the Corinthians faced that had a bearing on his answer. They were living in times of distress. If, however, they did not possess the God-given gift of continence he says, Let them marry. In other words, they are not to assume that there is something superior about refraining from marriage; marriage is commendable and so also is the unmarried state.

better to marry than to burn.The burning desire of one who does not possess the gift of continence is to be quenched within the God-given regulations for husband and wife, not in the sinful practice of fornication. See notes on 1Co. 6:16.

Text

1Co. 7:10-24. But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband 11 (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife. 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. 13 And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband. 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. 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. 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? 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 the churches. 18 Was any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. 21 Wast thou called being a bondservant? care not for it: nay, even if thou canst become free, use it rather. 22 For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lords freedman: likewise he that was called being free, is Christs bondservant. 23 Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men. 24 Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Chapter 7

COMPLETE ASCETICISM ( 1Co 7:1-2 )

7:1-2 With regard to your letter and its suggestion that it would be a fine thing for a man not to have anything to do with a woman–to avoid fornication, let each man possess his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

We have already seen that in Greek thought there was strong tendency to despise the body and the things of the body; and that that tendency could issue in a position where men said, “The body is utterly unimportant; therefore we can do what we like with it and it makes no difference if we allow its appetites to have their fullest play.” But that very tendency could issue in a precisely opposite point of view. It could move a man to say, “The body is evil; therefore we must bring it into subjection; therefore we must completely obliterate, and if that is not possible, we must completely deny, all the instincts and desires which are natural to it.” It is that second way of looking at things with which Paul is dealing here. The Corinthians, or at least some of them, had suggested that, if a man was going to be a Christian in the fullest sense of the term, he must have done with physical things and must refuse to marry altogether.

Paul’s answer is extremely practical. In effect he says, “Remember where you are living; remember that you are living in Corinth where you cannot even walk along the street without temptation rearing its head at you. Remember your own physical constitution and the healthy instincts which nature has given you. You will be far better to marry than to fall into sin.”

This sounds like a low view of marriage. It sounds as if Paul is advising marriage in order to avoid a worse fate. In point of fact he is honestly facing the facts and laying down a rule which is universally true. No man should attempt a way of life for which he is naturally unfitted; no man should set out on a pathway whereby he deliberately surrounds himself with temptations. Paul knew very well that all men are not made the same. “Examine yourself,” he says, “and choose that way of life in which you can best live the Christian life, and don’t attempt an unnatural standard which is impossible and even wrong for you being such as you are.”

THE PARTNERSHIP OF MARRIAGE ( 1Co 7:3-7 )

7:3-7 Let the husband give to the wife all that is due to her; and in the same way let the wife give to the husband all that is due to him. A wife is not in absolute control of her own body, but her husband is. In the same way a husband is not in absolute control of his own body, but his wife is. Do not deprive each other of each other’s legitimate rights, unless it be by common agreement, and for a limited time. You could do so in order to have time for prayer and afterwards come together again; but you must come together again, so that Satan may not get the chance to tempt you because you find it impossible to control your desires. But I am giving this advice more as a concession than as a command. I wish that all men were like myself; but each man has his own gift from God, one one way, and another another.

This passage arises from a suggestion from Corinth that if married people are to be really Christian they must abstain from all intercourse with each other. This is another manifestation of that line of thought which looked on the body and its instincts as essentially evil. Paul declares a supremely great principle. Marriage is a partnership. The husband cannot act independently of the wife, nor the wife of the husband. They must always act together. The husband must never regard the wife simply as a means of self-gratification. The whole marriage relationship, both in its physical and spiritual sides, is something in which both are to find their gratification and the highest satisfaction of all their desires. In a time of special discipline, in a time of long and earnest prayer, it might be right to set aside all bodily things; but it must be by mutual agreement and only for a time, or it simply begets a situation which gives temptation an easy chance.

Once again Paul seems to belittle marriage. This, he suggests, is not an ideal command; it is a considerate concession to human weakness. He would prefer as an ideal that everyone was as he was. What exactly was that? We can only deduce.

We may be fairly certain that at some time Paul had been married. (i) We may be certain of that on general grounds. He was a Rabbi and it was his own claim that he had failed in none of the duties which Jewish law and tradition laid down. Now orthodox Jewish belief laid down the obligation of marriage. If a man did not marry and have children, he was said to have “slain his posterity,” “to have lessened the image of God in the world.” Seven were said to be excommunicated from heaven, and the list began, “A Jew who has no wife; or who has a wife but no children.” God had said, “Be fruitful and multiply,” and, therefore, not to marry and not to have children was to be guilty of breaking a positive commandment of God. The age for marriage was considered to be eighteen; and therefore it is in the highest degree unlikely that so devout and orthodox a Jew as Paul once was would have remained unmarried. (ii) On particular grounds there is also evidence that Paul was married. He must have been a member of the Sanhedrin for he says that he gave his vote against the Christians. ( Act 26:10). It was a regulation that members of the Sanhedrin must be married men, because it was held that married men were more merciful.

It may be that Paul’s wife died; it is even more likely that she left him and broke up his home when he became a Christian, so that he did indeed literally give up all things for the sake of Christ. At all events he banished that side of life once and for all and never remarried. A married man could never have lived the life of journeying which Paul lived. His desire that others ideally should be the same sprang entirely from the fact that he expected the Second Coming at once; time was so short that earthly ties and physical things must not be allowed to interfere. It is not that Paul is really disparaging marriage; it is rather that he is insisting that all a man’s concentration must be on being ready for the coming of Christ.

THE BOND THAT MUST NOT BE BROKEN ( 1Co 7:8-16 )

7:8-16 To the unmarried and to the widows I say, it would be a fine thing if they were to remain like myself, but if they find continence impossible, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to go on being inflamed with passion. To those who are married I give this order–and the order is not mine but the Lord’s–that a wife should not separate herself from her husband; but if she does separate, let her either remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband; and that a husband should not put his wife away. To others I say this–but I give it as my advice and not as a commandment of the Lord–if any brother has a wife who is not a believer, and she agrees to live with him, let him not put her away; and if there is any wife who has a husband who is not a believer, and he agrees to live with her, let her not put her husband away; for the unbelieving husband is consecrated by his wife and the unbelieving wife is consecrated by the husband who is a brother. If this were not so your children would not be cleansed; but as it is they are set apart for God. If the unbelieving partner wishes to separate, let him or her separate, for the Christian brother or sister in such cases is not under any slavish obligation. it is in peace that God has called us. Wife, how can you tell whether you will save your husband? Or, Husband, how can you tell whether you will save your wife?

This passage deals with three different sets of people.

(i) It deals with those who are unmarried or who are widows. In the circumstances of an age which, as Paul thought, was hastening to its end, they would be better to remain as they are; but once again, he warns them not to court temptation, not to attempt a situation which would be for them dangerous. If they have a nature naturally passionate, let them marry. Paul was always sure that no one could lay down one course of action for everyone. It all depended on the person involved.

(ii) It deals with those who are married. Paul forbids divorce on the ground that Jesus forbade it. ( Mar 10:9; Luk 16:18). If there is such a separation, he forbids remarriage. This may seem a hard doctrine, but in Corinth with its characteristic laxity, it was better to keep the standards so high that no taint of loose-living could enter the Church.

(iii) It deals with the marriage of believers and unbelievers. On this Paul has to give his own judgment, because there is no definite command of Jesus to which he can refer them. The background must be that there were those in Corinth who declared that a believer must never live with an unbeliever; and that, in the event of one partner of a marriage becoming a Christian and the other remaining a heathen, separation must at once follow.

In fact one of the great heathen complaints against Christianity was exactly that Christianity did break up families and was a disruptive influence in society. “Tampering with domestic relationships” was one of the first charges brought against the Christians. ( 1Pe 4:15). Sometimes the Christians did in fact take a very high stand. “Of what parents are you born?” the judge asked Lucian of Antioch. “I am a Christian,” Lucian answered, “and a Christian’s only relatives are the saints.”

Undoubtedly mixed marriages produced problems. Tertullian wrote a book about them in which he describes the heathen husband who is angry with his Christian wife because, “for the sake of visiting the brethren she goes round from street to street to other men’s cottages, especially those of the poor…. He will not allow her to be absent all night long at nocturnal convocations and paschal solemnities…or suffer her to creep into prison to kiss a martyr’s bonds, or even to exchange a kiss with one of the brethren.” (In the early Church Christians greeted each other with the holy kiss of peace). It is indeed difficult not to sympathize with the heathen husband.

Paul dealt with this problem with supreme practical wisdom. He knew the difficulty and he refused to exacerbate it. He said that if the two could agree to live together by all means let them do so; but if they wished to separate and found living together intolerable, let them do so, because the Christian was never meant to be a slave.

Paul has two great things to say which are of permanent value.

(i) He has the lovely thought that the unbelieving partner is consecrated by the believer. They two have become one flesh and the wonder is that in such a case it is not the taint of heathenism but the grace of Christianity which wins the victory. There is an infection about Christianity which involves all those who come into contact with it. A child born into a Christian home, even into a home where only one of the partners is a Christian, is born into the family of Christ. In a partnership between a believer and an unbeliever, it is not so much that the believer is brought into contact with the realm of sin, as that the unbeliever is brought into contact with the realm of grace.

(ii) He has the equally lovely thought that this very association may be the means of saving the soul of the unbelieving partner. For Paul evangelization began at home. The unbeliever was to be looked on, not as something unclean to be avoided with repulsion, but as another son or daughter to be won for God. Paul knew that it is blessedly true that often human love has led to love of God.

SERVING GOD WHERE GOD HAS SET US ( 1Co 7:17-24 )

7:17-24 The one thing that is necessary is that each man should walk as God has allotted to him and as God has called him. It is thus that I order things in all the Churches. Was any man called after he had been circumcised? Let him not try to efface it. Was any man called when he was not circumcised? Let him not get himself circumcised. Circumcision is of no importance and uncircumcision is of no importance, but keeping God’s commandments is everything. Let each man remain in the condition in which he was when God called him. Were you called as a slave? Do not let that distress you. But if you can become free, grasp the opportunity, for he who, in the Lord, was called as a slave is the Lord’s free man; and in the same way, the free man who has been called is Christ’s slave. You have been bought with a price. Do not become slaves of men. Brothers, let each man remain in the sight of God in the state in which he was called.

Paul lays down one of the first rules of Christianity, “Be a Christian where you are.” It must often have happened that when a man became a Christian he would have liked to break away from his job, and from the circle in which he moved, and begin a new life. But Paul insisted that the function of Christianity was not to give a man a new life, but to make his old life new. Let the Jew remain a Jew; let the Gentile remain a Gentile; race and the marks of race made no difference. What did make a difference was the kind of life he lived. Long ago the Cynics had insisted that a true man can never be a slave in nature although he may be a slave in status; and that a false man can never be a free man in reality but is always a slave. Paul reminds them that slave or free, a man is a slave of Christ because Christ bought him with a price.

Here there is a picture in Paul’s mind. In the ancient world it was possible for a slave at a great effort to purchase his own freedom. This was how he did it. In the little spare time he had, he took odd jobs and earned a few coppers. His master had the right to claim commission even on these poor earnings. But the slave would deposit every farthing he could earn in the Temple of some god. When, it might be at the end of years, he had his complete purchase price laid up in the Temple, he would take his master there, the priest would hand over the money, and then symbolically the slave became the property of the god and therefore free of all men. That is what Paul is thinking of. The Christian man has been purchased by Christ; therefore, no matter what his human status may be, he is free of all men because he is the property of Christ.

Paul insists that Christianity does not make a man kick over the traces and become querulously discontented with things as they are; it makes him, wherever he is, carry himself as the slave of Christ. Even the meanest work is no longer done for men but for Christ. As George Herbert wrote:

All may of thee partake;

Nothing can be so mean,

Which with this tincture, “for thy sake,”

Will not grow bright and clean.

A servant with this clause

Makes drudgery divine:

Who sweeps a room, as for, thy laws,

Makes that and the action fine.

This is the famous stone

That turneth all to gold;

For that which God doth touch and own

Cannot for less be told.

WISE ADVICE ON A DIFFICULT PROBLEM ( 1Co 7:25 ; 1Co 7:36-38 )

7:25,36-38 I have no command of the Lord with regard to virgins, but I give you my opinion, as one who has found the mercy of God and who can be trusted…. If anyone thinks that his conduct to his virgin is unseemly, if he finds that his passions are too strong, and if he thinks that they ought to marry, let him do what he wishes. He does no wrong; let them marry. But if any man is fixed and settled in his mind, and if there is no compulsion on him, but if he has complete power to abide by his own wish, and if in his mind he has come to the decision to keep his own virgin, he will do well. The thing comes to this–he who marries his virgin acts rightly; and he who does not marry her will do better.

1Co 7:25-38, while they form a paragraph, really fall into two parts, which it is simpler to examine separately. 1Co 7:25 and 1Co 7:36-38 deal with this problem concerning virgins; while the verses between give the reason for accepting the advice which runs through the whole chapter. This section concerning virgins has always been a problem. It has been given three different explanations.

(i) It has been regarded simply as advice to fathers as to the marriage of their unmarried daughters; but it does not read like that; and it is hard to see why Paul uses the word virgin if he means daughter; and for a father to speak of his virgin when he meant his daughter would be an odd way of speaking.

(ii) It has been regarded as dealing with a problem which in later times became acute and which more than one Church Council tried to deal with and forbade. Certainly later on it was the custom for a man and woman to live together, sharing the same house and even sharing the same bed, and yet to have no physical relations with each other at all. The idea was that if they could discipline themselves to share the spiritual life in such intimacy without allowing the body to enter into their relationship at all, it was a specially meritorious thing. We can understand the idea behind this, the attempt to cleanse human relationships of all passion; but it is clear how dangerous a practice it was, and how, on occasion, it must have resulted in a quite impossible situation. In such a relationship the woman was known as the man’s virgin. It may well be that that custom had arisen in the Church at Corinth. If so, and we think that it was so, then Paul is saying, “If you can retain this difficult situation, if your self-discipline and your self-control are sufficient to maintain it, then it is better to do so; but, if you have tried it and have found that it is too great a strain on human nature, then abandon it and marry; and to do so will be no discredit to you.”

(iii) While we think that is the correct interpretation of this passage, there is a modification of it which deserves to be noted. It is suggested that in Corinth there were men and women who had actually gone through the marriage ceremony but had decided never to consummate the marriage and to live in absolute continence so as to devote themselves entirely to the spiritual life. Having done so, it might well be that they discovered that what they planned to do placed too great a strain upon them. In that case, Paul would be saying, “If you can keep your vow, you will do supremely well; but if you cannot, frankly admit it and enter into normal relations with each other.”

To us the whole relationship seems dangerous and abnormal and even wrong; and so indeed it was; and in time the Church was compelled to brand it as wrong. But given the situation, Paul’s advice is full of wisdom. He really says three things.

(i) Self-discipline is an excellent thing. Any means whereby a man tames himself until he has every passion under perfect control is an excellent thing; but it is no part of Christian duty to eliminate the natural instincts of man; rather the Christian uses them to the glory of God.

(ii) Paul really says, “Don’t make an unnatural thing of your religion.” That, in the last analysis, is the fault of the monks and the hermits and the nuns. They regard it as necessary to eliminate the natural feelings of mankind in order to be truly religious; they regard it as necessary to separate themselves from all the normal life of men and women in order to serve God. But Christianity was never meant to abolish normal life; it was meant to glorify it.

(iii) In the end Paul is saying, “Don’t make an agony of your religion.” Collie Knox tells how, when he was a young man, he was apt to find religion a stress and a strain; and he tells how a well-loved chaplain once came to him and laid a hand on his shoulder and said, “Young Knox, don’t make an agony of your religion.” It was said of Burns that he was “haunted rather than helped by his religion.” No man should be ashamed of the body God gave him, the heart God put into him, the instincts that, by God’s creation, dwell within him. Christianity will teach him, not how to eliminate them, but how to use them in such a way that passion is pure and human love the most ennobling thing in all God’s world.

THE TIME IS SHORT ( 1Co 7:26-35 )

7:26-35 I think that this is the right thing because of the present crisis– that it is the right thing for a man to remain as he is. Have you been bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released from that bond. Are you free from marriage ties? Do not seek a wife. But, if you do marry, you have committed no sin. Those who do marry will have trouble about bodily things, and I would wish to spare you this. This I do say, brothers, the time is short, so short that, for the future those who have wives must live as if they had not, those who have sorrow must live as not sorrowing, those who rejoice must live as not rejoicing, those who buy must buy as if they had no secure possession of anything, those who use this world must use it as if they had no full use of it; for the outward form of this world is passing away. I want you to be without anxieties. The man who remains unmarried is anxious for the things of the Lord; his anxiety is how he may please the Lord. The man who marries is anxious for the things of the world; his anxiety is how he may please his wife. There is a distinct difference between the married and the unmarried woman. The unmarried woman is anxious for the things of the Lord; her aim is that she may be dedicated to God both in her body and in her spirit. The woman who has married is anxious for the things of the world; her anxiety is that she may please her husband, It is for your advantage that I am saying this. I do not want to put a halter round your neck. My aim is that you should live a lovely life and that you should serve the Lord without distractions.

It is in many ways a pity that Paul did not begin the chapter with this section because it has the heart of his whole position in it. All through this chapter we must have felt that he was belittling marriage. It looked again and again as if he was allowing marriage only as a concession to avoid fornication and adultery; as if marriage was only a second best.

We have seen that the Jews glorified marriage and considered it a sacred duty. There was only one valid reason, according to Jewish tradition, for not marrying, and that was in order to study the law. Rabbi ben Azai asked, “Why should I marry? I am in love with the Law. Let others see to the prolongation of the human race.” In the Greek world, Epictetus, the stoic philosopher, never married. He said that he was doing far more for the world by being a teacher than if he had produced two or three “ugly-nosed brats.” “How,” he asked, “can one whose function is to teach mankind be expected to run for something in which to heat the water to give the baby its bath?” But that was not the Jewish point of view and it was certainly not the Christian point of view.

Nor was it Paul’s final point of view. Years later when he wrote the letter to the Ephesians he had changed; for there he uses the relationship of man and wife as a symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church ( Eph 5:22-26). When he wrote to the Corinthians, his outlook was dominated by the fact that he expected the Second Coming of Christ at any moment. What he is laying down is crisis legislation. “The time is short.” So soon was Christ to come, he believed, that everything must be laid aside in one tremendous effort to concentrate on preparation for that coming. The most important human activity and the dearest human relationship must be abandoned if they threatened to interrupt or to slacken that concentration. A man must have no ties whatsoever to keep him when Christ bade him rise and go. He must think of pleasing no one other than Christ. Had Paul thought that he and his converts were living in a permanent situation, he would never have written as he did. By the time he wrote Ephesians he had realized the permanency of the human situation and regarded marriage as the most precious relationship within it, the only one which was even faintly parallel to the relationship of Christ and the Church.

For us it must always be true that home is the place which does two things for us. It is the place where we find the noblest opportunity to live the Christian life; and the pity is it is so often the place where we claim the right to be as querulous and critical and boorish as we may, and to treat those who love us as we would never dare to treat a stranger. Also it is the place from whose rest and sweetness we draw strength to live more nearly as we ought within the world.

Paul in this chapter looked on marriage as a second best because he believed that life as we know it had only days to run; but the day came when he saw it as the loveliest relationship upon earth.

MARRYING AGAIN ( 1Co 7:39-40 )

7:39-40 A wife is bound for as long as her husband is alive; but, if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, so long as the marriage is made in the Lord. In my opinion she will be happier if she remains as she is–and I think that I have the Spirit of God.

Again Paul takes up his consistent point of view. Marriage is a relationship which can be broken only by death. A second marriage is perfectly allowable, but Paul would rather see the widow stay a widow. We know now that he was speaking only of the crisis situation in which he thought men were living.

In many ways a second marriage is the highest compliment that the one who survives can pay the one who has gone before; for it means that without him or her life was so lonely as to be insupportable; it means that with him or her the married state was so happy that it can fearlessly be entered into again. So far from being an act of disrespect it can be a mark of honour to the dead.

One condition Paul lays down–it must be a marriage in the Lord. That is, it must be a marriage between Christian folk. It is seldom that a mixed marriage can be successful. Long, long ago Plutarch laid it down, that “marriage cannot be happy unless husband and wife are of the same religion.” The highest love comes when two people love each other and their love is sanctified by a common love of Christ. For then they not only live together but also pray together; and life and love combine to be one continual act of worship to God.

1Co 8:1-13; 1Co 9:1-27; 1Co 10:1-33 deal with a problem which may seem extremely remote to us, but was intensely real to the Christians at Corinth and demanded a solution. It was the problem of whether or not to eat meat which had been offered to idols. Before we begin to study these chapters in detail, it will be well to state the problem and the broad lines of the solutions which Paul offers in the various cases in which it impinged upon life.

Sacrifice to the gods was an integral part of ancient life. It might be of two kinds, private or public. In neither case was the whole animal consumed upon the altar. Often all that was burned was a mere token part as small as some of the hairs cut from the forehead.

In private sacrifice the animal, so to speak, was divided into three parts. First, a token part was burned on the altar. Second, the priests received as their rightful portion the ribs, the ham and the left side of the face. Third, the worshipper himself received the rest of the meat. With the meat he gave a banquet. This was specially the case at times like weddings. Sometimes these feasts were in the house of the host; sometimes they were even in the temple of the god to whom the sacrifice had been made. We have, for instance, a papyrus invitation to dinner which runs like this: “Antonius, son of Ptolemaeus, invites you to dine with him at the table of our Lord Serapis.” Serapis was the god to whom he had sacrificed.

The problem which confronted the Christian was, “Could he take part in such a feast? Could he possibly take upon his lips meat that had been offered to an idol?” If he could not, then obviously he was going to cut himself off almost entirely from social occasions.

In public sacrifice, that is sacrifice offered by the state, and such sacrifices were common, after the requisite symbolic amount of the meat had been burned and after the priests had received their share, the rest of the meat fell to the magistrates and others. What they did not need, they sold to the shops and the markets; and therefore, even when meat was bought in the shops, it might well have been already offered to some idol. A man never knew when he might be eating meat that had formed part of a sacrifice to an idol.

What complicated matters still further was that this age believed strongly and fearfully in demons and devils. The air was full of them and they were always lurking to gain an entry into a man, and, if they did, they would injure his body and unhinge his mind. One of the special ways in which these spirits gained entry was through food; they settled on the food as a man ate and so got inside him. One of the ways of avoiding that was to dedicate the meat to some good god whose presence in the meat put up a barrier against the evil spirit. For that reason, nearly all animals were dedicated to a god before being slaughtered; and, if that was not done, as a defence meat was blessed in the name of a god before it was eaten.

It therefore followed that a man could hardly eat meat at all which was not in some way connected with a heathen god. Could the Christian eat it? That was the problem; and, clearly, although to us it may be a matter of merely antiquarian interest, the fact remains that, to the Christian in Corinth or any other Greek city, it was one which pervaded all life, and which had to be settled one way or another.

Paul’s advice falls into different sections.

(i) In 1Co 8:1-13 he lays down the principle that, however safe the strong and enlightened Christian may feel from the infection of heathen idols and even if he believes that an idol is the symbol of something which does not exist at all, he must do nothing which will hurt or bewilder a brother whose conscience is neither so enlightened nor so strong as his.

(ii) In 1Co 9:1-27 he deals with those who invoke the principle of Christian freedom. He points out that there are many things that he is free to do which he abstains from doing for the sake of the Church. He is well aware of Christian freedom, but equally aware of Christian responsibility.

(iii) In 1Co 10:1-13 he deals with those who declare that their Christian knowledge and privileged position make them quite safe from any infection. He cites the example of the Israelites who had all the privileges of God’s Chosen People and who yet fell into sin.

(iv) In 1Co 10:14-22 he uses the argument that any man who has sat at the table of the Lord cannot sit at the table of a heathen god, even if that god be nothing. There is something essentially wrong in taking meat offered to a false god upon lips that have eaten the body and blood of Christ.

(v) In 1Co 10:23-26 he advises against overfussiness. A man can buy what is offered in the shops and ask no questions.

(vi) In 1Co 10:27-28 he deals with the problem of what to do in a private house. In a private house the Christian will eat what is put before him and ask no questions; but if he is deliberately informed that the meat set before him was part of a heathen sacrifice, that is a challenge to his Christian position and he will refuse to eat it.

(vii) Finally in 1Co 10:29-33 to 1Co 11:1 Paul lays down the principle that the conduct of the Christian must be so far above reproach that it gives no possible offence either to Jew or non-Jew. He is better to sacrifice his rights than to allow these rights to become an offence.

Now we can proceed to deal with these chapters in detail.

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

1. Advisory counsel as to marriage and celibacy, 1Co 7:1-9.

1. Concerning This concerning is repeated at 1Co 7:25, 1Co 8:1; 1Co 12:1, as commencing responses to the several written queries.

Good , proper to a Christian man; the reverse of , shameful, improper.

Paul here compares celibacy and matrimony, not in respect to their intrinsic holiness, but in respect to the comparative probability that a given person will be holy in one or the other. If persons have not the gift of continence they are not likely to be holy in celibacy; and they had better prefer the chance of being holy in marriage. If they have the gift of continence they had better remain celibate, as they would thereby be free from the moral dangers of marriage. That is, some persons can be most holy in celibacy, others most holy in marriage. And here comes in the suggestion of Stanley, that marriage and the family constitution stand on a much higher moral plane in these later European Christian ages than in the old Orient. Paul’s reasoning would land him in far stronger matrimonial conclusions in our day than his own. Protestantism prefers, for many good reasons, that even her foreign missionaries should be married.

That the apostle sees no superior holiness in celibacy is plain. 1. He utters no rapturous eulogy upon it, like later monastic writers; advocates no vows of virginity; proposes no convents nor monasteries. Celibacy is holy only if one is holy in it. 2. Marriage, with Paul, has a holy ideal, being typical of the unity in the Trinity, (1Co 11:13,) and of the union between Christ and his Church. Eph 5:25; Eph 5:32. Similarly St. John (Rev 14:4) honours the virgins, but yet makes the glorified Church to be “the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” Rev 21:2. Says Jeremy Taylor: “Single life makes men in one respect like angels; but marriage, in many things, makes the chaste pair be like Christ.”

Touch A term of modesty (equivalent to the Latin tangere) to express any contact with sexual purpose or feeling. Same word in Gen 20:4.

St. Jerome, “in his heat against Jovinian,” as Fulke ( Confut. of Rhemish Test.) says, argued, “If good not to touch a woman, it is evil to touch; for nothing is contrary to good but evil.” And again the same ascetic saint argued, in a similar “heat,” “If, as Paul commands, we must always pray, we must never serve marriage; for so often as I render due to marriage I cannot pray.” This last logic would equally forbid sleeping. And as for the inference from the contrariety of “evil” to good, St. Paul holds that celibacy and marriage are not the one good and the other oppositely evil; but each to be good or evil according to the case.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Christian Husbands and Wives and The Alternative For the Unmarried and Widows (7:1-11)

‘Now concerning the things of which you wrote. It is good for a man not to touch a woman, but because of fornications let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.’

Paul will now deal with the first questions in their letter. Is it good for a man not to touch a woman (i.e. engage in sexual relations with her)? Is marriage sinful? What rights have partners as against each other? Is it wrong not to marry and reproduce?

His reply is that being single is certainly an ideal which is quite permissible. ‘It is good.’ But he does not say necessarily better than being married. He said ‘it is good’ because some, influenced by Judaism, saw the unmarried state as being open to censure. But he did not say that it is morally better.

Indeed he will point out that because of man’s make up it is in many cases ill advised. If certain men and women do not have their sexual desires satisfied licitly, they will seek to satisfy them illicitly (as the celibate priesthood has in many cases made clear). Thus to save men and women from the latter, each man should have his own wife, and each wife should have her own husband. This is God’s provision for their needs, and it would be wrong of them not to take advantage of it.

‘Fornications.’ That is, acts of fornication. Man has been made for marriage. Thus if he is deprived of legitimate sexual relations he will find other ways of satisfying his desires. So marriage should be encouraged. But that does not make it the final good. The time has come when other things have to be taken into account. Christ has come. The next thing will be the end. So at this exceptional time not being married can also be good for those so gifted.

However we should not see this as the main purpose of marriage. It has only been a purpose since the fall. The main purpose of marriage is that each should be a support and help to the other (Gen 2:18). It adds to the solidness of life. In less exceptional times it is the earthly ideal. But in these exceptional times of the proclamation of the Kingly Rule of God those who are so gifted should take advantage of the fact so as to serve God more fully. The celibate will lack comfort and strength that comes from being married, but will find that his support and help will come from God. For him/her not to be married is good.

But the man who through practising celibacy is tempted into sexual misbehaviour is doubly guilty. He is guilty of the sexual misbehaviour, but he is also guilty because he neglected God’s provision for man and has ignored his own weakness and the normal way of life taught in Scripture. He has taken up a position that he cannot maintain. He should not do so unless he is aware that he is physically capable of doing so. We should especially remember here that Jesus said that to look on a married woman with sexual desire was to be an adulterer. There are some men who have no problem with this. Their sexual desire is minimal and controllable. But for the majority of men it is a constant problem, some more than others, and marriage can go a long way to preventing them from sinning in this way. For such marriage is a positive good, and indeed is a commandment. We cannot pray ‘do not lead us into testing’ and then put ourselves in the way of testing. Man is to avoid all unnecessary forms of temptation.

‘Not to touch a woman.’ This is another way of saying ‘not to have sexual relations with, not to marry’. But it is a reminder also that until marriage women were not to be physically interfered with in any way. The assumption is also that the man of God will not physically ‘touch up’ a woman unless he is married to her. To do so would be to humiliate and defile her. So the godly man does not ‘touch up’ women.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Advice to the Unmarried and Widows In 1Co 7:1-9 Paul gives his advice to the unmarried and widowed. In this passage he explains the duties of marriage of how both the husband and the wife have certain responsibilities towards one another.

1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

1Co 7:1 “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me” Comments – Paul will now respond to a number of questions that the delegate from the Corinthian church brought to him.

1Co 7:1 “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” – Word Study on “touch” Strong says the Greek word “touch” ( ) (G681) means, “to fasten, set on fire.” BDAG says it means, “light, kindle,” and “touch take hold of, hold.” Thayer and BDAG say the word also refers to “intercourse with a woman.”

Comments – Within the context of 1Co 7:1, refers to “carnal intercourse or cohabit, living together.” Thus, the AmpBible reads, “to cohabit.” However, the NIV reads, “to marry.”

1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1Co 7:2 “to avoid fornication” Comments – The phrase “to avoid fornication” ties this passage in 1Co 7:1-40 to chapter five, where Paul first deals with the issue of fornication in the church.

1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

1Co 7:3 Comments – Although marriage delivers a man and a woman from the sin fornication, it comes with divine responsibilities towards one another. The phrase “render due benevolence” means that the husband and wife are to give the duties or obligations of marriage towards one another.

1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

1Co 7:4 Comments – The primary duty that comes with marriage is the fact that a spouse no longer makes individual decisions about his/her lifestyle. They give up a measure of their rights or authority. So, in marriage, you do not belong entirely to yourself any longer. Each decision has to take into consideration the needs of the mate. A spouse cannot come and go as he/she did prior to marriage. A measure of individual freedom must be relinquished.

1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

1Co 7:5 “that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency” – Comments – How will Satan tempt a man? Not only can he be tempted with sexual desires. A man who had been defrauded by his wife told me that Satan can also tempt a man emotionally, with bitterness, unforgiveness, wrath, jealousy, etc., in such a situation.

1Co 7:5 Comments – Do not deprive a spouse of your duties of marriage, except by first agreeing, and then only for a period of time. The one reason to do this is to give yourself time for prayer and fasting. A warning! Return to original responsibilities or duties lest Satan tempt you into being unfaithful to your agreed restrains upon yourself.

Illustrations – Illustrations in the Old Testament:

Exo 19:15, “And he said unto the people, Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives.”

1Sa 21:4-5, “And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since 1 Came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.”

1Co 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

1Co 7:6 Comments – In 1Co 7:6 Paul gives advice on an issue that Jesus Christ did not directly address in the Gospels or by revelation to Paul. Paul is permitting or agreeing to singleness as a better way. He is not commanding singleness in this passage of Scripture. He will speak like this throughout this chapter (1Co 7:10; 1Co 7:12 ; 1Co 7:25; 1Co 7:40). Paul uses this language again in 2Co 11:17, “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord , but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.”

1Co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

1Co 7:9 Word Study on “burn” BDAG says the Greek word “burn” ( ) (G4448) means, “burn with sexual desire” within the context of 1Co 7:9.

1Co 7:8-9 Comments – Paul’s Concluding Advice to the Unmarried and Widows In 1Co 7:8-9 Paul gives his concluding remarks to the unmarried and widows. He tells them that the best decision is to remain single (1Co 7:8). His discussion to virgins in 1Co 7:25-40 will explain that single people can better serve the Lord. But, if they cannot exercise self-control and remain single, then they should marry in order to remain pure (1Co 7:9).

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Marriage in the Church Paul finishes the topic of fornication by presenting God’s divine remedy to avoid fornication, which is the institution of marriage. Thus, he will build upon this discussion of fornication by telling them how to avoid it either through marriage, or by celibacy. The topic of marriage and celibacy would naturally follow a discussion on the problem of fornication within the church. Paul first gives guidelines for Christian marriage (1Co 7:1-24). In this discussion Paul speaks to the unmarried and widows by first explaining the duties of marriage of how both the husband and the wife have certain responsibilities towards one another (1Co 7:1-9). He then addresses the married by discussing the various situations that bring about divorce (1Co 7:10-24). In this section to the married he advises believers not to seek a divorce (1Co 7:10-11), then he addresses the special cases of how a believer married to a non-believer should handle their situation (1Co 7:12-16). Paul then he gives the guiding principle that a believer is to abide in all of his callings, which includes marriage (1Co 7:17-24). In the third section of this discourse on marriage Paul gives advice to virgins (1Co 7:25-38). Finally, Paul advised widows to remain single (1Co 7:39-40).

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Advice to the Unmarried and Widows 1Co 7:1-9

2. Advice to the Married 1Co 7:10-24

3. Advice to Virgins 1Co 7:25-38

4. Advice to Widows 1Co 7:39-40

Paul Builds His Teachings on Marriage and Divorce Upon the Foundational Teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ – As we approach this lengthy passage on marriage and celibacy, it is important to know that everything that Paul is about to say is built upon the teachings of Jesus Christ regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Remember that Jesus Christ laid the foundation for the laws of the Kingdom of God. Paul simply built upon this foundation as he laid down the doctrines of the Church in his nine “Church” epistles. Therefore, Paul does not say anything here that contradicts what Jesus taught on this matter.

If we read Mat 5:27-32; Mat 19:1-12, Mar 10:1-12, Luk 16:18, we see that Jesus is very clear on the conditions for divorce and remarriage. He taught that the death of a spouse and the infidelity of a spouse are the only two reasons by which God will honor a second marriage. Jesus calls all other marriages an adulterous relationship of sin.

Thus, when Paul uses the phrase “unmarried” in 1Co 7:8, he is not applying it to divorced people. Otherwise, he would contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ. For a divorced person cannot remarry under every condition without entering into an adulterous relationship. The phrase “loosed from a wife” in 1Co 7:27 is addressed to virgins according to 1Co 7:25 and not to those who have been married and are now divorced.

Historical Background: Roman Laws on Marriage and Divorce Before the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire during the time of Constantine, there existed clearly defined Roman laws on marriage and divorce. We can assume that Paul the apostle was very familiar with these particular laws as he wrote to the Corinthians with advice on this issue in 1Co 7:1-40. We know that Paul was careful to teach his converts to be good citizens in the Empire and to respect their laws. For example, Paul did not preach against slavery; for which cause he would have been imprisoned. Thus, he would not attempt to advice the Church to break or violate Roman law in the area of marriage and divorce.

During the early years of the Rome royal period marriage was much simpler, but through the years these laws developed and became more complex. There appeared to be no legal divorce at first, but laws also came about to allow such. Emperor Augustine recognized that adultery was a problem and made clearly defined laws to bring this problem under control.

There were three types of marriages under Roman law during the time of Paul. There was the confarreatio, which was a marriage that was consummated with a wedding ceremony, much like we do today in western civilization, but only the wealthy could afford this. In addition, there was the conventio in manum, in which a bride price was paid to the bride’s parents, followed by a much simpler ceremony. This bride price was a small, symbolic payment of a system of marriage that found its roots in the early years of Rome’s history. Thirdly, there was the usus or prescription, in which a couple was legally recognized as husband and wife after living together for at least one year. [119]

[119] “Ancient Weddings: Roman Weddings,” Jennifer Goodall Powers (c1997) [on-line]; accessed 2 July 2010; available from http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/ancientweddings5.html; Internet.

The causes for which a man could legally put away his wife were capital offences, adultery, and drinking. But, because divorce became so rampant the laws were modified so that a man seeking a divorce had to make his declaration in the presence of seven witnesses before the divorce became legal. A woman could also divorce her husband, and for no reason. Thus, we see how Paul was teaching and advising the believers at Corinth within the frameworks of the Roman laws.

In A.D. 331, during Rome’s Christian era, Constantine the Great restricted the laws on divorce. He limited the causes of divorce to three for the man to put away his wife; an adulteress, a poisoner, or a corrupter of youth. There were three causes for the woman to divorce her husband: “a murderer, a poisoner, or a robber of graves.” [120]

[120] Walter George Smith, “Divorce (in Civil Jurispurdence),” in Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) [on-line]; accessed 2 July 2010; available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05064a.htm; Internet.

Paul was also sensitive to laws concerning widows and a father’s authority over his daughters. For under Roman law a girl was allowed to marry only by her father consent. This fits within the context of Paul’s advice to virgins.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Sanctification by the Holy Spirit In 1Co 3:1 to 1Co 14:40 Paul takes the greater part of this epistle to teach them about the process of sanctification by the Holy Spirit. However, the ways in which these issues are presented reflect the sanctification of man’s mind, body, and spirit, in that order. For example, Paul’s discussion on church divisions (1Co 3:1 to 1Co 4:21) emphasizes the sanctification of our minds so that we learn not to prefer one church member, or church leader, above another. His discussion on fornication (1Co 5:1 to 1Co 7:40) emphasizes the sanctification of our bodies, as we offer them as holy vessels to the Lord. His discussion on meats offered until idols (1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1) emphasizes the sanctification of our spirits as we learn to walk and conduct our lifestyles with a clean conscience, which is the voice of the spirit. Paul then turns his attention to issues regarding public worship (1Co 11:2 to 1Co 14:40). Remember in the Old Testament how the priests and Levites had to sanctify themselves before entering into the service of the Tabernacle and Temple. Therefore, Paul uses this same approach for the New Testament Church. As we allow our minds, bodies and spirits to yield to the work of sanctification by the Holy Spirit, we become vessels in which the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit can operate.

Outline – Here is a proposed outline:

1. Divisions in the Church 1Co 3:1 to 1Co 4:21

2. Fornication in the Church 1Co 5:1 to 1Co 6:20

3. Idolatry and foods offered to idols 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:34

4. Public Worship 1Co 11:2 to 1Co 14:40

The Two Issues of Fornication and Foods Offered Unto Idols Reflect Heathen Worship Note that the two major topics that are covered in this epistle of 1 Corinthians, fornication and meat offered to idols, are two of the four issues that those the Jerusalem council decided to ask of the Gentiles. Note:

Act 15:20, “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

Act 15:29, “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”

Act 21:25, “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”

In submission to the church apostles and elders a Jerusalem, Paul delivered these ordinances to the Corinthian church earlier while he lived there. In this epistle, Paul expands upon them:

1Co 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”

Note also that Jesus told the church in Pergamos in the book of Revelation that these were the two doctrines of Balaam.

Rev 2:14, “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication .”

Therefore, the practice of feasting in idolatry and fornication appears to have been a common practice in Asia Minor among the temple worship of the Greeks. We also see in Rom 1:18-32 how idolatry was followed by fornication as God turned mankind over to a reprobate mind. Thus, these two sins are associated with one another throughout the Scriptures. However, first Paul deals with church divisions.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Fornication: Sanctification of the Body to Become a Holy Vessel ( 1Co 5:1 to 1Co 7:40 ) – In 1Co 5:1 to 1Co 7:40 Paul deals with the topic of fornication in the church at Corinth, which emphasizes the sanctification of the flesh. The key word in this passage of Scripture is “fornication,” which family of words is used twelve times in this passage of Scripture: 5 times ( 1Co 5:1 ; 1Co 6:13; 1Co 6:18; 1Co 7:2), 1 time (1Co 6:18), 2 times (1Co 6:15-16) 4 times (1Co 5:9-11; 1Co 6:9). Paul has heard about these problems within this church from reliable sources. Paul relied upon reliable sources in order to deal with these issues (1Co 1:11; 1Co 5:1).

1Co 1:11, “For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.”

1Co 5:1, “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.”

Outline – Here is a proposed outline:

1. Paul Passes Judgment in the Church 1Co 5:1-13

2. Paul Gives the Corinthians their Basis for Judging Among Themselves 1Co 6:1-11

3. Why Fornication Must be Judged 1Co 6:12-20

4. Marriage in the Church 1Co 7:1-40

Comments on Section Breaks – In 1Co 7:1 to 1Co 14:40 Paul answers a number of questions that were probably handed to him by the visiting delegate from the church at Corinth. He begins his discussion on each of these topics with the same phrase, “Now concerning…” (1Co 7:1, 1Co 8:1, 1Co 12:1) Therefore, many scholars divide 1Co 7:1 to 1Co 14:40 into a new section because of their common introductions. However, creating such a major division at 1Co 7:1 breaks the flow of Paul’s lengthy discussion on fornication, as well as the structural presentation on the sanctification of the three-fold man; spirit, soul and body.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Instructions with Regard to Marriage.

The propriety and the duty of marriage:

v. 1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

v. 2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

v. 3. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence, and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

v. 4. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

v. 5. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

This chapter contains St. Paul’s great lesson on the state of marriage, which must be compared with the various passages, especially in the Old Testament, where the holy estate of matrimony is described. In the present chapter it should be noted that its principles are true for all times, but that the special application which St. Paul makes refers to the circumstances as they were found in his days, especially in the congregation at Corinth. This distinction is observed in the text in such a way that the principles of which St. Paul treats are introduced as the commands of the Lord, his special application for the case submitted to him as his judgment or advice. See vv. 1:26-29. The occasion of the discussion was a question or inquiry which had been put to the apostle by the Corinthians: But concerning that about which you wrote, the matters submitted in your letter. The questions were apparently the following: Should a person be married or not? What about the specific duties of marriage? Is the dissolution of the marriage-tie permissible if the one party is a Gentile?

Paul’s answer to the first question: It is right, morally befitting, honorable, praiseworthy (in the sense of “not to be condemned”) for one, for a person, not to touch a woman. It is not to be inferred, as the false ascetics will have it, that even the mere physical touch of a woman’s hand or skin will pollute a man, although under circumstances a handclasp, the slightest brushing against the skin of a woman, may become an unlawful caress and a pollution. St. Paul is here obviously speaking of true celibacy, based upon the gift of chastity in its strictest interpretation, and defending it against those who thought it inhuman. As Luther says, “it behooved St. Paul not to leave those without consolation who preferred to live a celibate life. ” But he hurries to add: But on account of the sins of immorality let everyone have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. The situation in those days was much as it is today: the sins of profligacy, of libertinism, of every form of immorality were so prevalent that it truly demanded an unusual measure of the gift of chastity to remain pure in the midst of so many temptations. Then, as now, the only way to be successful in fleeing fornication was in seeking the chastity of marriage. He is speaking, of course, of a Christian marriage, in which a man has only one, his own, wife, and a woman has only one, her proper, husband. St. Paul did not dream of an impossible sanctity, but he dealt with the situation as it actually existed, and he prescribed the remedy which the Lord had provided. For the marital relationship between husband and wife, although it cannot, on account of inherent sin, be an altogether pure and undefiled service of God, is yet no immorality in itself, since the natural inclination of the sexes is in this instance sanctified by God’s institution, and married people have that consolation that God’s grace in Christ covers whatever is still present of the old flesh in their intercourse.

Of the specific duty of marriage the apostle says: To the wife let the husband render the due, but likewise the wife to the husband. The wife has not power over her own body, but the husband; but likewise also the husband has not power over his own body, but the wife. When a man or woman enters into the state of holy matrimony, he or she places the body at the service of the other in honorable and undefiled intercourse. Each, therefore, possesses a legitimate claim upon the body of the other, and neither caprice nor mere passion should govern such use, Heb 13:4. Note that there is no double standard: she is as much the mistress of his person as he the master of hers. Mark also that this is a very strong passage for monogamy, since evidently only one man and one woman are here spoken of. And in this relation husband and wife shall not defraud, deprive, each other of the specific duty of marriage; St. Paul forbids the arbitrary refusal of intercourse when the other party desires it. A different thing is the matter of abstaining from the marital right by mutual consent, if both parties agree upon it and thus the rights of both are preserved. Such an agreement may be made for a time, in order, for example, to be disengaged for prayer. Paul does not make this a law, he implies the prior right of marital duties, but this is a suggestion which they might follow. Such extraordinary and extended devotional exercises were later prescribed for the festival seasons. But the apostle does not want to extend the time indefinitely: And be together again, resume the interrupted marital intercourse, lest Satan be tempting you because of your want of self-control. The Lord knows the weakness of the human heart, and guards against a continence which is only a form of hypocrisy. He has created the sexual inclination in man and woman, He is familiar with its power since the fall of man, and He does not want married people to indulge in unnecessary asceticism which may result in the pollution of the mind and heart.

The State of Holy Wedlock

It is a sign of our times that the institution of holy marriage is so generally disparaged. So great has the moral ruin become that the knowledge of the holiness of marriage and of the sacredness of its obligations has been lost. The most distorted views of the relation of the sexes inside and outside of marriage are freely circulated by means of cleverly written articles in periodicals, novels of the prevailing degenerate type, and the abomination of the average moving-picture show. To enter into marriage without the consent of the parents has become the usual thing. Many a young man seeks a speedy marriage with the first pretty face that catches his fancy, for the mere gratification of his sexual desires and with no idea of establishing a home and maintaining a family. Or he deliberately sets about to marry a wealthy girl, in order to take his ease in a parasite’s life. And the cold-blooded planning that characterizes the matrimonial ventures of many a modern girl leaves the sanctity of marriage sullied beyond all hopes of cleansing. Unfit and unwilling to be true helpmates and wives, many of these girls permit themselves to be married, that is, the formality of a wedding ceremony is still observed, but they do not intend to become either wives or mothers. Their motive is convenience, selfishness, they marry to be supported in a style which they deem fitting their beauty and accomplishments. And motherhood is a lost and despised art in the eyes of the majority.

We Christians remember at all times what Scriptures say of the state of holy wedlock. It was instituted by God Himself, whose wisdom deemed it best to create a woman and give her to Adam as his wife. The state of holy marriage with its resulting family life is the basis of all true soundness in society and of the stability of the state. Throughout the Bible, the matrimonial state is spoken of always in a tone of the highest respect, while the sins which are committed against its sanctity are condemned with an openness and incidentally with a sense of righteous wrath which leaves no doubt as to the meaning of God’s will. The highest praises of the wedded state are sung in the two psalms of degrees, Psa 127:1-5; Psa 128:1-6. The Bible indicates plainly what the purpose of marriage is and should be to the end of time. The Lord Himself stated: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him,” Gen 2:18. To be the husband’s true and faithful companion, helpmate, and partner the Lord has destined every wife; the married state is a partnership of mutual love and helpfulness. The Lord also willed that the human race should be propagated through marriage, through the lawful procreation of children in holy wedlock, Gen 1:27-28. He has, therefore, expressly and emphatically forbidden all fornication and adultery. Since the fall of man the original pro-creative instinct has become perverted, making it necessary that marriage have also a preventive reason, namely, that of avoiding immorality, the specific act of the married state being permitted and enjoined in holy wedlock, whereas it is strictly forbidden in any of its manifestations outside of marriage, 1Co 7:2. In accordance with such institution and blessing of God, the duties of husband and wife are plainly prescribed. The husband will consider his wife as a gift of the Lord, Pro 18:22; Pro 19:14; Pro 31:10. He will give her the honor due her as the weaker vessel, 1Pe 3:7, always remembering that the wife, who is to partake with him of the glories of heaven, must be treated even here on earth with the respect which the Lord demands, 1Co 13:4-7. He will love her and live with her according to knowledge, always remembering that the state of wedlock is God’s institution, that everyone should know how to possess his vessel in Sanctification and honor, 1Th 4:4. The husband will at all times be conscious of his position as the head of the wife, Eph 5:23; 1Co 11:3, not in a legalistic way, as a tyrant, but in a true evangelical manner. There are some fine examples in Scripture, 1Sa 1:5-8; Gen 25:21. Self-evident it is that the husband will cherish and take care of his wife, Eph 5:29; 1Ti 5:8.

But even as the husband will thus truly and sincerely love his wife, Col 3:19; Eph 5:25-33, so the wife will, in turn, love and respect her husband. He is indeed, by the order of God, her head, 1Ti 2:13-14; 1Co 11:7-9; Gen 3:16. But it is not a question of superiority, but of headship, by the order of God, and therefore no punishment, no degradation for the woman, Eph 5:23. It is not a disgrace for a woman to be obedient to her husband in the Biblical sense, but an honor, since it is a willing, glad obedience based upon mutual agreement according to the infallible rule of God, Col 3:18; 1Pe 3:1-6. The wife will be a true helpmate of her husband and a happy mother of the children which come to her as the blessing of the Lord, if she will at all times keep the commandments and the examples of the Lord before her eyes. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life, Pro 31:12. She will not be contentious and brawling, Pro 19:13; Pro 21:9; Pro 25:24; Pro 27:15; Pro 30:21-23. She will heed the praises which the Bible bestows upon the diligent, sensible, virtuous, gracious, modest woman, Pro 11:16; Pro 12:4; Pro 14:1; Pro 19:14; Pro 31:10; 1Ti 2:9-10. She will be a true mother in her home, knowing that she is serving the Lord in a state which is well pleasing to Him.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

1Co 7:1-40

Answers to the inquiries of the Corinthians respecting marriage.

1Co 7:1-11

The lawfulness of marriage, and its duties.

1Co 7:1

Now concerning. This refers to questions of the Corinthians. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. The word used is not agathon, good, but kalon, fair; “an excellent thing.” In 1Co 7:26 he limits the word by the clause, “good for the present necessity.” There is no limitation here, and it is probable that St. Paul is quoting the actual words of the letter which he had received from Corinth. There had sprung up among them some antinomians, who, perhaps by perverting his own teaching or that of Apollos, had made liberty a cloak of lasciviousness. In indignant reaction against such laxity, others, perhaps, with Essene proclivities, had been led to disparage matrimony as involving an inevitable stain. Gnosticism, and the spirit which led to it, oscillated between the two extremes of asceticism and uncleanness. Both extremes were grounded on the assertion that matter is inherently evil. Ascetic Gnostics, therefore, strove to destroy by severity every carnal impulse; antinomian Gnostics argued that the life of the spirit was so utterly independent of the flesh that what the flesh did was of no consequence. We find the germs of Gnostic heresy long before the name appeared. Theoretically, St. Paul inclines to the ascetic view, not in the abstract, but in view of the near advent of Christ, and of the cares, distractions, and even trials which marriage involved in days of struggle and persecution. Yet his wisdom is shown in the cautious moderation with which he expresses himself. The tone of the letter written by Gregory the Great to Augustine with reference to similar inquiries about Saxon converts is very different. The example of St. Paul should have shown the mediaeval moralists and even the later Fathers how wrong it is “to give themselves airs of certainty on points where certainty is not to be had.” Not to touch a woman. St. Paul means generally “not to marry” (comp. Gen 20:4 [LXX.]). Celibacy under the then existing conditions of the Christian world is, he admits, in itself an honourable and morally salutary thing, though, for the majority, marriage may be a positive duty. He is not dreaming of the nominal marriages of mediaeval ascetics, for he assumes and directs that all who marry should live in conjugal union.

1Co 7:2

Nevertheless. In this single word St. Paul practically refutes all the dangerous and unwarrantable inferences drawn by St. Jerome and others from the previous clause. St. Jerome argues: “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.” He also says, “I suspect the goodness of a thing which the greatness of another evil enforces as a lesser evil.” Such reasoning shows:

1. The danger of pressing words to the full extent of the logical inferences which may be deduced from them.

2. The errors which always arise from arguing upon isolated texts dissevered from their context, and from all consideration of the circumstances under which they were written.

3. The necessity of following the guidance of the Holy Spirit when he shows, by history and experience, the need for altering precepts with reference to altered conditions. There is in celibacy a moral beautyit is kalon; there are cases in which it becomes a duty. But in most cases marriage, being no less a duty, as St. Paul proceeds to show, is even fairer and more excellent. Neither state, the wedded or the unwedded, is in itself more holy than the other. Each has its own honour and loveliness, and can only be judged of in connection with surrounding circumstances. Those who make St. Paul judge slightingly of marriage contradict his own express rules and statements (Eph 5:24, Eph 5:31, Eph 5:32; 1Ti 2:15), and make him speak the current heathen language of heathen epicures, who, to the great injury of morals, treated marriage as a disagreeable necessity, which was, if possible, to be avoided. If the “it is a good thing” of St. Paul in 1Co 7:1 were to be taken absolutely, it would have to be corrected

(1) by the example of Christ, who beautified with his presence the marriage at Cana (Joh 2:1, Joh 2:2);

(2) by the primeval law which said, “It is not good for man to be alone” (Gen 2:18); and

(3) by the fact that marriage is the chosen analogue of the relation between Christ and his Church. But the very phrase he uses, as will be seen by reference to 1Co 9:15; Mat 15:26; Rom 14:21, etc., is a relative not an absolute one, and St. Paul uses it here concessively, but with the object of pointing out limitations which almost reversed it. To avoid fornication; rather, because o f fornication; i.e. because of the many forms of impurity which were current every where, but especially at Corinth. Some have argued that St. Paul takes a “low” and “poor” view of marriage by regarding it only in the light of a remedy against fornication. The answer is:

1. That the reason which he assigns is a true reason in itself, and with reference to the masses of mankind; for which reason it is adopted by our Church in her Marriage Service.

2. He is addressing those who were living in a corrupt and semi-heathen atmosphere.

3. He is not here speaking of the idealized and spiritual aspect of marriage, but only of large practical necessities. When he speaks of marriage as a high Christian mystery (as in 2Co 11:2; Eph 5:22-33), he adopts a very different tone. Let every man have. A rule, not a mere permission. He here implies the truth that married love bears no analogy whatever to the vagae libidines of those who live like “natural brute beasts.” In marriage the sensuous impulse, by being controlled and placed under religious sanctions is refined and purified from a degradation into a sacrament. Instead of being any longer the source of untold curses to mankind, it becomes the condition of their continuance and an element in their peace, because it is then placed under the blessing of God and of his Church.

1Co 7:3

Due benevolence. An euphemistic and needless modification by the copyists of the pure and simple expression of St. Paul, which, as shown by the best manuscripts, is “her due”debitum tori. St. Paul is evidently entering on these subjects, not out of any love for them; but because all kinds of extreme viewsimmoral indifference and over scrupulous asceticismhad claimed dominance among the Corinthians.

1Co 7:4

The wife hath not power, Marriage is not a capricious union, but a holy bond. “They two” become “one flesh.”

1Co 7:5

Defraud ye not. St. Paul purposely leaves the expression general. Primarily he is thinking of “the due” or “the power” which each has over the other, as is shown by the next verse; but he does not confine the expression to this. Except it be; literally, unless by chance. The exception he regards as something possible, but not normal. For a time. By this and the next words he disparages, by anticipation, the celibate and separate married lives which, in a corrupt age, were so much and so unwisely admired in the ascetic saints of the Middle Ages. Temporary separation for special reasons had been recognized from the earliest times (Exo 19:15; 1Sa 21:4). Ye may give yourselves; rather, ye may have leisure. The verb is in the aorist, which shows that the “leisure” contemplated was for brief periods, not during continuous years. It was altered to the present by the officious copyists, who believed in external and mechanical rules of holiness. To fasting and prayer. “Fasting” is an ascetic interpolation, not found in , A, B, C, D, F. On this interpolation, and perhaps on the analogy of the rule given by Moses at Sinai (Exo 19:15), rose the practice of married persons living apart at Lent (Stanley). Come together again. The prepossessions of ascetic scribes have again tampered with the text. The true reading is, “be together again” (), not “come together” (). For your incontinency; rather, because of. Their past lives and their present temptations were a warning that they could not lay on themselves burdens which God did not require. They should not strive

“…to wind themsleves to high
For sinful man beneath the sky.”

Violent, unnatural, self tormenting, repressions beyond what God demands, and adopted without reference to the strength or the circumstances of individual natures, only tend, as all ascetics have confessed, to increase rather than to diminish the force of sensual temptations.

1Co 7:6

I speak this. The “this” applies to his advice in general, but especially to the last verse. By permission. This phrase is generally misunderstood. It does not mean that St. Paul was permitted though not commanded to give this advice, but that his gentle advice was given “by way of permission” to Christians, not “by way of injunction.” He means to say that he leaves the details of their lives, whether celibate or married, to their individual consciences, though with large hearted wisdom and charity he would emancipate them from human and unauthorized restrictions. The clause is not, therefore, a parallel to the restrictions on the authority of his utterances, such as we find in 1Co 7:12, 1Co 7:29, 1Co 7:40, and in 2Co 8:10; 2Co 11:17.

1Co 7:7

For I would. The verb here used is thelo (will). In 1Ti 5:14 he says, “I prefer (boulomai) that the younger women marry.” Even as I myself; endowed, that is, with the gift of continence, which would (in the expected nearness of Christ’s coming) render marriage needless, and the condition of man like that of the angels in heaven, who neither marry nor are given in marriage. His proper gift. The “gifts” alluded to are the “graces” (charismata) of the Holy Spirit; and the grace of perfect continence does not exist equally in all (Mat 19:11). One after this manner, and another after that. The remark is general, but also has its special application to continence and marriage (Mat 19:12).

1Co 7:8

To the unmarried; including widowers. In my ‘Life of St. Paul,’ 1:75-82, I have given my reasons for believing that St. Paul was a widower. It is good for them. It is an expedient, honourable, and morally “beautiful thing,” but, as he so distinctly points out further on, there might be a “better” even to the “good.” Even as I. In the unmarried state, whether as one who had never married, or, as I infer from various circumstances, as a widower (so too Clemens of Alexandria, Grotius, Luther, Ewald, etc.); see my ‘Life of St. Paul,’ 1:169). Tertullian and Jerome (both of them biassed witnesses, and with no certain support of tradition) say that St. Paul was never married.

1Co 7:9

If they cannot contain; rather, if they have not continency. Let them marry. In 1Ti 5:14 he lays down and justifies the same rule with reference to young widows. It is better to marry than to burn. The original tenses give greater force and beauty to this obvious rule of Christian common sense and morality. The “marry” is in the aorist”to marry once for all,” and live in holy married union; the “burn” is in the present”to be on fire with concupiscence.” Marriage once for all is better than continuous lust; the former is permitted, the latter sinful.

1Co 7:10

And; rather, but. Unto the married; to Christians who have already married. I command. This is an injunction, not a mere permission as in 1Co 7:6. Not I, but the Lord. Because the rule had been laid down by Christ himself. Let not the wife depart. By divorce or otherwise. The wife is mentioned, perhaps, because the Christian wife, in the new sense of dignity and sacredness which Christianity had bestowed upon her, might be led to claim this spurious freedom; or perhaps the Christian women of Corinth had been more impressed than their husbands by the Essene notions of purity. The exception of divorce being permissible in case of fornication is assumed (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9).

1Co 7:11

If she depart. The reference throughout the verse is to separation due to incompatibility of temper, etc.; not to legal divorce.

1Co 7:12-16

Directions about mixed marriages.

1Co 7:12

To the rest. That is, to those who are married, but are heathen. They were the remaining class about whose duties the Corinthians had made inquiry. Not the Lord. The Lord had made no express reference to such eases, since it had been no part of his mission to lay down minute details which would be duly settled from age to age by the wisdom taught by the Holy Ghost. She be pleased to dwell with him. It is assumed that, if she did not please, the poor Christian convert would have no protection of his fights; pagan courts would regard conversion as a sufficient reason for breaking off marriages.

1Co 7:13

Let her not leave him. The verb is the same as in the clause rendered “let him not put her away.”

1Co 7:14

Is sanctified; literally, has been sanctified, the status has been rendered (so to speak) theoretically clean. By the wife; literally, in the wife. The bond is still holy; its holiness rests in the believing wife or husband. The reasoning would remove any scruples which Jewish Christians might derive from Deu 7:3, etc. By the husband; rather, in the brother. The liberty implied by these remarks, contrasting so strongly with the rigid rules laid down in the days of Ezra (Ezr 9:1-15.; Neh 9:1-38.) recall the change of dispensation. Unclean; i.e. not placed in immediate covenant relation to God. But now are they holy. This does not necessarily imply that they were baptized as infants, but only that they were hallowed as the fruit of a hallowed union. See the remarkable words of Malachi (Mal 2:15). “If the root be holy, so are the branches” (Rom 11:16).

1Co 7:15

If the unbelieving depart. The sense of the word rendered “depart” is rather “wishes to be separated.” Is not under bondage; literally, has not been enslaved. Our Lord assumes one cause aloneunfaithfulnessas adequate for the disruption of the marriage tie; but he was not contemplating, as St. Paul is, the case of mixed marriages. To peace; rather, in peace. Peace is to be the sphere in which the calling comes, and in which it issues. Milton, in his ‘Tetrachordon,’ quotes Maimonides to the effect that “divorce was permitted by Moses to preserve peace in marriage and quiet in the family.” Similarly, a voluntary separation might be the only possible means of preserving moral peace where the union was between souls separated from each other by so vast a gulf as those of a pagan and a Christian.

1Co 7:16

For what knowest thou, O wife, etc.? The meaning is as follows:You may, perhaps, plead that, by refusing to sever the union, the believing partner may convert the unbelieving; but that possibility is too distant and uncertain on which to act. St. Peter does indeed show that so blessed a result is possible; but he is only speaking of cases in which the unbelieving husband did not wish the union to be dissolved. The ancient misinterpretation of the passage (due to neglect of the context and of the argument as a whole) viewed it as an argument for mixed marriages, founded on the chance of thereby winning souls. Most misinterpretations of Scripture have done deadly harm; this one, however, has been overruled for good, and led, as Dean Stanley points out, to such happy marriages as that of Clotilde with Clovis, and Bertha with Ethelbert of Kent.

1Co 7:17-24

Corroborative instances of the duty of remaining in the state wherein each was called.

1Co 7:17

But; literally, if not. The phrase introduces a caution. The rule is that the circumstances of our lives are regulated by the providence of God, and must not be arbitrarily altered at our own caprice. Christ allotted his portion to each Christian, God hath called each man; that lot and that call are to guide his life. “Qua positus fueris in statione mane” (Ovid). Hath distributed; rather, apportioned. So ordain I in all Churches. He proceeds to give specific instances to which his rule applies.

1Co 7:18

Being circumcised. The first instance he gives is that of Judaism and paganism. The circumcised Jew is to remain circumcised; the uncircumcised Gentile is not to undergo circumcision. Become uncircumcised. The Hellenising Jews in the days of the priest Menelaus (l Macc 1Co 1:15; Josephus, ‘Ant.,’ 12.5, 1) had discovered a process for obliterating the appearance of circumcision; such persons were known as masochim. St. Paul does not permit the adoption of this course. In the rebellion of Barcocheba many obliterated the sign of circumcision, and were afterwards, at great danger to themselves, recircumcised. (‘Yevamoth,’ tel. 72, 1). Let him not be circumcised. This rule was of much more practical significance than the other. The early fortunes of Christianity had been almost shipwrecked by the attempt of Jewish rigorists to enforce this odious bondage on the Gentiles, and their deliverance flora it had been due almost solely to St. Paul. It was his inspired insight which had swayed the decision of the synod at Jerusalem (Act 15:1-41.); and at a later period his Epistle to the Galatians was the manifesto of Gentile emancipation. He proved that after Christ’s death “circumcision” (peritome) became to Gentiles a mere physical mutilation (katatome) (Php 3:2).

1Co 7:19

Circumcision is nothing. The Jews regarded it as everything; and to make this assertion at so early an epoch of Christian history, required all the courage of St. Paul, and proved his grand originality. He was the first to prove to the Jews that circumcision had become a thing intrinsically indifferent, which might, under some circumstances, be desirable (as in the ease of Timothy), but could never be reckoned among essentials. And uncircumcision is nothing. The same sentence occurs three times in St. Paul, summing up, as it were, the liberty which it had cost him endless peril and anguish to achieve. Each time he concludes it with a weighty clause to show what is everything: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” (1Co 7:19); “… but faith which worketh by love” (Gal 5:6); “… but a new creation” (Gal 6:15). But the keeping of the commandments. So St. John says, “Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.”

1Co 7:20

Let every man abide in the same calling, etc. In accordance with this general principle, which illustrates the distinction between Christianity and violent social revolutions, St. John the Baptist had not bidden publicans or soldiers to abandon their callings, but to do their duty in that state of life to which God had called them (Luk 3:12-14). The “calling” alluded to is not what is described as “a vocation,” a calling in life, but the condition in which we are when we are called by God.

1Co 7:21

Being a servant. This is the second instance of the rule. One who was converted whilst he was a slave is not to strive over anxiously for freedom. The word “emancipation” sometimes seems (as in the letter to Philemon) to be “trembling on Paul’s lips,” but he never utters it, because to do so would have been to kindle social revolt, and lead to the total overthrow of Christianity at the very commencement of its career. Our Lord had taught the apostles to adapt means to ends; and the method of Christianity was to inculcate great principles, the acceptance of which involved, with all the certainty of a law, the ultimate regeneration of the world. Christianity came into the world as the dawn, not as the noona shining light, which brightened more and more unto the perfect day. Care not for it. Do not be troubled by the fact, because in Christ “there is neither bond nor free” (Gal 3:28), and because earthly freedom is as nothing in comparison with the freedom which Christ gives (Joh 8:36). But if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. The words may mean,

(1) “use freedom”avail yourself of the opportunity of emancipation; or

(2) “use slavery”be content to remain a slave. In favour of the first interpretation is the fact that there is nothing extravagant or fantastic in Christian morality; and that, considering what ancient slavery washow terrible its miseries, how shameful and perilously full of temptations were its conditionsit sounds unnatural to advise a Christian slave to remain a slave when he might gain his freedom. Yet the other interpretation, remain a slave by preference, seems to be required:

1. By the strict interpretation of the Greek particles.

2. By the entire context, which turns on the rule that each man should stay in the earthly condition in which he first received God’s call.

3. By the fact that even the Stoic moralistslike Epictetus, who was himself a slavegave similar advice (Epict., ‘Dissert.,’ 3:26; ‘Enchir.,’ 1Co 10:32.)

4. By the indifference which St. Paul felt and expressed towards mere earthly conditions (Gal 3:28), as things of no real significance (Col 3:22).

5. By his appeal to the nearness of the day of Christ (1Co 7:29-31).

6. By the preponderance of high authoritiesChrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, Alford, etc.in favour of this view

7. By its parallelism to the advice given to Christian slaves in 1Ti 6:2, where they are urged to serve Christian masters all the more zealously because they were brethren.

8. Lastly, all the apparent harshness of the advice is removed when we remember that St. Paul was probably thinking only of the Christian slaves of Christian masters, between whom the relation might be as happy as that of Philemon to the forgiven Onesimus.

1Co 7:22

Is the Lord’s freeman; rather, freedman. Clearly the entire bearing of this verse favours the view which we have taken of the previous verse. Christ’s servant. The sharp antithesis of this verse was often present to the mind of the early Christians. They knew that the bondage of Satan was so crushing that mere earthly bondage was, in comparison, as nothing; and that the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, though it might seem to take the form of service, was the sole perfect freedom. The freedmen of sin are the most hopeless slaves; the servants of God alone are free (see Rom 6:22; 2Ti 2:26; 1Pe 2:16).

1Co 7:23

Ye are bought with a price; rather, ye were bought, namely, by Christ; and the price paid for you was his blood (see 1Co 6:20; 1Pe 1:18, 1Pe 1:19). Be not ye; rather, become not. The servants of men. There is a grand play of words in the advice to them not to become slaves, at the very moment when he is advising them to continue in slavery. In that which the world called “slavery” the Christian slave might enjoy absolute liberty. The price which a master paid for them was but an unmeaning shadow; they had been bought once and eternally by an infinitely nobler price, and that purchase was the pledge of absolute emancipation.

1Co 7:24

Therein abide with God. The verse is a summary and reiteration of the advice contained in the whole paragraph. “With God;” literally, by the side of God; “as in God’s sight;” “doing service as to the Lord;” “for conscience towards God.” The words sum up the essence of all apostolic counsels to Christian slaves in Eph 6:5-8; 1Ti 6:1, 1Ti 6:2; Tit 2:9, Tit 2:10; 1Pe 2:18, 1Pe 2:19, etc.

1Co 7:25-40

Advice respecting the unmarried.

1Co 7:25

Now concerning virgins. This is doubtless another reference to questions contained in the letter from Corinth. No commandment of the Lord. Christ had never directly dealt with this subject. I give my judgment. The word “commandment” is rendered in the Vulgate consillum, and the word “judgment” praeceptum; and thus, as Stanley points out, has originated the modern Romish distinction between “precepts” and “counsels of perfection,” which, however, have clearly no connection with the real meaning of the passage. To be faithful. As a steward of his Word, which is the first essential of true ministry (1Ti 1:12). “Faith makes a true casuist” (Bengel).

1Co 7:26

I suppose. St. Paul only states this modestly, and somewhat hesitatingly, as his personal opinion. For the present distress; rather, on account of the pressing necessity; in the urgent and trying conditions which at the present moment surround the Christian’s life, and which were the prophesied “woes of the Messiah” (Mat 24:3, etc.). For a man; rather, for a personwhether man or woman. Be to be; that is, unmarried. The words are not improbably a quotation from the Corinthian letter. Otherwise we might explain the “so” to mean “as he iswhether married or unmarried.”

1Co 7:27

Seek not a wife. It is entirely alien from St. Paul’s purpose to take this as an abstract or universal rule. He gives his reasons for it as a temporary necessity.

1Co 7:28

But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned. This advice merely touches on the question of expediency, not on questions of absolute right and wrong. Such. Those who marry. Trouble in the flesh. Their marriage will in these days necessarily involve much trouble and discomfort. Common experience shows that in days of “trouble and rebuke and blasphemy” the cares and anxieties of those who have to bear the burden of many besides themselves, and those dearer to them than their own selves, are far the most trying. Perhaps St. Paul was thinking of the “Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days,” of our Lord (Luk 21:23). But I spare you. I desire to spare you from adding to the inevitable distress which will fall upon you in “the great tribulation””the travail throes of the Messiah,” which we all expect.

1Co 7:29

But this I say. I will not dwell on those coming trials, but will only remind you that they are imminent, and that when they come all earthly distinctions will vanish into insignifiance. The time is short; literally, the season has been contracted; in other words, “The end of all things is at hand” (1Pe 4:7). The word sunestalmenos cannot mean “disastrous.” The verb is used for “folding up” in Act 5:6; “Tempus in collecto est” (Tertullian). It remaineth, that. The reading and punctuation are here uncertain. The best reading seems to be “The time has been shortened henceforth, in order that,” etc. The very object of the hastened end is that Christians should sit loose to earthly interests. As though they had none. They would thus be nearer to the condition of the “angels in heaven.”

1Co 7:30

They that weep, etc. Earthly sorrow and joy and wealth are things which are merely transient and unreal when compared with the awful, eternal, permanent realities which we shall all soon have to face.

1Co 7:31

As not abusing it; rather, as not using it to the fullnot draining dry the cup of earthly advantages. Like Gideon’s true heroes, we must not fling ourselves down to drink greedily of the river of earthly gifts, but drink them sparingly, and as it were with the palm of the hand. The fashion of this world passeth away. So St. John says, “The world passeth away, and the lust thereof” (1Jn 1:1-10 :18). It is but as the shifting scene of a theatre, or as a melting vapour (Jas 4:14).

1Co 7:32

But I would have you without carefulness. In these words he reverts to 1Co 7:28, after the digression about the transiency of earthly relations. If they were “overcharged… with cares of this life,” the day of the Lord might easily “come upon them unawares” (Luk 21:34).

1Co 7:33

Careth for the things that are of the world. St. Paul’s language must not be extravagantly pressed. It only applies absolutely to times in which the conditions are the same as they then were. The “anxious cares” which marriage involves may be more innocent and less distracting than those which attack the celibate condition; and when that is the case, marriage, on St. Paul’s own principle, becomes a duty. Thus some of the best and greatest of our missionaries have found their usefulness as God’s messengers vastly increased by marriage, in spite of the awful trials which marriage often involves. The apostles and brethren of the Lord felt the same. St. Paul’s opinions here are, as he tells us, opinions only, and admit of many modifications. Advice given to men and women when Christians believed that the Lord was coming, perhaps in that very age, to judge the world, is not universally applicable to all ages. In St. Paul’s later Epistles he does not revert to this advice, but assumes that marriage is the normal condition.

1Co 7:34

There is difference also, etc. The reading, punctuation, and exact sense are surrounded with uncertainty, which does not, however, affect the general meaning. This is probably given correctly in our English Version. He implies that the married woman must of necessity be more of a Martha than a Mary. Nevertheless, two things are certain:

(1) that God intended marriage to be the normal lot; and

(2) that marriage is by no means incompatible with the most absolute saintliness.

It is probable that most, if not all, of the apostles were married men (1Co 9:5). The spirit of St. Paul’s advicethe avoidance of distraction, and the determination that our duty to God shall not be impaired by earthly relationshipsremains eternally significant. Another common way of punctuating the words is, “The married man cares.., how he may please his wife, and is divided [in interests].”

1Co 7:35

For your own profit. My advice turns simply on questions of expedience. Not that I may cast a snare upon you. He does not wish to “fling a noose” over them to win them over to his own private views, and entangle them in rules which they might not be able to bear. That which is comely. Seemliness; “the beauty of holiness” (Rom 13:13). Without distraction. The phrases used in this clause make it probable that St. Paul had heard how Martha was “anxious” and distracted () about much serving, while Mary sat at Jesus’ feet (Luk 10:39-41).

1Co 7:36

Uncomely. If any father thinks, by keeping his virgin daughter unmarried, he is acting in a way which may cause sin or scandal, then let him permit her to marry her suitor. The word “uncomeliness” is terribly illustrated in Rom 1:27. (For “comely,” see 1Co 7:25; 1Co 12:24.) His virgin. Obviously a daughter or ward. Pass the flower of her age. If she be more than twenty years old, which the ancients regarded as the acme of the woman’s life. And need so require. If there be some moral obligation or necessity in the case. Let them marry. The “them” means the virgin and her unmarried lover.

1Co 7:37

Steadfast. The general meaning of the verse is that the father, who, from high motives, remained unshaken in the resolve to dedicate his daughter (as Philip did) to the virgin life, doeth well, though neither Jews nor pagans thought so. Having no necessity. Because the maiden did not wish to marry or was not sought in marriage.

1Co 7:38

Doeth well. Because” marriage is honourable in all.” Doeth better. Obviously not morally, because, if one course be morally better than another, we are bound to take it; but “better” with reference to expediency in “the urgent necessity” which rested on the Christian world in that day. It is quite clear that, if these words are meant to disparage matrimony in comparison with celibacy, or to treat celibacy in the abstract as a holier state that marriage, they have been set aside by the universal practice and theory of the Christian world. But, as we have seen, they are expressed by St. Paul only as a relative and diffident opinion. It is remarkable that not one word is said as to the choice of the virgin herself in the matter, which is one of the most essential points on which the decision must turn. St. Paul, no doubt, assumes the acquiescence or preference of the maiden as one of the elements in the absence of any “need” for her marriage; but also he writes after lifelong familiarity with the all but absolute control exercised by Jewish parents over their youthful daughters.

1Co 7:39

Only in the Lord. The second marriage of the Christian widow must be a holy and a Christian marriage (2Co 6:14).

1Co 7:40

Happier. Freer from cares, distractions, and entanglements. If she so abide. If she remain a widow. I think also that I have the Spirit of God; rather, I think that I also, as well as the other teachers who have claimed spiritual authority for the rules they have given you about these subjects. The claim to authoritative decision is obviously less emphatic than it is in 1Co 14:37; still, it is an expression of personal conviction that he has the Spirit, not an implied doubt of the fact.

HOMILETICS

1Co 7:1-14, 1Co 7:25-28, 1Co 7:32-40

Paul’s conception of marriage.

“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me,” etc. All that Paul here says of marriage is in answer to some communication which the Church had addressed to him On the subject, and what he says he declares is not “of commandment,” that is, not by Divine authority, but by “permission.” All Scripture is therefore not inspired, even all the counsels of St. Paul do not seem to have been so. So desirous did he seem to be that all he says on this subject should be regarded as coming from himself without any inspiration of God, that he declares it not only in the sixth verse, but also in the twenty-fifth verse, in which he says, “I have no commandment of the Lord.” My purpose now is to gather up from all these verses Paul’s personal ideas of marriage. His idea seems to be

I. That marriage is not a DUTY BINDING ON MANKIND. It is not a moral obligation, like “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” etc. He says, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1Co 7:1); again. “I would that all men were even as I myself” (1Co 7:7); and again, “It is good for them if they abide even as I” (1Co 7:8). In referring to the widow, he says, “She is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God” (1Co 7:40). So Paul seems to teach that the question of marriage is optional, not obligatory. Some may feel that celibacy is best for them, then let them remain single; others think that marriage is the most desirable state, then let them enter into that relationship. Now, it does strike one as something marvellous that this condition of life on which the very continuation of the human race depends should remain thus open and optional. Suppose that today every individual of the human race determined not to enter into this relationship, and to have no intercourse with the opposite sex, sixty years hence, at most, the race would be extinct; no man, woman, or child would be found on the earth. The earth would be as it once was, without a man, a school without a student, a theatre without a spectator, a temple without a worshipper. The answer to the question which some may give is this, that there is no reason for a written command on this subjectit is a law of nature. God does not command us to eat and drink, because it is not necessarythe law of our nature urges us to it. For the same reason he does not command us to marry. However, so it is, and it is a wonderful thought that upon the volition of this generation on this question, depends the continuation or noncontinuation of the race.

II. That marriage is PRIMARILY FOR SPIRITUAL ENDS. “The unbelieving husband is sanctified,” etc. (1Co 7:14). The view given of the end of marriage in the Marriage Service, viz. the “procreation of children,” is evidently not the idea that Paul had, and it is a somewhat degrading one. Paul’s idea throughout seems to be that the grand purpose of marriage is mutual spiritual influence, correcting faults, removing unbelief, establishing faith, serving the Lord. Those who enter on this relationship from fleshly impulses and with fleshly ends misunderstand the ordinance and are never truly married. There is not only no union of soul, but an inner division. True marriage means such a mutual spiritual affection as welds two souls into one moral personality.

III. That marriage INVOLVES MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS THE MOST SACRED,

1. Mutual benevolence. “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife to the husband.” Benevolence, a hearty well wishing, each wishing the well being of the other. The New Version drops the word “benevolence.”

2. Mutual identification. “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.” The both are one. The equal rights of wife and husband are everywhere recognized in the Bible.

3. Mutual honesty. “Defraud ye not one the other.” Deception is inimical to the true union of souls. Nothing cuts united hearts asunder so easily and effectively as artfulness and deception.

4. Mutual forbearance. “if any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwelt with her, let her not leave him” (1Co 7:12, 1Co 7:13). Should difference of opinion on religious subjects crop up, should the faith of one or the other in religious matters be shaken or wane, forbear, do not separate on that account, for the right may correct the wrong, the believing correct the unbelieving.

5. Mutual concession of personal freedom. “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace” (1Co 7:15). If the wife feels it in her conscience to be a duty to leave her husband, he should not coerce her, nor should she employ compulsion, should he feel it his duty to withdraw.

CONCLUSION. Such are roughly and briefly some of Paul’s personal opinions on the question of marriage. They seem to be on the whole wise and just. We have made marriage a civil contract, and we bind two persons together for life who never possessed those mutual affinities which are the essence of marriage. The essence of marriage is thisthe strongest mutual sympathies and aims that one being can have for another; the bond of marriage is the solemn mutual pledge. Those who are thus married are united by a cord stronger than adamant, finer than the finest web, too weak to fetter, yet too strong to break.

1Co 7:15-24

Abide in Christliness, whatever the condition in life.

“But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart,” etc. As St. Paul seems desirous that most of his utterances in this chapter should not be regarded as the language of inspiration, but rather that of his own private judgment (for twice he gives the assurance), we may be justified in criticizing his opinions. His opinions here refer to three conditions in man’s existence on earth: matrimonial life, ecclesiastical connection, and domestic slavery; and concerning each of these, he says, “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called,” Now, if by “calling” here he means that condition of life in which we find ourselves, irrespective of our choice, or into which we have entered by depraved choice, I can scarcely think that his principle here can be accepted. Apply it for example to

I. MATRIMONIAL LIFE. If two persons have entered into this, of all relationships the most solemn, whose temperaments, beliefs, tendencies, tastes, and habits are soon found to be so antipathetic as to produce nothing but constant quarrellings and mutual miseries, are they to “abide” in that state? If Paul means this, we cannot accept his counsel, for such unions are not marriages at all. But he does not mean that, for in the fifteenth and other verses of this chapter he seems to authorize a separation. “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.” Chain two vessels together on the ocean, allowing them to be some yards or even feet apart, and in the storm they will soon tear themselves to pieces and go down into the depths. But if you so rivet them together that the twain will be one, they will be mutual helps, and they will stand the tempest. So in marriage. Unless the two souls are so tightly riveted or clasped together by the strongest mutual affection, it is better to separate. If they are only joined by a chain forged by civil or ecclesiastical law, the speedier that chain is snapped asunder the better for both. Philanthropy is justified in promoting the divorce of such, and in this age methinks, it will find plenty of this merciful work to do.

II. ECCLESIASTICAL CONNECTION. “Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.” Does Paul mean by thisIf you find yourself in an ecclesiastical system which has worthless or pernicious rites and ceremonies, abide in it, make no effort to abolish the unspiritual institutions? If you are in a Church which exalts ceremonies and creeds, works for money and by money, and thus misrepresents the sublime genius of the gospel, continue where you are? If he does, we cannot accept his advice. But he does not mean this, for it is opposed, not only to his own teaching, but to his own religious life.

III. DOMESTIC SLAVERY. “Art thou called being a servant [slave]?” Does Paul meanIf you find yourself the legal property of another, and treated by your master as mere goods and chattels, make no effort to break your bonds and to win your freedom? If he meant this, we repudiate his doctrine; it strikes against those aspirations for liberty, which are as deep as the human soul and as wide as humanity. But he does not mean this, as the history of his life and the genius of his teaching show. What, then, does he mean? The principle, “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called,” he here lays down in connection with these three thingsmatrimonial life, ecclesiastical connection, and. domestic slavery. And if he means by “calling,” condition of life, it cannot apply to either. But by “calling” Paul does not mean this. “‘Calling’ here must not be regarded in the modern sense of profession or condition of life; it is nowhere so used in the New Testament, but always signifies God calling to us (see Rom 11:29; Eph 1:18). Continue to be Christians of the kind which God’s call to Christianity made you. If you were circumcised, and so God’s call into the Christian Church made you a circumcised Christian, continue so; don’t do anything which would seem to imply, that some other change in addition to your call was necessary to complete your admission to the Church.” Understanding the “calling” here, as I do, to be personal religion, or Christliness, which is elsewhere called the “heavenly calling,” Paul’s advice to abide in that state, in whatever relationship or condition we are found, is intelligible and right. In relation to matrimony, it will then mean thisThough you feel your conjugal relation to be such a bondage and misery that you break away from it, sever your connection with your partner, don’t fail to “abide in your calling” or in your religion. Whatever your domestic grievances and storms and separations, hold fast to your religion. Though you lose your wife or your husband, hold fast your religion, your “calling.” In relation to ecclesiastical connections, it will mean thisWhether you are “circumcised” or uncircumcised, whether you continue in your old Church connections or break away from them, “abide in your calling,” your religion; that is something that is independent of all ecclesiastical institutions and ceremonies, can live with or without them. In relation to domestic slavery, it will mean thisWhether you are satisfied with your bondage, and settle down in it, or struggle to break your fetters and rise into full freedom, “abide in your calling,” your religion. Personal Christianity may exist in all conditions of life; it is independent of family relations, independent of ecclesiastical institutions, independent of social distinctions, whether slave or master, rich or poor, and where it exists it should be retained amidst all changes and at all costs. “Abide in your calling.”

1Co 7:22-24

Personal Christianity for the bond and the free.

“For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” Although the remarks in our previous sketch include these three verses, there is sufficient meaning in them to justify, if not to require, a separate notice. Understanding, as before intimated, the expression, “called in the Lord,” and again, “abide with God,” to mean personal Christianity, the verses include three general truths.

I. That personal Christianity may be possessed BY THOSE IS SLAVERY AS WELL AS BY THOSE IS FREEDOM. “For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant [a slave], is the Lord’s freeman.” Slavery under the Greek and Roman governments was an established institution. In Corinth slaves abounded. Many of these had been converted by the gospel, and were in connection with the Corinthian Church. Naturally enough, some would desire their emancipation, and the more so as Christianity gave them a sublime sense of their manhood. Paul’s advice is not to be too anxious on the subject of their enfranchisement, but rather to be anxious to “abide” in their “calling,” their religion. Christianity is for man as man, not for him as rich or poor, erudite or rude, bond or free, but for him as a man; it comes to him as outward nature comes to him, with equal freeness and fitness for all. The physical, civil, or ecclesiastical condition of a man, therefore, in this life is no excuse for his not becoming a Christian: though bound in chains, his soul is freefree to think, to resolve, to worship, and it is with the soul that Christianity has to do. Hence religion in slavery is not an uncommon fact. Slaves were members of many of the first Churches, and religion reigned amongst a large number of those who were held in bondage in the Southern States of America.

II. That the possession of personal Christianity, whether by the bond or the free, INVESTS MAN WITH THE HIGHEST LIBERTY. He is the “Lord’s freeman,” whoever he is; the Lord has emancipated his soul, however firmly manacled his bodily limbs. All the inner chains that bound his soul, to mere earthly influence, fleshly pleasures, and sinful pursuits, are snapped asunder, and he revels in the liberty wherewith “Christ makes his people free.” What freedom like this freedom from the dominion and consequences of moral wrong? This is the “glorious liberty of the children of God.”

“He is the freeman whom the truth makes free,
And all are slaves besides.”

III. That the possession of the highest liberty LESSENS NO MAN‘S MIGHTY OBLIGATION TO SERVE CHRIST. “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” All creatures are the property of the Creator. No creature owns itself. The highest angel has nothing in him that he can call his own. Man is not merely the property of God on the ground of creatureship, but on the ground of Christ’s interposition. “Ye are not your own: ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” This being the case, however free and independent of men, you must ever be the servant of Christ; serve him heartily, faithfully, loyally, and forever. His service is perfect freedom, his service is heaven.

CONCLUSION. See how Christianity is to work out necessary reformations for the world, not by force but by influence, not from without but from within, by working from the centre to the circumference. “There are,” says F. W. Robertson, “two mistakes which are often made upon this subject: one is the error of supposing that outward institutions are unnecessary for the formation Of character, and the other that of supposing that they are all that is required to form the human soul. If we rightly understand the duty of a Christian man, it is thisto make his brethren free inwardly and outwardly: first inwardly, so that they may become masters of themselves, rulers of their passions, having the power of self rule and self control; and then outwardly, so that there may be every power and opportunity of developing the inward life; in the language of the prophet, “to break the rod of oppression, and let the oppressed go free.”

“Who are the free?
They who have scorn’d the tyrant and his rod,
And bow’d in worship unto none but God;
They who have made the conqueror’s glory dim,
Unchain’d in soul though manacled in limb,
Unwarp’d by prejudice, unawed by wrong,
Friends to the weak, and fearless of the strong;
They who could change not with the changing hour,
The self same man in peril and in power;
True to the law of right, as warmly prone
To grant another’s as maintain their own;
Foes of oppression wheresoe’er it be;
These are the proudly free.”

HOMILIES BY C. LIPSCOMB

1Co 7:1-11

Views concerning marriage: the institution in itself and in relation to circumstances, obligations, and duties.

We have seen what a meeting place Corinth was for the schools of philosophy and Judaisma sort of metropolitan Coliseum, in which the gladiators of intellect were in unceasing combat. Neither Rome, nor Athens, nor Jerusalem, afforded such a field of contention as this proud and sensual city, where worldly culture and elegance existed side by side with commercial wealth and luxury. Now, we know what occurs when the waters of the Gulf Stream, bearing northward its immense store of heat from the Gulf of Mexico, come in contact off Newfoundland with the Polar currents, and what a vast bank of fog rises from the condensation of warm vapour in a cold atmosphere. This may symbolize what was going on in Corinth at this time. A century before, the world had been agitated by the ideas and schemes of Julius Caesar, the foremost man of his age, and quite as great a revolutionizer of men’s ways of thinking as of political institutions. Imperialism was now in the ascendancy, and the nations were ostensibly a nationa colossal Rome. But the quickening of thought remained, and this inured to the advantage of Christianity. There was not only external tranquillity, but the precise kind of tranquillity which St. Paul needed; and, though local disturbances often arose and at times violent commotions, yet the Roman law was his best earthly friend. At Corinth he had taught and preached and founded a Church. For three years he had been absent, and, meantime, what collisions had set in, and, amidst the surging to and fro of opinions and prejudices and enmities, what disorders had been tolerated! Over everything and everywhere was felt the chilly mist, a twilight to some, a midnight to others, a bewildering gloom to all. This, however, was providential. Teachers must remand pupils to themselves. Such a new and singular force as St. Paul was in the worldsuch pre-eminently as he had shown himself in Corinth by his opposition to the views of Greeks and Jews, and by his uncompromising zeal in behalf of the distinctive tenets of the gospelmust be suffered to do its work independently of his presence and immediate oversight. And we now see in this chapter, more fully than before, what conflicts of intellect and passion were in progress, what strange alienations had transpired, and how far gone many of his disciples were from the path in which he had expected their feet to tread. Had anything escaped this billowy sweep of strife? It was even dashing against the institution of marriage, which men had agreed to honour as the most important and the most venerable of earthly interests. Incest had been tolerated in the Church, and St. Paul had found it necessary to argue on the highest religious ground against the sensual evils of fornication. Of late we have heard much concerning a scientific basis of morality. If, however, we follow St. Paul, who never contradicts history, we see that even enlightened instincts cannot be trusted when withdrawn from the guidance and support of the Holy Spirit. Men may theorize as they please. One thing, nevertheless, is certain, and that one thing is, that whenever practical men deal with social questions, they accept St. Paul as the thinker of humanity. Even instincts need God to control them. Proceeding to discuss the questions submitted to him by the Corinthians, he begins this chapter by considering marriage in that aspect which was under debate just then at Corinth. Marriage in the abstract is only in view so far as recurrence is necessary, in the conduct of the argument, to the fundamental principles inseparable from the relation. He treats it, in view of existing circumstances, as a matter to be decided by expediency, each one judging what is best. Whether the unmarried shall be married or not must be determined by themselves in the light of their personal organization, and by the indications of Providence and the Spirit. Freedom within the bounds of law is freedom to deny the use of lawful rights and privilegesso St. Paul had just arguedand marriage comes under this provision. But here as everywhere, “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,” and so reverential is he in his attitude towards humanity, that in the application of expediency to marriage, he will go no further than offer advice. Under the circumstances, it was the only proper course for him to adopt. No sympathy could he feel with the reaction against marriage in itself, which had set in more than a century before among the Romans, and, while an effect, was also a cause of the widespread demoralization of the age. Doubtless the cares of a family in that troubled period, and the supposed nearness of Christ’s advent, had their influence on his mind, and yet he is well aware that, in the lowest view of marriage, it was a protection against vice. Too well he knew the evils which were cursing society because of the popular freethinking on this subject. For five hundred and twenty years not a divorce had been known in Rome, but we may form some idea of the effect of class wealth and debauching leisure if we recall the facts that in the last days of the republic, Cato of Utica, a religious fanatic in his way, had separated from his wife because a friend wished to marry her and, after his friend’s death, had made her his wife again. “On the whole,” says Mr. Lecky, “it is probable that the Roman matron was from the earliest period a name of honour; that the beautiful sentence of a jurisconsult of the empire, who defined marriage as a lifelong fellowship of all Divine and human rights, expressed most faithfully the feelings of the people; and that female virtue shone in every age conspicuously in Roman biographies.” But a deplorable change had set in, such a change that Augustus had found it necessary to take measures for the encouragement of marriage. Nowhere was this corruption more rife than in Corinth, that only repeated on a larger scale the social enormities daily witnessed at Baiae, Herculaneum, and Pompeii. Now, in this state of free thinking, with its attendant wickedness, St. Paul’s duty was not without embarrassment. Towards the evil itself and its utter grossness his course was plain enough. On the other hand, there were questions of casuistry to be considered. Marriage as a safeguard of virtue, marriage as a union of hearts, marriage as the highest type of human oneness, marriage in its spiritual importall involved in it as a Divine institution and as the basis, vitality, security, of all other institutionsthis was realized then and always in his apostleship. But there were pure and honest minded persons among his Corinthian converts, who were troubled by doubts and misgivings, and to whom duty was by no means clear. The instincts of nature had something to say, end their voice was entitled to a hearing. And, at the same time, prudence and conscience were not to be dogmatically silenced. St. Paul saw what to do, and he did it. He was profoundly sensitive to principles, he was thoroughly sympathetic with persons, and his judgment was the product of a wise consideration of gospel truth and of the facts at Corinth with which he was dealing. There is an ideal view to which he refers in the opening verse of this chapter, but the practical view in contrast with it is that, in order to be guarded against temptation and escape falling into the worst of social sins, “Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” For, as Neander says, “we must not overlook the fact that Paul is here, not treating of marriage in general, but only in its relation to the condition of things at Corinth, where he feared the effect of moral prejudices concerning celibacy.” Nor does he hesitate to say, “I would that all men were even as myself,” and yet he qualifies this by stating that “every man hath his proper gift of God,” a gift of grace, “one after this manner, and another after that;” so that, whether married or single, the “gift of God” must be recognized, since, as Bengel remarks, “that which in the natural man is a natural habit, becomes in the saints a gift of grace.”L.

1Co 7:12-28

Mixed marriages.

“To the rest,” those cases in which one party was a believer and the other not, “speak I, not the Lord.” Yet, while St. Paul does not claim to expound and apply a formal law, he must not be considered as abnegating for the time his apostolic office and giving an opinion simply personal. The decision pronounced here is a very weighty one, and obviously it is an utterance of God’s will. “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, what shall he do? That depends on the wife herself. The initiative step is not with the husband: “If she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.” So of the wife with respect to her husband. Obviously, then, personal will is contemplated, and the difference between marriage where both parties are Christians, and marriage where only one party is a Christian, lies in the fact that, in the latter instance, the continuance of the relationship is contingent on the adaptiveness of the parties each to the other and their ready disposition to be a mutual source of happiness. The will of the Lord is that they keep together, and they should endeavour to fulfil this will, but if controversies exist and the true ends of marriage are not only not met, but cannot be met, then at the option of the wife, the husband may put her away. The converse holds good, so that in the case of either party, individual will may interpose a bar to the continued union. “God hath called us to peace.” In such a solemn act, no wilfulness, no passion, no worldly and selfish motives, must have place. “Peace,” and “peace” only, can warrant the step. And in connection with “peace” he presents two views, one antecedent, the other subsequent, to the statement, that “a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.” A Christian husband or wife sanctifies the marriage tie, and accordingly it was pleasing to God that the relationship should be perpetuated. “I am not the rose,” says a Persian proverb, “but I live with the rose, and am therefore sweet” What grace comes to us through the tender associations of life, much of it unconscious, silent and secret, asking no leave, provoking no resistance, floating into us on the air and mingling with our blood, sweetening and purifying we know not how, and all the more precious because our agency is for a while quietly set aside, and the Spirit of the blessed Jesus asserts his Divine supremacy! “Children” too! The declaration is strong and unequivocal: “They are holy” Age was before the Fall; childhood came after; and childhood had net been possible but for the promise of the “Seed of the woman” antedating her other offspring. “Of such is the kingdom of heaven. Baptism does not create this holiness, but acknowledges its existence, and testifies, on the part of God and on behalf of the Church, that “your children” are in Christ and therefore “holy.” What a motive this, that the marriage relation in these “mixed marriages” should be maintained! What an appeal to instinct, to memory and hope, to all the truest and noblest sentiments which are the strength and stay of home! All the grandest influences of Christianity come from the heart of Christ to our hearts; and whenever intellect is perplexed and doubts arise and logic confesses its weakness, we fall back on the great, sure, primal instincts of the heart, and work thence and upward into light and assurance. “Your heart shall live forever,” and because it shall “live forever,” it lives now amidst intellectual conflicts and bewildering questions with an inherent testimony to Christ and his truth such as could only spring from the immovable consciousness of its mortal birthright. Turn now to the subsequent statement contained in the sixteenth verse. Hatred and contentions may arise; if incurable, “peace” must be had by separation. But St. Paul is exceedingly anxious to prevent a severance of the marriage tie, and hence appeals to the believing husband or wife to continue in the holy relationship in view of the possible salvation of the unbelieving partner. By some learned men this interpretation is contested. According to their view, St. Paul meant to express uncertainty, to throw doubt on the sacred utility of the marriage union with regard to its prospective bearing on the salvation of the unbelieving party, and virtually to advise the believer to look after his or her own spiritual interest. This is not like St. Paul. It is not in accord with his generous solicitude to impress upon the parties the sanctity of their union. It is at variance with the declaration that Christianity recognizes the sanctification of the unbelieving party by the believing. It conflicts with his statement concerning the “holy” children, or at least abates much of its force as a reason why the marriage should not he disrupted. Congruity must be maintained, and congruity in this instanceso it seems to usdemands that this verse, “What knowest thou,” etc., should be construed in close sympathy with the context. A break here would not only be at the expense of the general argument, but a violation of unity at its most essential point, viz. as a nexus between what precedes and what follows. Understand what the time was. Outwardly the sceptre of Rome ruled, tranquillity was maintained, and the disturbances which came on some years later scarcely gave a threatening sign of their approach. But, notwithstanding this condition of things, the foundations of society were undermined, and the instincts of men, though unable to foresee the changes that were to occur, were conscious of impending revolutions. Unrest was common, and unrest never appears alone. A host of apprehensions, an undefinable dread, a disposition to exaggerate dangers, never fail to attend it. St. Paul’s disciples could not escape this atmospheric feverishness, and consequently one of his solicitudes was to keep them contented with their allotments in life. If Christianity proposed to regenerate human society, one of the conditions on which this vast result rested was: “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called” to be a Christian. Whether circumcised or uncircumcised, let him remain satisfied. Was he a servant? “Care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.” Providence that had the past on its side was the best providence for them. “Therein abide with God,” Was not this contentment one of the elements of that sanctification in marriage, and one of the means of holiness in children, and again one of the agencies for the furtherance of the Spirit’s work in the unbelieving husband or wife? To this one point all the lines of his thought converge, viz. let peace be your object, and, in order to attain it, be contented with your position. Beyond question, St. Paul ardently desired to see certain of these positions changed, but he would not have his disciples to be agitators and revolutionizers. Is this a plea for blind conservatism, for an Oriental lethargy, for an unaspiring and unhoping slavishness to things as they were? Does the argument forestall progress? Nay, at that very moment a mighty revolution was going on in society. Christianity guarded all rights and interests; Christianity protected the marriage institution; Christianity, in due time, would make the slave a freedman. But “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” and Christianity must be left to do its work according to God’s method.L.

1Co 7:29-40

Apostolic counsels for the times, and general principles applied now as before.

Some minds are so organized as to be peculiarly open to those impressions which the local and circumstantial produce on thought and feeling. If these become excessive, they are almost sure to trench on principles. Such persons are devotees of sectionality; their prudence is shrewd, but not sagacious; intelligence is narrowed down to time, place, and immediate results; and expediency is with them “the previous question.” St. Paul was not one of these men. Other minds, fond of abstractions and habituated to cloistered thinking, lose the helps of the senses and especially that very important culture, derived from contact with the open world, which teaches us to adjust principles to measures and measures to occasions. Expediency is seldom in their view. St. Paul was not one of these men. A marked fact about his conversion to Christianity was that he ceased to be an intellectual extremist; not only his opinions and convictions were radically changed, but likewise his method of looking at all things. We see in this chapter a man who adheres firmly to his ideal of the Christian Church, and, at the same time, a man who is thoroughly sensible of the uses of expediency. With him, nothing that Christ had settled could be unsettled. Nothing wrong could be expedient, and, in every case, expediency was to render homage to fundamental principles, so that the Spirit of Christ should manifest its purity and beauty. Such an expediency is always morally safe, because it rests, not on self gratification, but on self denial. This is the temper of his argument in the paragraph now under notice. “No commandment of the Lord;” and yet “my judgment” as an apostle is entitled to respect and confidence; the truth none the less a truth, and worthy of this consideration because the utterance of one who had “obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.” That great transparency was not then glowing as in special hours with the resplendency behind it; but the same Divine illumination was there, and every line, touched by the almighty hand, faithfully represented the original. “Mercy to be faithful;” fidelity to truth just as much in advice and counsel as in direct and authoritative command; ay, this is “mercy” indeed, since it shows the dignity of spiritual intellect, and what importance men should attach to its daily offices in life. “The time is shortened:” here is his starting point; and this abridged time is applied instantly to a certain state of mind, which St. Paul would have his converts to cultivate with regard to the world and its relations. Future time is not ordinary future time. It has been narrowed, in order that you Corinthians and all other believers may have an intenser conception of opportunity, a deeper sense of Christ in time, and so learn to look upon human existence under this aspect of its solemnity. First of all, the domestic relation; this most beautiful, tender, and noble of all earthly relationships, whose spirit refuses to be limited by what its loving arms embrace, and is ever reaching towards a loftier ideal, and even when its arms are paralyzed still symbolizes alike in memory and hope the immortality of affection,this holy relation must be made holier by the fact, the time is shortened. If true of this, it is true of all else. Sorrow may be, to some extent, pure and noble, and yet, unawares to ourselves, it may contain a selfish element, and, in the degree this is present, we mourn over ourselves as losers rather than over the object lost. A sorrow truly pure and noble hides its tears from the world, takes up the cross of daily work, feels its loneliness and bears it silently, and toils on with serene patience. To be a Divine disciplinethe most purifying and exalting of which we are capableit must loosen us from earthly things and raise our hearts to God. The death of others, even of our dearest friends, is thus overruled by Providence, as the death in some measure of our pleasure loving nature. “Perfect through suffering” was said of Christ, and in so far as we realize perfection, it is only attained in this way. Our joy must not engross us so as to impair our lively sense of things spiritual. Business must leave us free for meditation and devout exercises. And in whatever way we use the world, whether the world of home, of culture, of trade and commerce, or of professional activity, it must be used in moderation and with due regard to its moral significance. “The earth hath he given to the children of men,” that they may be more than earthly. “All things are yours.” that ye may thereby be richer in Christ Jesus. Viewed in this light, it may not be proper to say that these things are “means of grace,” but they are helpers and auxiliaries to goodness, and give us no small furtherance in the life Divine. Much, very much, in this worm is capable of a most blessed utility. Much of it will live forever, not in itself, but taken into us and assimilated and glorified. Bodily, how much that is bodily, is ever becoming eternally mental and spiritual! It is the immortal soul, born of God, redeemed by Christ, sanctified by the Holy Ghost, that saves material nature from being a picturesque show and a deceptions sham. Plentifully, indeed, she meets our physical wants, quite as lavishly our wishes, generously too our tastes, and yet, while guaranteeing her economic and intellectual uses with a royal magnificence, she is looking beyond and a far, and her thought is of the blessings that are imperishable. “The body is… for the Lord,” and through the pathways of the body, the gates of the senses, the “vaults,” the galleries,” and passage ways that physiology assures us exist beneath the grey matter of the upper brain;through these as highways what vast processions are daily moving heavenwards! Beauty and sublimity have not terminated their offices when they have flashed to the canvas of the painter or breathed themselves into the marble of the sculptor. Poetry has not finished her task when she has found a Dante, a Shakespeare, a Milton. Music has not been exhausted in the act of creating Mozart and Beethoven and Mendelssohn. Every one of these influences is what it is in itself, because of man’s immortality. The training we get in the body and through the body, such as the subjugation of the material organization to the organism of the man, the clear common sense won by experience from toil and enterprise, the swift energy, the mastering will of achievement, the patience of endeavour, the heroism that works and waits, and the discipline of the social and rational man,all this complicated training, which suffers no constituent of manhood to evade its grasp, has a reference distinctly providential to the future man. The idea of a Christian probation as altogether different from other conceivable probations, and as standing specifically by itself in the dispensations of the universe, runs through all the economic arrangements of our world. And hence the words of St. Paul, “Use this world as not abusing it,” using it not to the full of the senses and the intellect and the sensibilities as if it were all, but using it as a world even now moving from beneath your feet, and which has no permanency except in the moral and spiritual impressions left by it upon your souls. “The fashion of this world passeth away;” the whole structure, the modes of existence, the relations of existence in their variety and multiplicity, all present objects, the totality which no mind can compute,all this is in motion, the duration has been shortened, and the end is near at hand. Reviewing this argument of the apostle, may we not claim that it presents time in a light altogether new, that its estimate of duration is something intrinsically different from that measured by the time keeper of the heavens, and that it inspires our sense of successional moments in a way peculiar to itself? Nothing in us is more closely connected with the external framework of the universe than our sensibility to time. Yet, while this natural capacity is subjected to an outward machinery, it is also dominant over that machinery, so that an instant may be expanded into an hour or an hour into days. In this respect, moods assert a mastering force, emotions are well nigh omnipotent, and the heavenly orbs take their motions from our pulses. If Christianity took no knowledge of this phenomenon of experience, it would be strangely exceptional to its method of operating on man, which allows no recess of his being to remain unvisited by its light and warmth. Its teaching is, “The time is shortened,” and it makes its doctrine available to practise us in the highest moral wisdom, using the world without abusing its relations. Now, it is worthy of notice that the civilization of our century has advanced in no direction more remarkably than in victory over time. The era opened with the steam engine, and has progressed with the telegraph and telephone, and, in each case, the triumph has been in a fuller control of time. Time has been shortened and yet lengthened, so that we do in weeks what our grandfathers required years to accomplish. Time has been intensified. Today in Europe is today in the backwoods of America, and the yesterday of China and Egypt is a part of the breakfast table talk of this morning. Obviously, sensuous life, in its connections and sympathies, gets the most, at present, of this stimulation. One, however, who takes a broad view of providence, cannot think that the tendency of this increased sensuousness is necessarily downwards into sensualism. For, indeed, Christianity is often most active where we least suspect its presence, since the “kingdom of God,” in civilization as in all else, “cometh not with observation.” This enhanced sensuousness, if we read aright the signs of the times, is gathering together a vast fund of raw materials for transformation into a more capacious and robust Christian manhood. Within the realm of natural law, Christianity is signalizing its power more and more, and the day is not distant when “uniformity,” “evolution,” “homologies,” will have a wider and profounder interpretation than they have now. “The earth helped the woman;” it still helps the woman; and age by age the apocalyptic wonder reveals fresh wonders. Silently, unobserved by the multitude, hidden even front scientific thinkers, God is reclaiming nature for his Son; and he who, eighteen hundred years age, multiplied bread for the hungry, healed diseases, and established his claim as the Lord of nature, is making ready to reaffirm that sovereignty in a manner more resplendent than by miracles. And as to this matter of shortened and intensified time, who but the Lord Jesus as Son of man was the first sublime instance of ascendancy over the limitations of time? Thirty years of seclusion, three years of work, young manhood cut short in its prime, and yet those three years giving birth to centuries which, amid manifold evils, have yet steadily progressed in the direction of a regenerated humanity. For him, indeed, time was shortened, and his is the perfect example of using the world without the slightest abuse. And just in the proportion we have his Spirit, shall we feel that the soul has a calendar of days unknown in the chronometry of the material universe.L.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON

1Co 7:2

Christianity and marriage.

The human mind is influenced by the law of action and reaction, and hence human opinion tends to extremes. Corinth was a city famous, or rather infamous, for its licentiousness; not only was society corrupt; religion sanctioned and spread the prevalent moral corruption. No place was more remarkable for the union between splendour and impurity. When a Christian community was formed at Corinth, it was natural enough that some of the old leaven of sensuality should appear and threaten to corrupt the mass. Hence the tolerance of fornication and, in one case, even of adultery and incest. But what is remarkable is that in the very same society there should be a faction or a tendency of thought and sentiment in the direction of asceticism. There were those who represented all sexual intercourse as impure, and beneath the dignity and unworldliness of spiritual men. Paul himself, though his language was afterwards coloured by sectarian transcribers of his Epistle, was evidently somewhat inclined to severity in his judgment upon the relations between man and woman. Yet in this verse he honours and authorizes the estate of marriage.

I. MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUTION AND RELATIONSHIP BASED UPON THE DIVINE COMMAND. This cannot be questioned by those who accept the Scriptures as credible and authoritative. The primeval commandment stands upon record, and witnesses both against the unrestrained and licentious intercourse which some have defended as natural, but which is really unnatural and debasing, and also against the ascetic doctrine, to which now and again religious societies have inclined, that all sexual feeling is sinful. It is noticeable that our Lord Jesus himself repeats and sanctions the original commandment as to the lawfulness and inviolability of marriage.

II. THE EXPRESS COMMAND IS IN HARMONY WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND NATURAL ADAPTATION OF THE SEXES. There is nothing arbitrary and meaningless in the provisions of the moral law. That law is written upon the heart and conscience, upon the very bodily frame of man, and is not simply uttered in the voice of the Divine Lawgiver. Whoever studies the human constitution in body and in mind cannot fail to recognize and admire the adaptation which is embodied in the sacred ordinance of matrimony.

III. MARRIAGE IS PROMOTIVE OF SOME OF THE BEST AND PUREST AFFECTIONS OF HUMAN NATURE IN THOSE WHOM IT UNITES. There is no institution which so emphatically strikes at the very root of selfishness. The man is weaned away from the too common practice of self gratification; the woman has called forth all the latent affection and devotion of her being; and the family becomes the sphere of self denial and self sacrifice, of mutual forbearance and helpfulness. That such is always the case is not asserted; but such is the proper, and to a very large extent the actual, tendency of this institution. True, there are those among the unmarried who cherish love which animates them to many labours; but there is no room for comparison between the virtues of the married and the unmarried, inasmuch as, amongst men, those who shrink from marriage usually do so avowedly to escape serious obligations and to indulge unbridled desires.

IV. MARRIAGE IS THE BEST PRESERVATIVE AGAINST VICE AND THE BEST AID TO VIRTUE. Paul seems to have admitted the contention of his Corinthian correspondents, that in some cases it was expedient to avoid marriage, and that such a course might be admirable in the passionless and peculiarly spiritual. But what in modern English is called “common sense” was very strong in the apostle, and he gives a very plain reason for a very plain precept. In the presence of the voluptuousness of Corinth there could be little need for many words; Paul’s words are few and pungent. And whilst human nature is what it is, his counsels will hold good, and those of superfine and ascetic moralists will be discredited by the facts of human life.

V. BY MARRIAGE ARE SECURED THE WELFARE OF SOCIETY AND THE PROSPERITY OF THE CHURCH. The family is the true unit in human society, and the enemy of marriage is the enemy of humanity. It is in the family that virtuous and honourable citizens are bred and reared, and there principles are instilled which are at the foundation of national stability. And the old saying is equally true, that by marriage heaven itself is replenished. It is hence that the Church draws its members and its officers; it is here that the natural life anti the eternal life are alike commenced and nurtured.T.

1Co 7:7

Distinct gifts.

Paul had peculiar natural powers, adapting him for a life of consecration and a life of service. But it was a beautiful feature in his character that he did not expect or wish all Christians to resemble himself in all things; such resemblance might be naturally pleasing to him, but his was too noble a nature to constrain him to see and judge all through his own medium. In fellow labourers he recognized adaptation for usefulness, and was evidently convinced that the distribution of Divine gifts was appointed by the wisdom and beneficence of the great Head over all things to the Church.

I. HUMAN ENDOWMENTS ARE DIVINE GIFTS. It is characteristic of a religious and devout mind to look up to the Source and Author of all. If to God we are to attribute the providential favours we enjoy, shall we suppose that even higher gifts are to be traced to an inferior source? Inspiration enabled our great teachers to see the Giver in the gift. The word here used is indeed often used to denote those special supernatural powers, such as healing, tongues, prophecy, which were bestowed upon members of the primitive Church for a season and for a purpose. But the context shows that those gifts which are ordinary are as justly to be traced to the favour and bounty of Heaven as those which are extraordinary. Indeed, it may asked of every Christian, “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?”

II. DIVINE GIFTS ARE BESTOWED UPON MEN IN GREAT DIVERSITY AND VARIETY. “Every man hath his proper gift of God.” It is so in bodily constitutionone has muscular strength, another constitutional endurance, a third manual dexterity, etc. It is so in temperamentone is calm and. wise, another is tender and sympathetic, a third is impulsive and commanding. It is so in intellectual characterone reasons with force, another persuades with fervour, a third speaks with eloquence. Where are two leaves of the forest alike, or two faces indistinguishable? So in the Church of Christone has the gift to rule, another the gift to teach, another the gift to console. One is fitted for a pastor, another for an evangelist. One is called to a public position, another is adapted to the service of the one Redeemer in private life.

III. THESE GIFTS ARE COMPLEMENTARY TO ONE ANOTHER, AND IN THEIR EXERCISE COOPERATE TO THE GENERAL GOOD, None can be spared. There is generosity, but no lavish waste, in the liberality of the Divine Giver. On the other hand, there is no deficiency, no grudging and withholding. Pray for the qualified workman, and the work shall not be left undone for want of the necessary helper, Because all things are Christ’s, all things are ours. One supplies another’s lack, and mutual sympathy and common ministrations subserve the general good.

PRACTICAL LESSONS.

1. Gratitude should be cultivated as due to him who is Giver of all.

2. Pride should be repressed; for if one has his gift he has to remember that it is a gift bestowed in grace.

3. Forbearance and toleration are requisite. It is vain to expect all gifts to centre in the same person, to look for what God has not bestowed, to complain because a man has “his proper gift” and only that.T.

1Co 7:16

Earthly relationships sanctified to heavenly uses.

There were several obvious and powerful reasons why a Christian husband or wife should not leave a partner who was married in days when both were unbelievers, and who had not experienced conversion from heathenism or Judaism to Christianity. And to some extent the same reasons hold good when one has passed from merely nominal to real and spiritual Christianity.

1. An obligation has been undertaken from which only flagrant immorality can liberate either party.

2. Children may have been born during the union, whose welfare depends upon its continuance.

3. Affection may have sprung up which it would be a cruel outrage to suspend or check. And then, in addition, there is the reason given in the text.

4. The continuance of the union may make the Christian husband or wife the minister of spiritual blessing to the “unconverted” consort.

I. AN ATTRACTIVE REPRESENTATION MAY RE FURNISHED OF THE CHRISTIAN CHARACTER. The standard of moral excellence presented in the Word of God is indeed singularly high and admirable. But morality in a book is one thing, morality embodied in the life is quite another thing, Morality proclaimed from a pulpit is far less impressive than morality speaking from the domestic hearth. There are such virtues as truth, meekness, pity, patience, and charity, which are peculiarly Christian; and the exhibition of these is likely to lead to the inquiryWhence come these traits of character? What is the secret of a life so different from the life of the selfish and the ungoverned? How many a husband has been won to Christ, beholding in his Christian wife a “a chaste conversation coupled with fear”!

II. AN UNCONSCIOUS INFLUENCE IN FAVOUR OF TRUE RELIGION MAY BE EXERCISED BY ONE PRAYERFULLY SOLICITOUS FOR THE SALVATION OF A SPOUSE. Who can know, unmoved, that a dear consort is seeking his spiritual welfare? There is a tone imparted to the intercourse of daily life by the habit of intercessory prayer. And there is a dignity, a gentleness, a spirituality, of manner and of language, which cannot escape the observation of such as are associated in the tenderest intimacies of life. There is no desire and prayer so all penetrating and all influential, as the desire and prayer for the spiritual and eternal welfare of those who are nearest and dearest, united by the most sacred and endearing of earthly ties.

III. AN OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS FOR EXPRESS INSTRUCTION AND PERSUASION WHICH MAY ISSUE IN SPIRITUAL GOOD. In many instances it may be unwise to make a special and formal effort to convince and to persuade; it may be better to leave religion to tell its own tale and do its own work. But cases do occur in which Providence makes an opening for an effort. Stanley’s remark upon this verse is well worth quoting: “The verse so understood has probably conduced to the frequent instances of the conversion of unbelieving husbands by believing wives. Even the stern severity of Chrysostom relaxes in its presence into the declaration, ‘that no teacher has such an effect in conversion as a wife,’ and this passage, thus interpreted, probably had a direct influence on the marriage of Clotilde with Clovis, and Bertha with Ethelbert, and consequently on the subsequent conversion of the two great kingdoms of France and England to the Christian faith.” There are few Christian ministers who from their own observation could not tell of similar instances in lowlier life, where God has blessed the influence of wife to husband, or of husband to wife, so that they have become heirs together of the grace of life. Whilst, on the one hand, the mere hope of exercising such influence should never lead a man or a woman to marry an unbeliever, on the other hand, when unequal unions have been formed, the possibility opened up in this verse should lead to wise and affectionate effort, and to earnest and unwearying prayer.T.

1Co 7:19

Obedience is everything.

One great result of the introduction of Christianity into the world was to diminish the importance of trifles and to elevate great things into their due prominence. True religion thus acts by restoring to all things their due proportions, by putting all things in their due perspective. In religions of human device the greatest stress is laid upon what is valueless and things of supreme moment are ignored, in nothing is the religion of Christ more signally in contrast with and in advance of the religions of the heathen than in this vital point.

I. THE INDIFFERENCE OF OUTWARD POSITION AND OBSERVANCE. The great distinction in the time of the apostles and in the society in which they moved was the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, or, as it was the custom to express it, between the circumcision and the uncircumcision. But this distinction stands before us as representative of all external lines of demarcation, of all parties sundered by associations and observances amongst men. When the apostle says that circumcision and uncircumcision are “nothing,” he uses very strong language, but he thus sets forth the insignificance of a man’s birth, religious associations, reputation in this world, compared with his personal character. A lesson this which we find also in his Epistle to the Galatians, who, like the Corinthians, were assailed by false teachers who nought to substitute formality for spirituality. The inference is valid from this instance to all instances embraced in the general principle. It is to be observed that this apostolic teaching has two applications.

1. Those who insist upon forms are blamed for their narrowness.

2. Those who insist upon the neglect of forms are equally blamed for their intolerance. Neither one way nor the other is it allowable for one to dictate to another or to boast over another. The temperaments, habits, education, opinions, of Christians will probably decide whether or not they incline to express their religion in ceremonies or to dispense with such.

II. THE ALL IMPORTANCE OF AN OBEDIENT HEART AND LIFE. When it is affirmed that circumcision and uncircumcision are “nothing,” it is suggested that the keeping of the Divine commandments is everythingthat this is the one thing of supreme importance.

1. There is implied the evangelical motive to Christian obedience. Certainly Paul was the last to teach that the mere outward compliance and conformity were sufficient. The prohibitions of the Law may be Observed, yet the Searcher of hearts is not satisfied if the soul be not surrendered and devoted to him. And our Lord Jesus has very clearly and pointedly shown the relation between motive, and practice in his saving. “If love me, keep my commandments;” “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

2. Them is implied the supreme and righteous authority of God. It is too common, in representing the Creator as the Bestower of all gifts and as the Source of all grace, to overlook the very important and scriptural view of God as the just Governor and King of men. He has a right to command; all his ordinances and directions are in perfect harmony with the eternal and flawless moral law. It is not merely a superior power, it is a rightful authority to which we are bidden to submit, and to this our own reason and conscience unequivocally testify.

3. There is implied the universal range and sphere of the religious life. Not in an occasional act, not in an exceptional observance, lies our conformity to the Divine will. The commandments of God apply to the whole moral life of man, leave nothing untouched, unblestthey are “exceeding broad.” All the activities of our nature and all the aspects of our life are contemplated and included in this comprehensive condition of true religion. The Jew and the Gentile, the young and the old, the learned and the illiterate, however they may be related to ceremonial observances, are all one in thisall can recognize the obligation to Christian obedience, and all can find in their several positions and avocations and relationships abundant opportunity for practically and cheerfully fulfilling the obligation they are alike in acknowledging.T.

1Co 7:22, 1Co 7:23

Freedom and bondage.

To the mind of the apostle spiritual and immortal relations seemed so vast and momentous that they dwarfed those relations which are earthly and temporary. It may appear to some readers of this passage of the Epistle as if Paul did not attach enough importance to the conditions of life in which Christians may find themselves. But the fact is that the friendship of Christ and the hopes of eternity were so real and precious to him that all beside seemed insignificant; whilst the uncertainty attaching to the period of the present dispensation was so present to his mind that he could not concern himself very feelingly with what might so soon forever pass away.

I. THE BONDMAN‘S FREEDOM. It is well known how very large a proportion of the Roman empire were slaves, and how pitiable was the condition of the whole class, how wretched and hopeless the condition of a large portion of the class. We cannot wonder that the gospel of Jesus Christ found so cordial and grateful a welcome from the bondmen in many cities of the empire. In many instances Christianity actually ameliorated the let of the slave; in many more it enabled the unfortunate to bear their trials with patience, and to look beyond them to the glorious liberty of the children of God. The Epistle to Philemon gives us an insight into the relations between a Christian master and a Christian slave. What was the secret of the change which began so auspiciously, and which has proceeded so surely and so beneficially with the lapse of centuries? That Christianity had from the first a tendency to put an end to such inequality, none can doubt. But deeper than the social movement was a spiritual energy which displayed itself in the individual life. Liberty of spirit compensated the yoke of bondage. The humblest slave cherished the assurance that he was the Lord’s freeman. This honourable distinction, the privileges and immunities it brought, the hopes it inspired, made the heart contented and the life tranquil and bright. The same process may take place in cases very different, yet allied. There are in every state of society those whose position is lowly and whose earthly prospects are cheerless, who may nevertheless enjoy the conviction that the Lord, the Son, has made them free, so that they are free indeed, in the enjoyment of a spiritual liberty and all its privileges and anticipations.

II. THE FREEMAN‘S BONDAGE. The passage contains a twofold paradox: it presents us with a slave enfranchised, and with a freeman in bonds. If the poor slave was encouraged not to allow his chains to tie him in spirit to the earth, the freeman was reminded that, “called in the Lord,” he was captive to a Divine will and consecrated to a Divine service.

1. The cause and explanation of this servitude. The Christian is reminded that he is “bought with a price.” Brought into a new bondage by the purchase of a Saviour’s blood, he is no more his own. Thus Christ and his sufferings are represented as the source of the new obligations which the ransomed have contracted.

2. The negative side of the change thus effected. It is a grand and stirring appeal of the apostle: “Be not ye the servants of men.” Alas! what multitudes subject themselves to a base thraldom, in accepting the chains of human slavery, whilst they disdain the easy yoke of the Redeemer! But it is the prerogative of the Christian to be superior alike to human judgment and to human authority.

3. The positive side. He is “Christ’s servant” who is called in the Lord, although free in a civil sense. From Paul’s own biography we are able to form a judgment as to the value which he set on Roman citizenship. But his highest honour was to subject and devote his powers to his Saviour. So far from there being any degradation, any ignominy in such service, it is most honourable, most illustrious. Yet it must be something more than a name; it involves the bringing, not of the life only, but of every thought, “into captivity to the obedience of Jesus Christ.”T.

1Co 7:29-31

“The time is short.”

There is, and there ought to be, a marked difference between the conduct of the Christian and that of the unbeliever. This difference originates primarily in the new principles with which the mind of the disciple of Christ is possessed and by which it is governed; the faith and gratitude towards the Saviour which constitute and mark the man a Christian make him a new man. Yet there is another, beside this loftiest reason, for the outward differences in this the apostle refers; the rapidly approaching end of the present dispensation, when really expected, must exercise considerable influence over the Christian’s life.

I. THE TRANSITORINESS AND PERISHABLENESS OF THE PRESENT STATE AND OF ALL THAT PERTAINS TO IT IS A POWERFUL MOTIVE OVER THE CHRISTIAN‘S MIND AND LIFE. The apostle puts this matter in two lights.

1. The time is short, contracted into a small compass. This must be taken in connection with the eternity of God, with whom “one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day;” and also in connection with the mortality of man, whose days on earth are as a shadow whose life passes as the swift ships. The season, or dispensation, in which our earthly work is to be done and our earthly witness borne, is fleeting. “The day and the hour knoweth no man; yet our Lord’s language is ever, “Watch!”

2. “The fashion of this world passeth away.” It is like a cloud shadow on the sea, a wind wave on the corn, a meteor in the sky. Of this pathetic truth all human history is a proof, and the events of every generation an illustration that to the reflective cannot fail to be impressive. Nothing continueth in one stay. The first Christians seem sometimes to have been possessed with the conviction that the end of the age and the advent of the Lord were very near. Nearer still are they to us, who are admonished to live under the influence of the sublime expectation.

II. HUMAN LIFE ABOUNDS WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXHIBITING THE PRACTICAL POWER OF THIS PRINCIPLE AND MOTIVE.

1. Human relationships are influenced by the considerations adduced. The apostle refers especially to marriage, because it was the question concerning the expediency of matrimony which occasioned the introduction of the great principle of the passage. On account of present uncertainties and the pressure of the time, Paul thought it well for some Christians not to marry, and for the married to be on their guard against absorption in family cares.

2. Human emotions should be moderated by the same considerations. There is no room for extreme joy or sorrow when the events which occasion these feelings are themselves upon the wing. The emotions are not forbidden, but excessive indulgence of them is deprecated.

3. Human business cannot be allowed to be too absorbing; for property will soon be valueless, and the worm itself will vanish and be no more seen. How obvious the duty to hold earthly possessions with a light hand, and to use the world and all it contains with a wise discretion, and to avoid misusing what is so little able to afford a lasting satisfaction!T.

HOMILIES BY E. HURNDALL

1Co 7:1, 1Co 7:2, 1Co 7:7-9, 1Co 7:25-35

Celibacy and marriage.

The Corinthian Christians had written to the apostle for direction respecting the relative desirability and recumbency of single and wedded life. Probably some of them regarded marriage as obligatory, and others perhaps looked upon it as an evil. Amongst Gentiles there was at this period strong tendency towards celibacy. The reputation of Corinth was, moreover, an unenviable for wantonness and uncleanness. There was therefore great need for full and explicit statement, supplemented by apostolic authority.

I. THE APOSTLE DECLARES EACH STATE TO BE LAWFUL. This is apparent from the two opening verses of the chapter. In itself it is no sin to marry; it is no sin to remain unmarried. Perhaps specially to those regarding marriage as obligatory, the apostle says “It is good [expedient, profitable] for a man not to touch a woman;” and to those all for celibacyspeaking generally, “Let every man have his own wife.” Both conditions are honourable. We are left to choose between the two. But rules are laid down for guidance.

II. CHOICE BETWEEN THE TWO SHOULD BE LARGELY DETERMINED BY CONDITION AND CIRCUMSTANCE. From 1Co 7:1, 1Co 7:7, 1Co 7:8, 1Co 7:38, it has been too hastily concluded by some that Paul decidedly favours celibacy per se. But 1Co 7:7 is ambiguous, and is thought by not a few to refer to the gift of continence, which qualifies a man for single or wedded life, as circumstances may determine; and the ether verses, together with this verse, must not be dissevered from 1Co 7:26, which qualifies the whole chapter. Paul has vividly before his mind the surroundings of the Christian Church in his own age. What was expedient in the “present distress” might not be desirable under other conditions. And similarly, the “better” might cease to be so under changed circumstances. We read elsewhere (Heb 13:4) that “marriage is honourable in all.” And it is the Apostle Paul himself who elevates marriage to the loftiest position by employing it as a type of the union between Christ and believers (Eph 5:25-32). It is also the same apostle who pronounces, the prohibition of marriage to be one of the signs of the great apostacy (1Ti 4:3). “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen 2:18). On Paul’s communication to the Corinthians it has been aptly said, “The truth is that the apostle writes to the Corinthians as he would do to an army about to enter on a most unequal conflict in an enemy’s country and for a protracted period. He tells them, ‘This is no time for you to think of marriage. You have a right to marry. And in general it is best that all men should marry. But in your circumstances marriage can only lead to embarrassment and suffering.'” This is putting the matter bluntly. Perhaps it goes a little beyond the apostle’s expressed counsel, yet it shows the drift of his advice. It would seem that choice is to be determined by:

1. Condition or qualification. Celibacy is not commended to any except those who have the gift of continence. To many it would prove a snarean occasion of the most serious evil. It is not at all “good” for the generality, since most men do not possess the necessary qualification. Thus the almost universal injunction in the second verse follows and qualifies the commendation in the first. Even under adverse temporal circumstances it may thus be better for some to marry. The apostle is most cautious upon this point, and is in great contrast to Romanists, who relegate to celibacy the entire priesthood.

2. Circumstances. The “present distress,” because of the sorrows, perplexities, and sufferings which it occasioned in so large a degree to those having upon them the responsibilities of married life, inclined the apostle to commend celibacy to those qualified to practise it. We have here valuable suggestions. Marriage is not to be rashly entered upon. Temporal surroundings and prospects are to be taken into account. Prudence is to be observed in affairs matrimonial. What woeful results have followed imprudent unions! Many who fall into love seem to fall out of their senses at the same time. Not a few regard marriage as a goal to be reached at all hazards. They display infinitely more anxiety to get to it than they do to get to heaven. Evidently they regard it as a most perfect paradise, but when they reach it by the road of folly they generally find that there is a serpent in that garden as in the one of old.

III. THE APOSTLE DIRECTS OUR THOUGHTS TO THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF THE TWO STATES.

1. Celibacy has less care attaching to it, especially in troublous times. The unmarried have more leisure to attend to the things of the Lord. The married must concern themselves more about things temporal, and this may prove a distraction injurious to higher duties. A loving wife tends to occupy her mind very largely about her husband, and a loving husband about his wife. There is danger here lest the claims of One who should be far more to us than husband or wife be neglected. This is especially so in days of persecution and of violent and sudden change. The beloved object may be threatened with suffering; the price of escape may be unfaithfulness to God. Here is the pinch; felt terribly in days of darkness. It is easier for many to suffer themselves than to see their dear ones suffer. And we are apt to excuse conduct which has for its object the welfare of anotherwhen we should be bound to condemn it if we only were concerned. Shall I see my wife and children exposed to nameless insult and hideous cruelty, or forswear the faith? This was the dread alternative set before many a married man in the days of Paul. As we have seen, a celibate may devote himself entirely to the Lord and his service. I do not understand the apostle to say that this is impossible in one who is married, but that human claims may come into conflict with Divine. In happy peaceful times the conflict might never arise; in days of persecution it might be severe. Note: There is here no commendation of monastic or isolated celibacy. The apostle would doubtless expect the celibate to exhibit his devotion to God very largely by works of usefulness amongst his fellow men (as in the ease of Paul himself). Observe: The single state is not to be sneered at. It has special opportunities, Those who adopt it from right motives are worthy of all esteem. And those who are compelled to it by circumstances, if they use its advantages, are to be held in honour. Frequently, however, they are considered the fittest objects for ridicule. Yet “old maids” are sometimes the best of maids. And men unfettered by wedded responsibilities have frequently been patterns of excellence and usefulness.

2. Marriage is the safer condition morally. (1Co 7:2.) It is freer from temptation. It is the condition appropriate for a large number. And let us not forget that God has so made us that the generality find their true place in the domestic circle (1Co 7:7). “It is not good that the man should be alone” has very extensive application. Marriage is needful for the replenishing of the earth. There are some who under any external circumstances will find it easier to serve God in the married state. Marriage is a great support and source of strength to many. The home influence is felt wherever a man journeys, and often upholds him in good resolution, and animates him when despondent. It expands his sympathies. It draws him out of himself. Celibacy presents many perils even for those who are naturally qualified for it. Tendencies towards narrowness, selfishness, lack of sympathy, have to be carefully guarded against. Domestic life of the right kind supplies an antidote. And in the home and in its duties we may truly serve God. When we rightly “care” for those near and dear to us we are offering acceptable service to the Most High. The home may and should be a true sanctuary. It will be seen that this applies chiefly to quiet times. In times of disturbance and insecurity, “home” exists often only as a name, and the advantages of married life are turned into serious disadvantages. Its powers for good assume then the form of perils. Finally, whichever state we choose, we must ever remember the “shortness of the time” (1Co 7:29), and must not settle down in this world as though it were our abiding place. Eternity has opened upon our view. For that we are chiefly to live. With an eye to that we must determine our conduct and choices. Time, in which we marry and are given in marriage, is but a flash (though it is the flash of preparation); eternity is our life.H.

1Co 7:2-6, 1Co 7:10-17

Marriage: its nature and duties.

I. NATURE.

1. It is the union of one man and one woman. (1Co 7:2.) Polygamy and polyandry are rigorously excluded from the sanction of the Christian faith. The former was tolerated by God in early times, but never enjoined or commended. The first union, in Eden, was of the Christian order. The wisdom of the dictum of Christianity has been exemplified by universal experience. All other arrangements are prolific of evils.

2. It is a union for life. (1Co 7:39.) No hint is given of temporary wedlock.

3. It is a bond not to be lightly severed.

(1) Not by difference of faith (1Co 7:12, 1Co 7:13). A converted husband or wile might plausibly argue that it was undesirable to further consort with a heathen. The prohibition illustrates the permanence of the marriage bond. Continuance in the marriage state is obligatory under such circumstances. “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord,” does not signify that Paul is not speaking the mind of the Lord, but that he is conveying something which Christ did not communicate whilst among men. “Yet not I, but the Lord,” in 1Co 7:10 means that Paul was only repeating what Christ had previously taught. The apostle in 1Co 7:14 advances an argument for the continuance of such a marriage. The unbelieving one is sanctified by the believing, i.e. brought within the covenant, within the pale of Christianity. Not saved or converted, for see 1Co 7:16, but as all Jews were sanctified, brought under the old covenant, although “he is not a Jew which is one outwardly” (Rom 2:28). In this sense the children of Christian parents are “holy,” and, according to the apostle’s statement, equally so when one parent is heathen.

(2) Not by taste or caprice (1Co 7:10).

(3) Not by temporal exigencies (1Co 7:27). These might very lawfully prevent marriage, as Paul teaches, but they could not annul it.

(4) Not by anything except wilful desertion (1Co 7:15) and adultery, as taught by Christ (Mat 5:32). Paul’s teaching does not conflict with Christ’s. It is not lawful to put away except for adultery; the apostle adds that if the believing party be, without just cause, put away, he or she is free. But this meaning of 1Co 7:15 is somewhat open to question. Note: There may be separation without the annulling of the marriage obligation. The apostle supposes such a ease (1Co 7:11), and enjoins that no second marriage be entered upon, since the first still remains in force.

4. It is an exclusive union. It is to avoid fornication (1Co 7:2).

5. Those who enter upon it must do so prudently. This is developed in the apostle’s argument as to the respective advantages of celibacy and marriage. And:

6. In the Lord (1Co 7:39) will apply to all cases. Marriages are to be continued with the ungodly, but not to be commenced. Of our choice we are not to be “unequally yoked.” We are not to marry in order to convert. Many do this and, soon discover their mistake. They are like the woman who journeyed to Rome to convert the pope, but instead of converting his holiness, his holiness converted her!

II. DUTIES.

1. The body of one is to be surrendered to the other. (1Co 7:4.) Cohabitation may be suspended for a time by mutual consent, for special purposes, but with distinct recognition of speedy reunion. Care must here be exercised, lest temptation be occasioned. There is no command for this temporary separation; it is permitted, not enjoined or even recommended.

2. Mutual pleasing. (1Co 7:33, 1Co 7:34.) This, referred to as a natural result, may be regarded as an implied injunction. Corroborated by Eph 5:21-25. It is evidently needful. But it has limits; we must not displease God in order to please husband or wife.

3. The highest spiritual interests of one to be sought by the other. (Eph 5:16.) A special ease is supposed, which, however, opens up a wide question of home influences. How earnestly should we desire the salvation of those most closely united to us! How terrible the thought of final separation! The home presents the best opportunities of winning the ungodly to Christ. Not by words so much as by life. The influence is very continuous, and is exercised by those nearest and often dearest. Still, much grace is needed for such a ministry as this. Faults, jealously concealed in public, are often undisguised and freed from check in the household. We may do great harm as well as great good in the home; we may drive from Christ as well as draw towards him. The converted husband or wife is the pastor of the unconverted. Solemn responsibility! Care for the higher interests involve care for the lower. In all things those united in marriage should seek each other’s good. This will involve much

(1) self. restraint,

(2) self denial,

(3) unselfishness,

(4) patience,

(5) true affection.H.

1Co 7:20-24

Christianity and staves.

Christianity found slavery in existence. Proceeded upon wise lines for its extermination. Not by revolutionary violence. Worked from within rather than from without. Inculcated moral principles which, when fully realized and practically observed, involved the doom of slavery. Such passages as Mat 7:12 are in point. Occasionally there is more direct attack, as in the condemnation of men stealers in 1Ti 1:10. What message had Christianity to the slaves? It said

I. SERVE GOD AS YOU ARE. As a slave you may do a good and important work. Your condition has some special opportunities. It will be something for the world to see a pious, conscientious, faithful slave. This you can be, for with all shackles you may be “the Lord’s freedman.” A lesson for us. We often try to change our condition instead of glorifying God in it. All men seem to have fallen into the wrong places! For all men seem intensely anxious to change their condition. The powers, opportunities, time, of not a few are practically absorbed in this endeavour. And the craze is continuous. When the change is secured, another change is desired, and so on interminably. Men are used up in this insane struggle. It is not necessary to change our condition before we can do anything. The true way to the more favourable condition may be our glorifying God in the less favourable. The sterling piety of a slave became a strong protest against slavery itself. In various conditions the world needs to see the same faith and the same life. A man need care comparatively little about his external condition in this world, who is freed from the bondage of Satan and who tastes the liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free. That is nothing compared with this. No human shackles can bind the soul. The slave with all his bonds could not be hindered from coming to Christ. No one can stop us. Not all men. Not all devils, Not all adverse circumstances. We can come if we will, whoever or whatever we are or in whatsoever condition. The responsibility is upon our shoulders, None shall say at last that they could not come. God hath not permitted man so to bind his fellow that the journey to the cross is an impossibility.

II. IF YOU CAN OBTAIN YOUR FREEDOM BY RIGHTEOUS MEANS, DO SO. Not “do evil that good may come.” But embrace any legitimate opportunity, for as a freedman you have generally more opportunities of service and less perils. When freed, you may make it more apparent, perhaps, that you are “Christ’s bondservant.” To us: seek a freer position when opportunity is presented, since in that you may more abundantly serve God. That is the object which you must ever have in mind. Let not the freer position be for self, but for God. A more comfortable condition is not always a more useful one. When we are taking off one shackle we may be putting on another. It may be a heavier one.

III. DO NOT BECOME SLAVES. It may be your duty to continue slaves, not to become such. This would be throwing away most important advantages. You are Christ’s, bought with a price; have by choice no other bonds upon you than your Master’s. To us: never seek a position in which service to Christ may be prejudiced, Here is a crucial test.

1. A rise in the social scale may impair our usefulness. The new house may tax our purse and check our charity, the numerous engagements our time, the atmosphere our piety, We may become “bondservants of men,” and very miserable ones.

2. A more lucrative post may entail loss rather than gaingreater occupation of time, larger demands upon our strength, even the shortening of our lives. All such things come into the account.

3. The removal to a more pleasant place of residence may mean the arrest of Christian activity. People remove from where they are wanted to where nobody wants them. God places them in the field to labour, where there is much to be done, but they contract a fondness for mountain air and scenery, and off they go, leaving their appointed work to take care of itself. And when they get to the mountain of delights there is nothing for them to do but to grumble, and this, it must be acknowledged, they do with most unflagging zeal. Christians seem to think they are their own masters, and can come and go for little reason or for none, and without any reference to the great work to which every Christian is pledged, viz. seeking to extend the kingdom of Christ among men. “My Father’s business” should be first with the disciple, as it was with his Lord. Instead of this, it is often practically lost sight of altogether, and people go without a thought or care from where the Father’s business is urgent and almost overwhelming in imporlance, to where in comparison it can be prosecuted only upon a most limited scale. Men listen to the “call” of inclination, not to the “call” of God (note 1Ti 1:20, 24). We must ever beware of running into bonds, Many of these are golden. Not the less binding. In whatever circumstances we may be placed we must refuse to be such bondservants of men as to impair our relation to God. At all costs, in every condition, his will and glory must be supreme.H.

1Co 7:36-40

Duties of parents to children as to marriage.

The apostle’s words apply directly to daughters only. Among Jews and Greeks the disposal of the daughters of the family rested with the father. What is said, however, may extend very largely to sons as well.

I. MARRIAGE IS NOT TO BE INSISTED UPON. It too commonly is in many circles, especially in the case of daughters, and thus becomes prolific of evils. The apostle rather commends the father who does not give his daughter in marriage (1Co 7:38). Doubtless with an eye to the “present distress,” but assuredly in opposition to any forcing of the inclination, and to any notion that marriage is universally desirable. It is not the parent’s wish so much as the child’s which should be consulted. Spheres should be opened for unmarried females. This has been done largely of late years, but a greater extension is one urgent need of the times.

II. CONSENT TO MARRIAGE IS NOT TO BE CAPRICIOUSLY WITHHELD. (1Co 7:36.) The dread of refusal of consent has often led to rash acts involving much subsequent suffering. Parents often blame their children for marrying without consent when they should blame themselves for withholding it. Some parents seem to think that their convenience and predilections are the chief things concerned, as though it were their marriage and not their child’s.

III. THE CHILD‘S WISHES SHOULD BE CONSULTED. This seems to be involved in “Let them marry,” as though a specific attachment was supposed. “Having no necessity” (1Co 7:37) and “behaveth himself uncomely” (1Co 7:36) bear also upon this point. Certainly obtains in case of widows (1Co 7:39). The child’s wish, not only as to marriage itself, but as to the one with whom a union is proposed should never be left out of account. Parental counsel and guidance are wise and well; parental compulsion is gross folly. Consent to marriage may be withheld, and must be, if there are sufficient grounds, but to in any way force a union is to pave the way for misery, if not for something worse. Modern usages much more favour consultation of the child’s wish than ancient, but in some circles there seems to be a tendency to revert to barbaric customs. In the land where there are no slaves, daughters are in many cases as truly sold to the highest bidder as was ever an African upon an American auction block. When parental selfishness and folly run to such lengths, divorce courts are likely to be in great request and never to lack causes.

IV. CHRISTIAN PARENTS SHOULD DESIRE T. HE MARRIAGE OF THEIR CHILDREN “ONLY IN THE LORD.” Alas! how many professedly Christian parents seem to have but little regard for this! Position, wealth, influence, titles,if these, or any one of them, can be attained, there is not only satisfaction but jubilation. Yet what possible joy should there be to a Christian parent in giving his child to be the lifelong companion of an enemy of Christ? He may not be able to prevent such a union, but to rejoice in it is quite another matter. A suitor’s spiritual position should be weighed as well as his temporal. A union with an unbeliever may promise much, as men judge, for this world, but it promises very little for the next. Such marriages are not “made in heaven,” nor can they be expected to lead thither. But a godly husband wonderfully aids the spiritual life of a godly wife, and vice versa; and they walk well together, because they are “agreed.” Mixed marriages seem generally to end in an “agreement” to give up attendance at the house of God on the sabbath, and to care nothing for the God of the house during the week. Yet many parents scarcely consider for a moment whether they are giving their daughter to a child of God or to a child of the devil. And sons are congratulated if they succeed in making “a good match,” which is very possibly one of the worst matches they could have made. Parents should give the supreme place to the spiritual interests of their children.H.

HOMILIES BY E. BREMNER

1Co 7:1-9

Celibacy and marriage.

Hitherto the apostle has been treating of abuses in the Church at Corinth, which had come to his knowledge, either through the household of Chloe (1Co 1:11) or through common report (1Co 5:1). He passes now to deal with certain matters regarding which the Corinthians had asked his advice by letter; and the first of these is marriage, with other related subjects. While treating the whole chapter homiletically, the preacher will do well to exercise a wise delicacy in introducing many of the points to a mixed congregation.

I. CELIBACY. The preference apparently given to celibacy in this chapter calls for careful consideration.

1. In what sense is it called “good”? It is not good in the sense of being in itself and always superior to marriage. Elsewhere Paul speaks of the married state with the greatest respect, as an image of the union between Christ and his Church (Eph 5:23-25), and gives it as a mark of the false teachers of later times that they “forbid to marry” (1Ti 4:3). The law of consistency, then, bids us interpret his statements here as in no sense depreciatory of the Divine ordinance of marriage. A single life is good in the sense of being in itself honourable, and in certain circumstances expedient. The apostle’s “good” here must always be read in view of the “not good” of Gen 2:18.

2. When is it to be preferred to marriage? Leaving out of view considerations of physical health, which in some cases may render marriage imprudent or even culpable, three answers to our question may be gathered from this chapter.

(1) In circumstances of peculiar distress (verse 26). Such trouble had either come upon the Corinthians or was near at hand, that Paul judged it better for them to keep clear of such engagements as would only increase their suffering. In times of persecution or dearth it may be wise not to marry.

(2) When called to some peculiar service for the Lord. This was Paul’s case. Other apostles, indeed, were married, but in view of verses 32, 33, we may suppose that the apostle of the nations judged it best for his peculiar mission to remain unmarried. Celibacy may be preferred “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Mat 19:12).

(3) Both these considerations must be taken along with a third presented in ver.

2. If a man has not the gift of continency, there is in that a clear indication that it is his duty to marry (Gen 2:9); if he possesses this gift, then he is free to give weight to other reasons which may turn the balance in favour of celibacy. Even then, however, the higher ends of wedlock are not to be overlooked.

3. It is not to be made obligatory. The Church of Rome ascribes a peculiar excellence to the celibate state, as fitted to promote greater sanctity. Hence her cultivation of monastic and conventual life, and the imposition of celibacy on the clergy. There is no warrant for this in the teaching of the apostle here; while experience testifies to the dreadful evils to which it leads.

II. MARRIAGE.

1. Marriage is a safeguard against incontinence. The apostle is not here treating of marriage in general or presenting it in its higher aspects and bearings. The pure union of man and woman in wedlock is a communion of soul and body in love, a fulfilment of the Divine intention clearly expressed in our nature. Husband and wife thus united “in the Lord”the one being the complement of the other, and set “like perfect music unto noble words”are joined by a bond so holy, so exalted, so mysterious, that it is the earthly reflex of the spousal union between Christ and his Church. Still, the use here referred to by the apostle is not to be overlooked, especially in view of such licentiousness as prevailed at Corinth. God never bids us eradicate any natural appetite, as asceticism does, but provides for its gratification in a way consonant to our nature and destiny.

2. It implies the rendering of conjugal duty. (Gen 2:3, Gen 2:4.) The one party exists for the other, and for the other alonethe twain having become one flesh (Gen 2:24).

3. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. In polygamy the true idea of marriage is lost. The original appointment was the union of two persons only, Adam having only one Eve; and the departure from this was due to sin. The testimony of Scripture, alike in precept and in its purest examples, is all in favour of monogamy (Gen 2:24; Mat 19:4, Mat 19:5; 1Ti 3:2); and the statements of the apostle here take this for granted. The domestic bliss of which poets sing is not to be found in the homes of polygamy.

“Here Love his golden shafts employs, here lights
His constant lamp. and waves his purple wings,
Reigns here and revels.”

(‘Paradise Lost,’ 4:763-765.)

“Domestic happiness, thou only bliss
Of Paradise, that has survived the Fall!
Thou art the nurse of virtue; in thine arms
She smiles, appearing, as in truth she is,
Heaven born, and destined to the skies again.”

(Cowper’s ‘Task.’)

1Co 7:10-16

Divorce: mixed marriages.

Having spoken of celibacy and marriage, and having presented considerations for their guidance in the choice of the one or the other, the apostle proceeds to speak of persons already married. And here two different cases are dealt with:

(1) Where both the parties are Christian;

(2) where one of the parties is Christian and the other heathen.

I. WHERE BOTH PARTIES ARE CHRISTIAN. In this case the Lord Jesus, in his recorded teaching, had already given a decision, and Paul refers them to his words (vide Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9).

1. The marriage bond is indissoluble. It is a union for life, which cannot be broken up without sin. It is not to be dissolved at the mere will of the parties, nor for any frivolous reason. This perpetuity arises from the relationship itself, as well as from the Divine appointment. Husband and wife are ideally one, and their separation is the disrupting of a bond which has no parallel in this world. An additional sacredness attaches to the marriage covenant in the case of Christians, who invoke the blessing of God upon their union.

2. Separation is not to be final. The case supposed is that of a wife leaving her husband on the ground of harsh and cruel treatment or for some similar reason. The cause of separation may or may not be sufficient to justify it, but in either case it must not be regarded as severing the marriage tie. Only two alternatives are open. The wife thus separated must remain unmarried, since a new union would imply that the previous one was null and void; or she must be reconciled to her husband and return to live with him. This last is in every way the desirable course, and every means should be used to bring it about. Husband and wife cannot go apart without sin and scandal to the Christian name, and their religious profession requires them to reconsider their position and remove every barrier to reunion. The apostle is not here speaking of adultery, which is of itself a dissolution of the marriage bond and a sufficient ground for divorce (Mat 19:9), but simply of the general rule that married persons are bound to each other for life. With what prayerful deliberation should such a union be contracted! A step that cannot be retraced should not be taken without thought.

II. WHERE ONE OF THE PARTIES IS CHRISTIANS AND THE OTHERS HEATHEN. The case supposed is not that of a Christian entering into wedlock with a heathen spouse, which Paul in another place forbids (2Co 6:14); but the case where one of the parties, already married, is converted to Christianity. This must have frequently happened in the early history of the Church, just as it is of constant occurrence in modern missions among the heathen. How does this complication affect the sanctity of the marriage bond? Is it not a union of the dead and the living, between whom there is a great gulf? The Lord Jesus had given no utterance on the subject of mixed marriages, and therefore the apostle gives his inspired judgment regarding it. If the unbelieving partner is content to remain, the Christian partner is not to seek a separation. If the unbelieving partner refuses to remain, the Christian partner is not to hinder separation.

1. Consider the case where the unbelieving partner is content to remain. The Christian spouse is not to seek a separation as if the marriage were unholy; “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband” (1Co 7:14). The apostle does not mean that an unbeliever, in virtue of conjugal union with a believer, becomes personally holy; but that he or she is thereby consecrated or hallowed. As the altar sanctifies the gift that is laid upon it (Mat 23:19), so the Christian reflects something of his own character upon everything connected with him. His property, his business, his family, are all in a sense holy, as belonging to one who is in covenant with God, and are under his special protection. Hence the pagan husband or wife is a privileged person on the ground of union with a Christian spouse. The tares in the wheat field are sacred for the sake of the wheat (Mat 13:29); the ungodly men in Israel were privileged because they belonged to a holy nation. The reason adduced by Paul in support of this position is very significant. “Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy” (1Co 7:14). It was an accepted maxim that the children of such mixed marriages were born within the Church. This principle was recognized among the Jews, as the case of Timothy shows (Act 16:1-3). But if the children of such a marriage are reckoned holy, the marriage whence they spring cannot be unholy or inconsistent with the Law of God. “If the root is holy, so are the branches” (Rom 11:16); and, conversely, “If the branches are holy, so is the root.” The children take their standing from the Christian parent, who is regarded as the nobler of the two.

2. Consider the case where the unbelieving partner refuses to remain. In this case the Christian partner is not to insist on maintaining the union, but to let the other depart. For:

(1) “The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases.” The marriage is not to be dissolved at the instance of the believing partner; but if the other refuses to remain, the contract is no longer binding. It would be a case of bondage if the one were held to a union which the other has wilfully broken up.

(2) “God hath called us in peace.” The gospel was not intended to produce variance and strife in families; and if this is to be the result of the heathen partner continuing to dwell with the Christian, it were better to let him have his wish and live apart. From the very centre of life out to its circumference, God desires us to live in peace.

(3) The Christian partner is not to prevent the departure of the other, in the hope of being instrumental in his or her conversion. This is at best uncertain, and peace is not to be hazarded therefore. And if such a union is not to be maintained for the sake of a possible conversion, much less is it to be contracted with that view.

REMARKS.
1. This passage is generally adduced as the Bible warrant for the view that wilful desertion is a sufficient reason for divorce. Such desertion is a de facto rupture of the marriage bond, and stands on the same footing as adultery.

2. The evil of mixed marriages:

(1) Render impossible the complete fellowship of husband and wife.

(2) Break up domestic peace.

(3) Prevent family religion.

(4) Interfere with the religious training of children. “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers.”B.

1Co 7:17-24

Christianity and the relations of life.

From the special case with which he has just dealt, the apostle proceeds to lay down a general principle. To understand the need for this, we have only to remember the circumstances of the time and the bearing upon these of the doctrines of the gospel. To many minds Christianity must have appeared to be revolutionary in its tendency. It proclaimed the equality of all men in the sight of God, the temporary nature of earthly things, the approaching advent of the Lord Jesus Christ, when a new era was to dawn; and men who drank in these views as the new wine of life were apt to become intoxicated. They were ready to cast off family obligations, disrupt social ties, and break up every earthly relationship. Against this tendency Paul here warns them. Christianity was not meant to revolutionize society in this violent way. On the contrary, it adapts itself to every position and relation in life in which men may be placed.

I. A GENERAL RULE. This rule is thrice repeated with slight variations (1Co 7:17, 1Co 7:20, 1Co 7:24). “Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called.”

1. The Christian view of life.

(1) It is a distribution of Goda lot. Our station, occupation, relationships, are of Divine appointment. He assigns us our lot (Psa 16:5, Psa 16:6) and. determines the bounds of our habitation (Act 17:26).

(2) It is a calling. Our true work in the world is that to which the voices of Providence call us. If we are where we ought to be, we should look upon our occupation as a real vocation of God.

2. The Christian’s duty in relation to his lot or calling in life. The general rule isRemain where you are. This follows from the view of life just presented; for it is our duty to abide by the Lord’s appointment, and conversion does not necessarily change our secular vocation. If he finds you at the plough, or at the desk, or engaged in trade, or in the married state, or in the service of another,serve him where he finds you. Christianity is a hardy plant that thrives in every clime. Do not imagine that if you were in a different line of things it would be easier for you to follow Christ. Nothing is more needed in our day titan a consistent exhibition of Christian principle in the common walks of lifethe family, the workshop, the office, the exchange, etc. Let your light shine where it is first kindled, continuing there “with God” (1Co 7:24). To this rule, however, there are two obvious exceptions.

(1) When we discover that our occupation is inconsistent with the Law of God. A wrong course of life, such as a business which cannot be conducted on Christian principles, should be abandoned at once. It is not a “lot” or a “calling” of God.

(2) When there is a clear call to a position of greater usefulness, presenting fuller opportunities of serving the Lord. Thus the apostles left their boats and nets to follow Jesus. Thus many a young man is called to leave his secular occupation and give himself to the ministry of the Word.

II. ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE RULE. TO show how the rule applies, Paul takes two illustrative examplesthe one from religious position, the other from social position.

1. Circumcision. If a Jew is called, let him not attempt to efface the mark of the covenant; if a Gentile is called, let him not think it needful to be circumcised. To do otherwise in either case would be to attach a value to external forms which they do not possess. Paul’s own practice in circumcising Timothy (Act 16:3), and refusing to circumcise Titus (Gal 2:3, Gal 2:4), throws light upon this. To have acted otherwise in the case of Timothy would have been to attach importance to the omission of the rite, since one of his parents was a Jew and the other a Greek. To have allowed it in the case of Titus, whose parents were both Gentiles, would have been to attach importance to the performance of the rite, and so to submit to the yoke which the “false brethren” sought to impose. By acting as he did he showed that both circumcision and uncircumcision were to him matters of indifference. Religion is not an affair of outward ceremonies, but of spiritual obedience. Comp. verse 19 with Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15, in all which the first clause is the same. In opposition to such matters of ritual observance, he places:

(1) “Faith working through love;”

(2) “A new creature;” and

(3) “The keeping of the commandments of God.” These are the great essentials of Christianity (see Stanley, in loc.).

2. Slavery. If there is any institution to which we should have expected Christianity to show itself hostile, it is just this. Slavery strikes at the root idea of humanity, denying to man his proper dignity as a person; and is therefore in collision with the axiom on which the gospel proceeds, that “He made of one every nation of men” (Act 17:26). At the time when Paul wrote, it was the great “open sore” of the world, and was frequently accompanied with great hardship and cruelty. Yet he does not counsel the Christian slavesa numerous classto rise in rebellion and throw off their bondage. He bids them “care not for it” (verse 21). Freedom, indeed, is to be preferred if you can obtain it; but you can serve God as a bondservant as truly as if you were free. It was not by dint of hacking and cutting that the fetters were to be struck off, but by a surer and more excellent method. As the frost fetters of winter give way before the warm breath of spring, so Christianity was to loosen the bonds of the slave wherever it came. And this principle was to regulate individual action. For:

(1) It makes no difference to your Christian standing whether you be bond or free. You were bought with a price, and so redeemed from the bondage of sin and Satan in order to serve Christ. Hence, though you are a bondservant, you are really the Lord’s freedman; and though you are outwardly free, you are really Christ’s bondservant. Man must serve, but he cannot serve two masters. Our Redeemer delivers us from Satan, so that we are now free; but this freedom shows itself in the service of our new Master. “Let my people go, that they may serve me,” is still the Lord’s demand.

(2) The service of Christ is true freedom. It delivers us from every other spiritual service. Christian liberty is compatible with outward slavery, but not with subjection to men in spiritual things. Here we must not call any man “master.” How often do Christians become bondservants of men! We fall into this error when we shape our views and conduct according to tradition, or party, or school, or the popular voice, instead of simply asking, “What saith the Lord?”B.

1Co 7:25-40

Concerning virgins and widows.

Paul now passes to another question referred to him, viz. the marriage of virgins and widows. This has been briefly touched upon already (1Co 7:8), and is now dealt with more in detail. Here also the apostle has no express commandment of the Lord to adduce, and he therefore proceeds to give his own inspired judgment on the matter, “as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.” This judgment is not in the form of explicit injunction, but of an advice given in view of existing circumstances.

I. ADVICE TO THE UNMARRIED OF BOTH SEXES. In the previous sections the apostle has argued against the disrupting of social ties, even when these are of so unpleasant a character as being bound to a heathen spouse or subject to the yoke of slavery. Here he gives similar counsel, advising against a change of condition. This applies to married persons, who are not to seek a dissolution of the bond; but especially to the unmarried, whom he advises to remain as they are. This advice does not proceed from a disparagement of marriage in itself or from an absolute preference of celibacy (comp. homily on 1Co 7:1-9, above), but is based upon special reasons which are afterwards mentioned.

1. The present distress. (1Co 7:26.) This may refer to persecution already commenced, as that under Nero (A.D. 64), or to the troubles which were to usher in the second advent (comp. Mat 24:1-51.). In view of this impending crisis, it is better not to marry. The apostolic advice will hold in all similar cases; as when a soldier is called to dangerous military duty, or a man is approaching death, or during the prevalence of famine and pestilence.

2. Tribulation in the flesh. (1Co 7:28.) This arises out of the external distress, which bears more hardly upon the married than the single. It is to spare them this affliction that Paul advises the unmarried to remain as they are.

3. The shortness of the time. (1Co 7:29.) Here again the apostle has in view the advent, which seemed to be drawing near. Marriage belongs to a transitory condition of thingsthe passing fashion of this world. Life is short, just that our affections may not be set on earthly things. They that have wives must soon leave them, and the remembrance of this should render marriage or celibacy a matter of comparatively little moment.

4. The cares incident to the married slate. (1Co 7:32.) The husband is bound to protect and provide for his family, and in troubled times this causes much anxiety. Husband and wife, moreover, have to consult each other’s wishes, considering how they may please each other. From these cares the unmarried are free, and can therefore consider “the things of the Lord” with less division of heart. This does not mean that marriage is less favourable to holiness than celibacy: experience warrants no such statement. The apostle compares the two conditions only in respect of their freedom from worldly care, and in this the unmarried have the advantage. It does not lie in his way to indicate counterbalancing benefits belonging to the married state. His aim is to deliver us from distraction in attending upon the Lord (1Co 7:35). We are not to be like Martha, “cumbered about much serving,” “anxious and troubled about many things;” but like Mary, sitting with undivided heart at the Lord’s feet (Luk 10:38-42).

II. ADVICE TO FATHERS REGARDING THEIR UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS. In the East, marriages are arranged by parents much more exclusively than with us, and hence the obligation here laid on the father of judging when it is becoming for his daughter to marry. Very much depends upon the Christian wisdom of parents in this matter. How often are the highest interests sacrificed for the sake of a union that offers worldly attractions! Faithful and prudent parental guidance may prevent an unholy alliance and lead to a happy union “in the Lord.” The point before the apostle now is the direction of fathers as to when they may grant, and when withhold, permission for their daughters to marry.

1. When permission to marry should be granted. (1Co 7:36.) Generally, when the refusal would lead to anything unseemly. In particular, if the daughter has come to full marriageable age, if she and her lover are bent upon the union; in that case, for the father to enforce celibacy would be to put temptation in his daughter’s way. The general advice not to marry because of present distress, is overborne by stronger considerations (see 1Co 7:2); and in view of these the father will do well to put no barrier in the way.

2. When permission may be withheld. The father is required to look at all the circumstances of the case, and judge accordingly. The elements determining his judgment will be such as these:

(1) The presence or absence of such considerations as have been mentioned in the previous case;

(2) the temperament or inclination of the daughter in reference to marriage;

(3) her fitness for the service of the Lord in the single state;

(4) her general well being, both temporal and spiritual. If in view of these elements he judges it best for his daughter not to marry, he may properly resist the solicitations of suitors who desire to have her to wife. That is, he is at liberty to give effect to the apostolic preference of celibacy in respect of the necessities of the time.

III. ADVICE TO WIDOWS. This proceeds on the same lines as the advice to unmarried persons. The wife whose husband has “fallen asleep” is no longer bound (comp. Rom 7:1-3), but is free to remarry if she chooses. The only restriction is that she marry “in the Lord,” i.e. that she marry a Christian, and that her whole conduct in the matter be in keeping with her profession. Yet here also the apostle advises against a second marriage, on grounds already adduced in the case of virgins. A widow may marry again, but she will be more free from care and trouble if she remain as she is.

REMARKS.

1. The application of abiding principles is modified by changing circumstances. This must be remembered in considering how far the advice given here is generally applicable. What is prudent in a Christian country, with a settled government, and at peace, may be imprudent where the conditions are the reverse. There is a wide sphere for the exercise of true wisdom in the practical conduct of such matters.

2. Christians should marry “only in the Lord.” On its lower side, marriage is the same to all men, irrespective of creed and character; but the Christian is called to consider the interests of his higher life. He is to enter upon this relationship as a follower of Christ, and seeking therein the glory of God.B.

1Co 7:29-31

The shortness of the time.

Very impressive is the apostle’s manner in always rising above the mere details of duty to great ruling verities. Throughout this chapter there is a constant reference from rules to principles, and nowhere is this more conspicuous than in these verses.

I. THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THIS LIFE.

1. “The time is shortened.” The apostle seems to have in view the coming of Christ, of which the troubles of the time appeared to be the harbingers. Any day the “sign of the Sea of man” might be seen in the heavens, so brief was the interval. Long centuries have rolled away since then, and the strained eyes of the Church have not yet beheld that sign. Still, the utterance of the apostle is not mistaken. Though the horizon that bounded his vision has been widening with the ages, the time is still short. For us the practical truth is that our life span here is brief, whether its boundary be the Lord’s coming to us or our going to him.

(1) The time is short as compared with other periods. Brevity is a relative thing, according to the standard of measurement. The present average of human life is brief compared with the limit of “three score years and ten;” this term is brief compared with that of the antediluvians; the years of Methuselah are but an handbreadth compared with the duration of the earth; and this again is as nothing compared with eternity. Life seems long in prospect, short in retrospect. “Few and evil” (Gen 47:9) is ever the old man’s plaint.

(2) The time is short as compared with our life task. Every true ideal of life seems to mock the little space we are given to reach it. “Art is long and time is fleeting.” We learn little more than the alphabet of knowledge. We have but placed a few stones on the building when our work day is over, and we leave the structure to be completed by others. What can we accomplish in one short life for the perfecting of our Christian manhood, the extension of Christ’s kingdom, the redemption of our fellow men? But let us not either lower our ideal within attainable limits or fold our hands in despair. The true work of this life, stripped of its temporary form, is carried over into the life to come and continued there.

2. “The fashion of this world passeth away?” (1Co 7:31). It is like a scene in a theatrevanishing while you gaze on it.

(1) This is true of external nature. All is in a condition of flux; there is nothing permanent. The face of the earth, the boundaries of sea and land, even the everlasting hills,all have changed and are changing. And at last, when the day of the Lord comes, “the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2Pe 3:10).

(2) This is true of human life.

“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.”

(‘As You Like It,’ act 2, sc. 5.)

Within a single lifetime what changes do we see! Nations rise and fall; governments come and go; public men play their parts and then pass out of sight. How few of the friends of our youth and manhood remain with us till old age! New actors are ever coming on the stage and the old disappearing. The customs of society, modes of living, the whole environment of life, are like so many shifting scenes.

(3) This is true of ourselves. The seven ages (see reference above) are the seven acts of our little life drama; and each successive age brings its characteristic habits of mind. Standing amid all this transitoriness, where nothing is stable and abiding, we need to hold by the Unchanging in order to keep our balance.

II. THE PURPOSE OF GOD IN THE BREVITY OF LIFE. The time has been shortened that we may sit loosely to all earthly things. Their temporary character is to be remembered in all our relations to them. This is illustrated in several particulars.

1. The married life. “That those that have wives may be as though they had none.” The apostle does not say that celibacy is a more spiritual condition than marriage. There is no asceticism in his teaching here or elsewhere. The married are to be as the unmarried, remembering that marriage is one of those things that are passing away. While loving husband and wife, we are not to forget that the time is short. This stage of existence is but preparatory to another, where “they neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Luk 20:35).

2. Sorrow. “Those that weep, as though they wept not? Tears are not forbidden to the Christian. This is no stoical precept, bidding us refrain from weeping as inconsistent with our dignity. Grief is human, and all that is purely human Christianity encourages. “Jesus wept” (Joh 11:35). The liker we are to him, the more tender of heart, the mere sympathetic shall we become. But we are to weep remembering that the time is short. Sorrow also is transitory. It must not master us or break our hearts. Whatever touches the spring of tearsbereavement, loss, pain, the sufferings of othersbelongs to the temporary condition of things. “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning” (Psa 30:5); “And he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes,” etc. (Ro 21:4). Therefore weep as though you wept not.

3. Joy. “Those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not.” Christianity does not frown upon earthly happiness. It is the part of Satan to represent the religious life as one of gloom, and the teaching of some Christians gives colour to the falsehood. Nature, literature, the arts, society, domestic fellowship,all may pour their tributaries into the stream of our gladness. None should enjoy God’s world like God’s own child. But here the tempering thought comes in”The time is short.” Even this is not our highest joy, for it springs from a source that will soon be dried up. The “joy unspeakable and full of glory” (1Pe 1:8) belongs to the region of faith, and flows from those things which faith alone apprehends. Apply this to amusements. Pure and wholesome entertainments are to be encouraged, especially for the young. But whatever will not bear the thought of the brevity of life is not good for a Christian. Instead of the sword of Damocles or the death’s head, the believer moderates his joy with the thought that “the Lord is at hand.”

4. Possessions. “Those that buy, as though they possessed not.” Christians are not forbidden to engage in trade or merchandise with a view to the acquisition of property. Every lawful calling is open to them. They are not prohibited from possessing wealth. The real question isWhat place has it in the heart? Earthly possessions are to be held under the recollection that they belong to a transitory state of things. The man of substance is to sit loosely to what he possesses, not forgetting that “the things which are seen are temporal” (2Co 4:18).

5. The use of the world. “Those that use the world, as not abusing it.” All that God gives us of this world is to be used as ministering to our need. The thing to be guarded against is the wrong use of it. It is to be our servant, not our master. God has put it under our feet (Psa 8:6), and we must keep it there. We abuse the world

(1) if we seek it as the chief good of life, or

(2) if we use it so as to hurt or hinder our spiritual life.B.

HOMILIES BY D. FRASER

1Co 7:24

Quietness of spirit.

St. Paul knew how to hold the balance between the stirring forces of Christianity, and. its calming, soothing power. He exemplified the combination in his own character; for he was ever moving yet never restless, ever aspiring yet always content, ever fighting, and that not as one that beats the air, and yet always breathing and making peace. The application of Christianity to actual conditions of society in ancient Greece raised many questions on which the Corinthian Church needed apostolic guidance. Such were the continual obligation of marriage after husband or wife had become a Christian; the question whether Judaism should yield to Gentilism, or vice versa, in the new community; and the problem of domestic slavery. St. Paul had no express command from the Lord Jesus on such matters, but guided, as he firmly believed, by the Spirit of God, he handled these three points with rare wisdom and foresight.

I. THE LESSON FOR THE FIRST CENTURY. The introduction of the Christian faith into such cities as Corinth could not but operate as a disturbing, unsettling force. It was therefore the duty of the Christians to avoid as far as possible giving alarm to rulers, by abruptly or violently assailing the forms of life and the established institutions round about them. If their religion should present itself to the eye of observers as mainly an agitation or social revolution, it would be put on a false issue, and would give to its adversaries a strong argument for its suppression. Therefore, though the apostle hated all social injustice, he perceived and taught that precipitate action, even with the best intentions, would be a serious mistake; and that the only sound policy was to work on men’s consciences and subdue their hearts, and gradually lift them up into a condition of moral feeling and a love of righteousness which could, no longer brook such institutions as Greek and Roman slaveholding. On this topic, therefore, he checked impatience. The first thing needful was to bring Jesus Christ into every station and walk of human life. When Christ should dwell among and in men, society would take to new moulds by an inward necessity, not from any outward dictation. This was the best course to be taken even with regard to slavery. The endurance of it was hard; for St. Paul wrote at a period when the rich in Greece and Italy were cruel and contemptuous to their slaves, and it was possible for a Roman emperor to give their flesh to feed his pet fishes. But the institution was so familiar to the public mind that it was regarded as indispensable; and so Christianity was not to assail it directly, but to teach masters to give to their slaves what was just and equal, and slaves to be faithful and. honest in service. If a slave could get his liberty, he was to take it joyfully”use it rather.” If not, he was to abide with God in that calling. His spirit was with God in a far loftier sphere than could be conceived of by the heathen master, who probably treated him with scorn. The Christian slave was the Lord’s freeman.

II. THE LESSON FOR THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

1. Negatively.

(1) This text must not be quoted to require or justify adherence to a questionable calling or occupation. A Christian may find himself in a trade or business which offends his now enlightened conscience and is hurtful to his fellow men: he may be in a place or appointment which requires him to practise deceit or minister to vice. Then be must leave it, because in such a place it is not possible to “abide with God.” At the same time, such abandonment of one’s situation or means of livelihood must be only under real stress of conscience, and not merely because the work is hard or troublesome.

(2) This text must not be quoted to retain Christians in ecclesiastical positions which they see to be at variance with the Divine Word. The presumptive evidence always is in favour of one’s continuing in that Church in which he obtained mercy from the Lord, and it is foolish and ungrateful to leave it so soon as he sees a flaw or fault in it. lie who cannot live in a Church that has faults will have an unhappy Christian career, and end probably in a small clique of impracticable persons like himself. At the same time, one must avoid the other extreme of refusing to consider what is or is not in harmony with the Law of Christ, and sheltering or defending abuses which ought to be confessed and corrected. Such a mode of acting puts a stop to all Church reformation. Of small faults we do not speak; but serious errors and abuses we should try to remove. If we fail, we must change our position in order to “abide with God.”

(3) This text must not be quoted to check human aspirations. It is not to be implied that, because a man was poor at the time of his conversion, he must always be poor; or if he was a servant, must continue a servant to his dying day. Christianity gives no countenance to the idea that the ranks of society should be stereotyped, and no one allowed to rise above the station in which he was born. There is a wriggling anxiety to gain personal importance which is not worthy of a Christian; but if, by honest industry or conspicuous ability, one should rise in position and influence, the thing commends itself to good feeling and to reason. Therefore it cannot be condemned by Christianity, which is pervaded by good feeling and is supremely reasonable.

2. Positively. The text sets a wholesome check on self regarding ambition. The great problem of life is not bow to step up from one calling or station to another, but how, in this calling or that station, to abide in communion with God and advance his glory. No doubt, one position appears to great advantage over another, for happiness and for usefulness; but the difference is seldom so great as appears. That which has outward facilities has special risks and anxieties, and that which has disadvantage in one respect has compensation in another. But to “abide with God,” not when apart from our worldly calling, gathered into a church on a holy day, but in our calling,this is the problem. To have him with us and in us by the Holy Spirit; to walk up and down in his Name; to work and to rest as in his sight; to have his light shining on our path; to have his grace working in us both to will and to do; to have our labour lightened, our care relieved, our leisure sweetened, by his love! This, indeed, is lifehigh life. Oh, to abide in our calling calmly with Godour minds and hearts open to his impulse and directionour wills submissive to his! This is what will baffle the tempter and silence the gainsayer, by proving that our religion is no mere selfish hope of future enjoyment, but a power deep seated in the soul, which can conquer passion and covetousness, and diffuse over the life a sweet serenity. To quote an English poet of the sixteenth century, now little known

“He most of all doth bathe in bliss
That hath a quiet mind.”

1Co 7:32

Free from cares.

I. NOTE THE PRECISE MEANING AND DRIFT OF THIS SHORT SENTENCE. It refers to the anxieties of married life. Neither in Old Testament nor New is any disrespect shown to the state of matrimony. St. Paul himself, when writing of the reciprocal duties of life, gives most sympathetic counsels to husbands and wives; and, far from placing marriage in an unfavourable light as compared with celibacy, describes it as a sign of the sacred union of Christ and the Church, But, in this part of his letter, he is replying to a question put to him from Corinth regarding the course most expedient in the special circumstances of the time, i.e. in view of impending persecution and distress. Should unmarried persons marry at such a time? Should parents give their daughters in marriage? Should married Christians, if joined to heathens, remain in the marriage bond? These questions the apostle deals with, giving his opinion, not for all time, but for a time of trouble. It was no sin, or even fault, in any one to marry; but it would be wise to form no new ties at such a crisis, not to burden one’s self with new anxieties. In this sense the text is not for us, except in special emergencies and exceptional circumstances. It is hardly needful to say that a man who is about to start on a dangerous expedition, or one who is involved in serious pecuniary difficulty, or one who has some arduous task to accomplish by a given date which will require incessant attention, ought not to marry. Men in such conditions ought not to drag another into their difficulties or dangers, nor should they gratuitously add to their own anxieties. Let them keep their minds undistracted, and defer marriage to some easier and more auspicious day.

II. DEDUCE A PRINCIPLE WHICH WILL APPLY TO ALL OCCASIONS. It is this: the Christian life ought not to be hampered with cares. Well for it to move on simple lines, as much as possible free from distraction and solicitude. Novelists and poets have said much against over anxiety and the black curse of care. Spenser describes care as forging iron wedges day and night.

“Those be unquiet thoughts that careful minds invade.”

Shakespeare says

“Care is no cure, but rather corrosive,
For things that are not to be remedied.”

Another writes of “low-thoughted care.” And it is easy to show that it clouds the judgment and defeats itself by restlessness and over anxiety which betray men into ruinous mistakes. But after all that has been said against care, it is not shaken offno, not by those moralists and poets themselves. Every man we meet has some vexing care about money, or reputation, or health, about the conduct or misconduct of others. We want some deeper teaching and some stronger help. We have both in and from our Master Jesus Christthe most profound teaching and the most timely and effectual help.

1. The life without care. Our Lord spoke of it in the Sermon on the mount. His disciples should not be anxious about food, or raiment, or the possible mishaps of tomorrow. Such wisdom they might learn from the birds and from the flowers, that are fed and clothed by God. If it be rejoined that the life and wants of birds and flowers are very much more limited than ours, who have to run so many risks and are vulnerable at so many points, the reply is obvious. We ought so to conduct our lives as to keep our grounds of anxiety at the lowest possible limit; in short, to simplify our habits, restrain our self tormenting bustle, and, reducing our external wants, give more voice to those which are inward and spiritual.

2. The modal of that life. It is Christ himself; for the perfect Teacher lived all his doctrines, practised all he preached. The way of human life which the Son of God selected, and to which he adhered, was the best for the purpose of developing a model humanity. We pass over the station in which he was born, because we have no discretionary power over our own birth. But we take note of this, that he grew up in a home of piety, remote from those excitements and temptations that render our modern town bred youth so precocious. He had. a quiet time among the hills and valleys round Nazareth, to let his thoughts grow large and his character acquire deliberate strength. Then, when the time was ripe for opening his prophetic mission, he kept his personal life as simple as possible, and allowed no room for anxieties on his own account. He also surrounded himself with friends who were of simple habits and little worldly ambition. He taught them as they walked from one village to another or rowed their boat upon the lake, and did good everywhere without a particle of ostentation. And so he went on to the end, implicitly trusting and obeying the heavenly Father who had sent him and was always with him. Thus was he always calm and self possessed. No dust of brooding care lay upon his heart. And, indeed, it was because he held himself so free of petty entanglements, that he could be and was so engrossed with the work which the Father gave him to do. Easily satisfied as to food, and raiment, and lodgings, and things that perish, he devoted all the strength of his thought and purpose to the supreme object for which he had come into the world. It may be urged that this, though admirable in hint, is really no model for us. We cannot lead anything like that simple, untrammelled, unconventional life of which we read in the Gospels. Now, no one alleges that in form we can live as our Saviour lived, or his servant Paul. But we do maintain that Christians ought to catch the spirit and principle of the life of Christ, and therefore should not let artificial wants multiply or needless anxieties entangle their hearts. Unless pains be taken to prevent it, life becomes in modern times very much of a grindheart wearing and perplexing. Our hones and brains are weary. Our time slips away from us, and with all our fagging, we find our work drag. We are caught in the tyrannical grasp of the conventional, and go on in a laborious fashion, not happy, certainly not Christ like. They are the wisest and the happiest who lay down simple lines for themselves, reducing the cumbrousness of the outward life in order to cultivate more fully the inward life of faith, hope, and charity.

3. The principle of the care renouncing life. It is faith in God. Lot us cast our care on him, for he cares for us. On this principle the Man Christ Jesus walked, believing that the Father heard him always and compassed his path. On this principle he assured his followers that the very hairs of their heads were numbered. On this principle have all patient and humble Christian lives been sustained. “The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.” The thirty-seventh psalm teaches it well. Art thou anxious about temporal wants? “Trust in the Lord, and do good; so shall thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed” (Psa 37:3). Art thou keen and eager for a lawful object? “Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart’ (Psa 37:4). Art thou concerned about the issue of a matter? “Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass” (Psa 37:5). Art thou hindered or discouraged by the success of unscrupulous rivals? “Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him, fret not thyself” etc. (Psa 37:7). With these simple directions laid to heart and obeyed, one may go through the greatest vicissitudes and most exhausting toils with a spirit cheerful and serene,

“There are, in this loud stunning tide
Of human care and crime,
With whom the melodies abide
Of th’ everlasting chime,
Who carry music in their heart
Through dusky lane and wrangling mart,
Plying their daily task with busier feet,
Because their secret souls a holy strain repeat.”

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK

1Co 7:1-7

Advice on details of Christian conduct.

In dealing with these verses, it should be noticed:

1. That, concerning such matters of practical detail, St. Paul gives his advice, he does not lay down authoritative commands.

2. The apostle’s mission concerned principles, not details, which are properly regarded as well within the control of cultured Christian thought and judgment. Inspiration is wisely limited to subjects which, for any reason, are out of ordinary human reach. None of us need. precise authoritative guidance of the common incidents and relations of life. We can ourselves sufficiently apply Christian principles.

3. Principles are better left without minute applications, as they can then be variously adapted to the differing conditions of society in each age.

4. St. Paul, when induced to give advice, takes care to bring out and impress the related principle; and, if possible, he presents his own example for imitation. The principles with which he deals in these verses concern:

(1) The subordinate position of woman. On this matter details would be very unadvisable, as will be fully seen if we contrast the Eastern and Western, the ancient and modern, sentiments about the place and work of woman.

(2) The mastery of bodily passion in the power of the sanctified will. This is enough, and we can make all necessary applications. “Each one of you should know how to possess the vessel [of his body] in sanctification and honour.”

(3) The duty of using for the service of others, and in no way misusing or abusing, any form of capacity with which we may be endowed (1Co 7:7).R.T.

1Co 7:8-16

The marriage tie.

When Christianity spread abroad among the heathen, very often, in a family, “one would be taken and another left,” and much family and social difficulty was made when a heathen husband or a heathen wife was converted, and the other partner remained in heathen darkness. There could be no doubt that Christianity demanded separation from heathenism, and even declared a social connection with heathen people to be morally perilous; and it might very readily be inferred that this applied to the heathen husband or the heathen wife, and that divorce from them should at once follow upon Christian profession. It seems that the heathen in ancient times held the marriage bond very loosely, as do the heathen in many countries now. There is no more fruitful source of national immorality than ease in procuring divorce. Christianity has exerted such an ennobling influence on the European nations, in part because it has testified so firmly to the sacredness of the marriage bond. Christianity treats marriage as the main foundation of moral relations, and the proper preventive and cure of social evils. The relation must, therefore, be anxiously sustained, and almost every other consideration must be made subservient to its maintenance. Its various claims must be duly met; its various duties must be properly performed:

1. For the Christian partner’s own sake, whether the other be Christian or not. If not, then maintaining faithfully the marriage relation will prove a spiritual discipline.

2. For the sake of the children of the mixed marriage, over whom the Christian partner can exercise a holy influence.

3. And even for the heathen partner’s sake, since he or she may be won by the “chaste conversation” and holy example of the fellow partner. Impress that the principle applied to marriage has wide applications. Whatever our spheres and relations may be, the man in Christ ought to master and mould and use them by the force of his new life in Christ.R.T.

1Co 7:14

Christian baptism.

“But now are they holy.”

I. WHAT IS IMPLIED IN THIS STATEMENT. It is an acknowledgment of their virtual Church membership.

II. THE BEARING OF THIS DOCTRINE ON THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS. By this act of baptism the Church

(1) expresses its own evangelical faith;

(2) recognizes the children as belonging to God and to Christ;

(3) testifies its confidence in their present spiritual safety;

(4) pledges itself to train them up in the culture of the Lord.

III. GENERAL INFERENCES CONCERNING CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

1. It is only an external sign.

2. Where persons are not baptized as infants, they should not afterwards be submitted to the rite except as intelligent believers in Christ.

3. As to the mode of baptism, it may be performed in any decent, possible way.

4. It may be administered by any one qualified or appointed to represent the Christian Church.

5. It should be consummated by an early admission to the Lord’s table.

6. The duty of those who were never baptized in infancy.R.T.

1Co 7:24

Abiding as called.

Observe the peril of Christianity, as it spread among the nations, disturbing the social conditions, customs, and relations. Yet Christianity never directly attacks social evils, war, slavery, etc. There was also a constant danger of men’s conceiving Christianity as a ceremonial and outward, and not as a spiritual and inward, religion. Our Lord had constantly to resist the expectation that he would prove a new Maccabeus, a national Messiah. And so the apostles had to assert constantly that Christianity is not, first of all, an ordering of conduct, but a life, an inward spiritual thing, that can gain expression in all circumstances and through all relations. A man may “abide” in whatever state he is when “called,” seeing that he can there live out the Christian spirit and the Christian life.

I. THE LORD‘S CALL. Notice:

1. Its form. It comes through human agency.

2. Its effectuality. It is accompanied by the witness and the sealing of the Holy Ghost.

II. THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE LORD‘S CALL MAY FIND US. Illustrate:

1. The personal conditions, as suggested by the distinction of circumcised and uncircumcised.

2. The relative conditions. We may be bond slave or freeman, master or servant.

III. THE CHRISTIAN‘S DUTY IN RELATION TO THE CONDITIONS HE IS IN WHEN CALLED. As a rule, he had better remain in them. The new life in Christ should not make men restless concerning their circumstances. It is always a far nobler thing to conquer circumstances of disability by the power of Christian principle and Christian life, than merely to change our circumstances, and shake ourselves free from the disability.

Press, in conclusion, that God’s presence is not conditioned by any outward positions in which we may be placed. He dwells with contrite hearts everywhere, and pays no heed to the presence or absence of the brand marks of the slave.R.T.

1Co 7:24

Religion and business.

The apostle, in this and the connected chapters, is giving to the Corinthian Christians a variety of counsels respecting the various relationships of life which they were called to sustain. The gospel of Jesus Christ, which brings its influence first to bear on the individual, next exerts its power on the family and social relations; and we can well understand how, in those early days, a number of serious practical questions would arise and demand consideration. One of these questions concerned the condition of servitude, serfdom, in which many of the early converts were placed. The apostle points out that personal religion is independent of calling or of social position. Whatever our earthly lot may be, we can be truly godly as we fulfil it; and St. Paul recommends that every one should continue in the business which he happened to be pursuing when the grace of God came to him, provided it was an honest and honourable business. His one counsel is that, whatever may be their place or their work, they should therein abide with God, in fellowship with God, in obedience to the will of God, in openness to the leadings of the Spirit of God, and in reliance upon the daily strength of God. Regarding the text in this light, it may direct us to consider the practical influence of Christianity on a man’s business. We dwell on three points.

1. Religion is above business.

2. Religion comes into business.

3. Religion must not be lost in business.

I. RELIGION IS ABOVE BUSINESS. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.” “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

1. Religion is above business in its character. Its interests are different; its aims are different; its prevailing spirit is different and nobler. It is the heavenly occupation and the heavenly spirit.

2. Religion is above business in its demands. Business calls for the exercise of mind and skill; it asks the culture of our bodily powersit develops skill of hand, promptness of judgment, keenness of insight, and perseverance in effort. It goes even further than this, and calls out certain moral qualities, the more simple and natural qualities, such as honesty, integrity, diligence, and truthfulness. But religion demands more, even purity, unselfishness, a fine consideration for the well being of others, rightness of motive, and the inspiration of a supreme purpose to glorify God. Business does not touch the affections. Yet we are only cold, grasping, self seeking creatures, if life and conduct are not toned by affections; and the religion which purifies and nourishes our affections must be above business.

3. Religion is above business in its issues. Business results are a certain measure of worldly comfort in our home, a share of the pleasures which the world can afford, and a position of respect and influence among our fellow men. What more than this can the most successful business bring? It wins nothing that can go through the “great gates” with us. Its issues have rather to do with quantity than with quality; they are bounded by life, and have no out teachings into eternity. Religion is above it, since “godliness hath both the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” Religion shines down on common life all the golden rays that make the beauty of the present prospect, and it assures us that all it can shed now are but a few scattered rays of an “exceeding and eternal weight of glory,” which will shine forever on the “good and faithful servants.”

II. RELIGION COMES DOWN INTO BUSINESS. Because it is higher than business, it claims to take it up into its grasp and glorify it, breathing its own noble spirit into all business relations. Some men do not hesitate to say that religion and business occupy separate spheres. Ward Beecher says, “How hateful is that religion which says, ‘Business is business, and politics are politics, and religion is religion’! Religion is using everything for God. But many men dedicate business to the devil, and shove religion into the cracks and crevices of time, and make it the hypocritical outcrawling of their leisure and laziness.”

1. Religion comes into business as a new force, nourishing diligence. William Jay used to say that Christian tradesmen ought to be the best tradesmen, and Christian servants should be the best servants, and he would sometimes quaintly add, “There’s many a good woman who is not a good washer woman.’

2. Religion comes as a Divine help in bearing disappointment and loss. Many by the troubles of business life are made reckless and bard. It is a great tiring that religion, in a world where “man is born to trouble,” should help us to suffer well.

3. Religion comes into business to elevate our standards of honesty and uprightness. We need not affirm that integrity is only connected with religion; but we may fully admit that the high standards are maintained by religion, and that it stands foremost among the forces that preserve business morality.

4. And religion comes into business as a spirit attempering business relations. It makes men more gentle, considerate, and gracious towards others; and elevates the tone of masterhood and servanthood, establishing mutual helpfulness as the ruling feature in all relationships.

III. RELIGION MUST NOT BE LOST IN BUSINESS. This it may be in two ways.

1. By excess of ambition and exertion preventing due attention to religious duties and personal culture (see 2Ti 2:4).

2. By the wealth getting spirit spoiling the Christian spirit. Illustrate by our Lord’s saying, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven!”R.T.

1Co 7:29-40

An argument from the shortness of the time.

It is impossible to understand a large number of the apostolic allusions unless we recognize the early Church conception that the Christian dispensation would be very brief, and in all probability closed and completed in the first century, by the expected reappearance of the Lord Jesus Christ. This idea certainly prevailed among the disciples. To some extent at least it was shared by the apostles; but it is evident that they found it necessary to check a tendency to extravagance and fanaticism, and in some quarters the sentiment was allowed to nourish an antinomian spirit, which seriously imperilled the Christian morality. The notion of our Lord’s second coming in some kind of earthly manifestation could only have been entertained by those who failed to understand that the words which he spake were “spirit and life,” and were to be spiritually understood. “The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life.” Yet there is a proper sense in which the Christian should be impressed with the “shortness of the time.” Life at the longest is but brief. Life, in comparison with eternity, is but as a passing breath to the long day. To the Christian, life is so full of solemn claims and responsibilities that it seems impossible to fulfil them all in the narrow limits of an uncertain earthly career. The apostle argues here that a sense of the “shortness of time” should influence

I. OUR HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS. Having this particular influence on them, that it prevents our being wholly absorbed in them, and helps us to the right use of them. St. Paul’s principle is that we should “use this world as not abusing it.” Here Christianity stands between the worldly spirit and the narrow religious spirit. The worldly spirit says, “Time is short; take your fill; live while you can.” The narrow religious spirit says, “All the pleasure here is a snare, and dangerous; keep out of it altogether.” In opposition to this narrow spirit, Christianity says, “Use the world;” and in opposition to the worldly spirit, “Do not abuse it. All things are yours. Take them and use them; but never let them interfere with the higher life which you are called on to lead. ‘A man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth'” (F. W. Robertson). Illustrate, in relation to wives, the early notions of the value of celibacy, and show that the married state can be preserved without interfering with the soul’s culture, and that; indeed, the married state is found, for most men, singularly helpful to the religious life.

II. OUR HUMAN JOYS AND SORROWS. Explain what an amelioration of both is found in the fact that they are strictly limited. Joys soon fade. Affliction is but for a moment. For both the “time is short,” and we need not, therefore, be unduly affected by either. We may gratefully accept the pleasure and patiently bear the trouble; for “we soon fly away” to be at rest.

III. OUR EARTHLY TOILS. St. Paul argues, from the shortness of the time, that “those who buy” should be “as though they possessed not.” Resisting the tendency to fix thought and heart on what we can gain, and realizing that we can take nothing of it away with us. Moderation and sobriety may well mark our very acquisitions. The energy that wins success needs to be kept within reasonable bounds. Though not in precisely the sense in which St. Paul used the term, still for us also the “time is short,” and we may therefore wisely sit loosely from all earthly things, and remember that where our treasure is there will our heart be also, and that, as Christians, our treasure is in heaven.R.T.

1Co 7:31

The passing world.

“For the fashion of this world passeth away.” The figure used by the apostle is that of a shifting scene in a theatre. We may better realize the figure by applying it to a moving panorama. On, on it goes, ever new scenes coming into view, moving across, and then passing forever away. Such life appears to us when we can seem to step aside and look at it. Sometimes it has been likened to the river, which bears the vessel on from the harbour among the hills, down past ever varying scenes, and out into the great ocean. Poetic souls are touched with a fine melancholy as they see the “stately ships pass on,” and feel how each resembles a human life. Time is short; the voyage is brief, and the ocean is so vast, so unexplored, so unknown. “The word ‘fashion’ has not here the popular meaning which has been generally assigned to it. It does not refer to those customs and conventionalities which vary in different nations and different ages,all these pass away; but the word refers here to all that is external upon earth; all that has form and shape and scenery; all that is visible in contradistinction to that which is invisible.” Work cut and illustrate two things.

I. IT IS ONLY THE FASHION OF THE WORLD THAT PASSES AWAY. This we should feel if we could rightly understand what the “fashion of the world” is. Clearly distinguish between the “essence” and the “accident” of a thing. It may he quite true that the “essence” escapes us; it is beyond our present vision. But we can realize it in thought. We know that within appearances are undying realities, and that appearances may change and pass, but the reality is eternal. Phenomena are but the utterance of eternal things, so that under our present sense limitations we may know something of them. This is best apprehended by reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, who was “God manifest” in our sense spheres. The mere fashion of him, as the Fellow man, with whom we might have sense relations, may pass awayit did pass awaybut such passing in no way touched the reality of his abiding presence with us. So we seem every day to be losing things, but we only lose the fashion of them, the outward show. Whatever they have really been to us, for good or for bad, they are still, and they shall be forever. We ourselves must presently pass away; but it is only the fashion that passes; we remain. With reverence it may even be said of us, that “our years are throughout all generations.” Then we can loose from our grasp the merely “seen and temporal,” if we have for our possession the “unseen and eternal.”

II. IT IS THE REALITY OF THE WORLD THAT IS ABIDING. If we can only find out what that reality is. And surely it is thisthe character of the beings that pass under its thousandfold influences. There is nothing else that is abiding, The physical world is ever changing and passing away. We talk of the everlasting mountains, while they are crumbling and being washed down into the plains. “He that doeth the will of God abideth forever,” and he alone. The reality of the world is just that unseen spiritual sphere in which Christ’s soul and the Christian soul lives. You may call it earth or call it heaven, according to the fashion in which it is apprehended. So the apostle urges his practical pointDo not even try to satisfy your souls in the merely sensuous spheres that so surely pass away. Break all these bonds of the sensual, if you are now bound with them. Keep away from these bonds of the sensual, it in any form they are likely to entangle you. Live in the Spirit. “Walk in the Spirit; and you will not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.”R.T.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

1Co 7:1. Now concerning the things, &c. The chief business of the foregoing chapter we have seen to be, the lessening the credit of the false Apostle, and the extinguishing of that faction. What follows is in answer to some questions which they had proposed to St. Paul. This chapter contains conjugal matters; wherein he dissuades from marriage those who have the gift of continence, considering the present unsettled state of the Christian converts. Next, he teaches that converts ought not to forsake their unconverted mates, inasmuch as Christianity changes nothing in men’s civil estate, but leaves them under the same obligations as they were tied by before. And last of all, he lays down directions about giving or not giving their daughters in marriage. Locke.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 7:1 . ] leads over to the answering of questions put in the letter from Corinth.

] Differences of opinion must have prevailed respecting the points discussed in this chapter, and these had been laid before the apostle by the church. In particular, there must have been at Corinth opponents of marriage. This is wrongly denied by Baur, who imagines merely an attempt made among the Corinthians to defend fornication from the analogy of marriage; of which there is not a trace in the apostle’s words. Whether, now, the doubts in question, more especially as to the lawfulness of marriage, [1050] were mixed up with the subsistence of the parties at Corinth, it is impossible to make out with any certainty, although in itself it seems likely that a matter of opinion so important practically would be turned, with other points, to account in the interest of party. Grotius holds that those who raised such points of debate were “ sub Christianorum nomine philosophi verius quam Christiani .” But such of the Greek philosophers as advocated views adverse to marriage did so upon the ground of the cares and dangers connected with marriage (see Grotius in loc [1051] ), not from any doubt regarding its morality , as, according to 1Co 7:28 ; 1Co 7:36 , must have been the case among the Corinthians. Further, it is certain that the adversaries of marriage could not be of the Petrine party ; for Peter himself was married (Mat 8:14 ; 1Co 9:5 ), and the Judaizing tendency, which cannot be proved to have had an Essene-Ebionitic character in Corinth (Schwegler, I. p. 163 f. [1052] ), could be nothing else but favourable to marriage (see Lightfoot, Horae , p. 189). Olshausen (comp also Jaeger, Kniewel, Goldhorn, Ewald) decides for the Christ-party , in whose idealistic tendency he considers there were contained the germs both of moral indifference and of false asceticism. But this party’s idealism in general is a pure hypothesis, which is as little established by proof as their Essenism in particular, to which Ewald traces back the rejection of marriage among the Corinthians. [1054] In the last place, that it was the followers of Paul (Storr, Rosenmller, Flatt, Pott, Neander, Rbiger, Osiander, Maier; Rckert refuses to give a decision), who in opposition, perhaps, to the Petrine party, and appealing to the celibacy of Paul himself, he never having been married (see on 1Co 7:8 ) overvalued celibacy, and pronounced marriage to stand lower in point of morality and holiness, is the most likely view, for this reason, that the apostle’s sentiments upon this point were in themselves, as we see from the chapter before us, quite of a kind to be readily misunderstood or misinterpreted by many of his disciples more especially in partisan interests as being unfavourable to marriage. [1055] It merely required that men should overlook or wish to overlook the conditional character of the advantages which he ascribes to single life. The opponents of marriage referred to in 1Ti 4:3 were of a totally different class. Those with whom we are now concerned did not forbid marriage and so endanger Christian liberty (otherwise Paul would have written regarding them in quite another tone), but simply undervalued it, placing it morally below celibacy, and advising against it, hence, too, as respects married persons, favouring a cessation from matrimonial intercourse and even divorce (1Co 7:3 ff., 1Co 7:10 ff.).

] With respect to what you have written to me ( . . [1056] , absolute, as in 1Co 16:1 ; 1Co 16:12 ; Bernhardy, p. 261; Bremi, a [1057] Demosth. Ol. p. 194; Maetzner, a [1058] Antiph. p. 170), it is good for a man , etc., that is to say: it is morally salutary [1059] for an (unmarried) man not to touch a woman . That, in a general theoretical point of view, is the prevailing axiom, which I hereby enunciate as my decision; but in a practical point of view, seeing that few have the gift of continence, the precept must come in: because of fornication, etc., 1Co 7:2 . In Paul’s eyes, therefore, the is, indeed, something morally salutary in and by itself; but this affirmation, made from a general point of view, finds its necessary limitation and restriction in the actual facts of the case, so that just according to circumstances marriage may be equally a duty. Hence the . . [1060] is not appropriate for the defence of celibacy in general (“si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum ergo est tangere,” Jerome, a [1061] Jovin. i. 4, and see especially Cornelius a Lapide in loc [1062] ).

, like tangere in the sense of sexual intercourse (Gen 20:16 ; Gen 21:11 ; Pro 6:29 ). See Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 204 f. Marriage is the particular case coming under this general , to be treated of in detail hereafter. Rckert, failing to recognise this progress in the apostle’s argument (so, too, Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 444), holds that the reference is to sexual intercourse in marriages already formed (and that nothing is said of entering into matrimonial connections). Did Paul, as Kling supposes, here give it as his opinion that “ a chaste life, as of brother and sister , was more consonant, on the part of married persons, with delicacy of moral feeling” ( ); this would be a sentimental error , which ought not to be attributed to him, whether considered in itself, or in view of his high appreciation of marriage as a union of the sexes (2Co 11:2 ; Rom 7:4 ; Eph 5:28 ff.).

The axiom is enunciated without a , because it is, in the first place, conceived simply in itself ; the limitation which follows is added with by way of antithesis. Comp on Eph 5:8 , and Fritzsche, a [1064] Rom. II. p. 433. Precisely so, too, in 1Co 7:8 .

[1050] If the opinion that fornication was lawful (1Co 6:12 ff.) arose at Corinth out of an Epicurean libertinism, the doubts regarding the lawfulness of marriage must have flowed from the opposite source, to wit, from the perverted moral extravagance of others, who, because of the intercourse of sex involved, counted marriage also an impure thing, and would have the maxim: , to be of absolute and universal application.

[1051] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1052] One section of the Essenes even declared itself against celibacy, Josephus, Bell. ii. 8. 13; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche , p. 185.

[1054] According to Ewald (comp. too, his Gesch. der apost. Zeit. p. 503 f.), the Christ-party appealed to the example of Christ in regard to this point especially. But had that been the case, we should surely have found some traces of it in Paul’s way of discussing the question, whereas, on the contrary, the reference which he deems it due to make is rather to his own example (ver. 7). Looking at the matter as a whole, it is prima facie improbable that any one should have adduced the unwedded life of Christ as an argument against marriage in the first place, because He, as the incarnate Son of God, held too lofty a place in the believing consciousness to present a standard for such earthly relationships; and secondly, because He Himself in His teaching had so strongly upheld the sanctity of marriage.

[1055] Just as they were often misinterpreted, as is well known, in after times in the interests of the celibate system, of nunneries and monasteries.

[1056] . . . .

[1057] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1058] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1059] That we have in . . . a moral axiom, a statement of what is ethically salutary, not a mere utilitarian principle of practical prudence, is clear, especially from the comparison in the last clause of ver. 9, and from vv. 32 34, where the ethical benefit of it is explained.

[1060] . . . .

[1061] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1062] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1064] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

XIII.INSTRUCTIONS IN REGARD TO MARRIAGE

A.1The propriety of marriage, and the duties involved

1Co 7:1-11

1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:2 It is good for a man not 2to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication [But on account of the fornications], let every man have his own [] wife, and let every woman have her own 3[] husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence [her due3] and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and [om. fasting and4] prayer; and come [be5] together again, that Satan tempt you not for [through, ] your incontinency. 6But I speak this by [as a, ] permission, and not of [as a, ] commandment 7For [But, 6] I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one6after this manner, and another7 after that 8I say therefore 9to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart8 from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Here we enter upon the second portion of this Epistle. Having first treated of those evils in the Church which he had learned by report, he, from chap. 7. and onwards, proceeds to give his opinion on those topics in regard to which the Corinthians had questioned him in their letter. This letter being lost, we can only infer what these questions were from the nature of the answers given. One was in relation to the propriety of marriage, and the performance of the duties it involved. This topic he treats of first, since it was closely connected with his earnest warning against fornication (1Co 6:12 ff.); for not only did it embrace the subject of the sexual relations; but that very depreciation of marriage also, which had begun to prevail in the Church, under the supposition that it was a sinful connection, which ought to be avoided, and, if possible, broken up when formed, was to be regarded as a reaction against the abounding licentiousness of the place.

This undervaluation of marriage, however, is by no means to be attributed (as by Grotius) [Whitby, A. Clark, Barnes] to the philosophic views current at that period; 9 since these affected not so much the morality of the thing, as the cares and dangers which belonged to the marriage institution. It were better to infer here an inferencethough only a subordinate oneof that aversion to marriage which was just then springing up (so Osiander). But whether, and how far this difference of sentiment was connected with the party divisions in the Church, is a matter of doubt. Yet, if there were such a connection, still we are neither to suppose, (with Gold-horn and others,) that it was with the Christian party in particular, whose alleged theosophic, ascetic character is altogether problematical; nor yet (with Schwegler) that it was with the Essenic Ebionite Christians, whose presence at Corinth cannot be certainly ascertained; nor yet with the Petrine party, who, rather in view of the example of their leader (1Co 9:5; Mat 13:14), and of the Jewish, Old Testament standpoint on the subject, must have held marriage in special honor. These questions must rather have originated with the Paulinists, who, through the precedent of their assumed leader, and by reason of such expressions of his as appear here, and were misunderstood by them, might have been led into an inordinate admiration of celibacy and disparagement of marriage, in opposition both to heathen immoralities, and to Jewish sensualism in this respect. With what modesty and wisdom Paul handles his subject will appear as we proceed.

[The whole is written, says Alford, under the strong impression of the near approach of the end of the present state of things (1Co 7:29-31), and as advising the Corinthians under circumstances in which persecution, and family division for the Gospels sake might at any time break up the relations of life. The precepts and recommendations of this chapter are therefore to be weighed as those in 8. al., with reference to change of circumstances; and the meaning of Gods Spirit in them with respect to the subsequent ages of the Church, to be sought by careful comparison and inference not rashly assumed and misapplied. I may also premise that in hardly any portion of the Epistles has the hand of correctors and interpolators been busier than here. The absence of all ascetic tendency from the Apostles advice, on the point where asceticism was busiest and most mischievous, was too strong a testimony to be left in its original clearness.

1Co 7:1-2, Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote to me.[Each of his replies is introduced by the preposition , as here. Words.].it is good.There is here a Brachylogy, as in 1Co 11:16; Rom 11:18. We might insert: I say, or: it is my opinion. [Some suppose that the Apostle is here taking up the language of the Epistle addressed to him and affirming it: It is good, as you say, or inquire. And this is very possible, and may account for the use of the strong word here. It is adopted concessively.] The question is, however, whether by it the Apostle means to express the idea of suitableness, or allowableness, in consideration of the superior advantage of celibacy by reason of the religious opportunities it gave (comp. 1Co 7:26); or whether he here has in view the moral beauty of continence. If we understand it relatively, then it cannot be inferred, as by Jerome, that the opposite is wrong, malum est tangere; and so the value and dignity of marriage as set forth in the context, will remain unaffected. This agrees with the feeling in the previous chapter. Comp. below 1Co 7:7-8; 1Co 7:26; 1Co 7:34 (mid.), 35 (end), 40. Good, i. e., becoming, suitable for liberty and exemption from the marriage due, 1Co 7:3, and for entire power over oneself, 1Co 7:4; [good, not in view of marriage as originally designed; for in that case it was not good for a man to be alone; but good in view of the evils which sin had engendered, and by which it had marred that which was designed to be one of mans chief blessings]; though, on the other hand, the act of touching, mentioned in 1Co 7:1, is always accompanied with modesty among the chaste. [Much ingenuity, says Stanley, has been employed by the advocates of celibacy in making this word () mean lofty or noble, and by the advocates of marriage in depreciating it to mean convenient for existing circumstances. The obvious meaning is the true one. It is used as in Aristotle and the Greek moral writers generally) for good, like pulchrum in Latin, opposed to turpe,=, bad; and the only limitation to be put upon it is that supplied by the context. It means, beautiful, praiseworthy, yet only under certain circumstances, and in view of the traits thus exhibited. And so all must admit it to be, as e. g., when practised by Paul. But not universally, for certainly he cannot be supposed to contradict intentionally what he says elsewhere of marriage, as honorable in all; or as a type of the union of the Church with Christ (Eph 5:23-32); or as a thing, which to forbid was one of the signs of the great apostacy].for a man; does not stand precisely for , although, of course, as the context shows, the man is here meant; [and that, as Meyer remarks, not merely in his sexual, but in his human capacity. Thus in its deeper reference it would include the other sex also. Alf.].Not to touch a woman.This phrase the author formerly understood, with Rckert, to denote continence in the marriage state. In which case, then, the words in 1Co 7:2 : to have his own wife, would mean sexual intercourse in the marriage state; and 1Co 7:3-5 would only be a carrying out of the same idea; and, would be equivalent to morally beautiful, in correspondence with the tender feeling implied. But, apart from all other grounds, both the whole context as well as the usage of language (), leads me to abide by the common interpretation, which takes the words to mean sexual connection in general (as in Gen 20:6; Pro 6:29) of which that occurring in marriage is one species. And this first comes to view prominently in 1Co 7:2. [So Alf., Meyer, de Wette. And undoubtedly they are correct. But Hammond, Whitby, Henry, Hodge, Barnes and others, take the phrase as meaning marriage, directly and primarily, finding support in this from certain supposed classical analogies. But this is certainly a perplexing and needless limitation. Paul here evidently starts with a broad, and surely very credible proposition. There is, he would say, nothing wrong, as the Jews argued, but rather something very proper, nay, very honorable, in having nothing at all to do with women carnally, as there certainly was in Pauls case, and in that of many others who for wise reasons have given themselves up to a life of chaste celibacy.]

In 1Co 7:2 he presents to us in contrast with the ideal the real practical need.But on account of [ with the Ace. indicates the ground (ratio), not the aim (not even here), and it is only by implication that the notion of design can be brought in. Fornications are the reason for which the injunction is given, in order thus to prevent them. Winer, XLIX.100] fornications.The plural points to the manifold and irregular sexual vices which prevailed in Corinth (Bengel: vagas libidines), in consequence of the multitude of courtezans to be found there. Now to ward off the temptations thus offered to the unmarried, by the enjoyment of legitimate intercourse in the marriage state he says,let every one have his own () wife, and let every woman have her own () husband.The and point to the established relation of the monogamy. [The contrast between and is a difference of idiom which runs all through the New Testament. is never used for , nor for , in speaking of husband and wife; perhaps from the seeming inappropriateness of using , except in the relation when the one party is, as it were, the property of another; perhaps from the importance of pointing out that the husband is the natural adviser of the wife. Stanley. See Winer, XXII.]

[The Imp. , let have, is not to be construed as permissive only, but it carries the force of a command [Jelf, Gr. Gram. 420, Obs. 1 Corinthians 1 : The Imperative is used when something of decision or authority is wanted, so that the more civil form of the Optative would be out of place], as is evident from the analogy of the subsequent imperatives, and from the reason by which it is sustained. But, if a command, then of course we must limit the each one, both of man and woman, to such as have not the gift of continence (comp. 1Co 7:3; 1Co 7:7; 1Co 7:36-37). Here then we have a view of marriage in its lower aspects and bearings, as a safeguard against incontinence. But this pedagogical or practical view of marriage, as meeting a contemplated necessity, by no means excludes the ideal view given in Eph 5:29 ff. For, as Neander says, we must not overlook the fact that Paul is here not treating of marriage in general, but only in its relation to the condition of things at Corinth, where he feared the effect of moral prejudices concerning celibacy. [Besides, it must be remembered that marital intercourse is not the same in kind with the illegitimate connection, but is refined and elevated by the pure love which binds the parties in life-long and absolute union for the very noblest ends, and of which it is the bodily expression. Hence the Apostle is here prescribing a veritable cure for the evil passion, and not simply allowing it indulgence within a certain sphere].

1Co 7:3-5. In order that the direction given in 1Co 7:2 may attain its purpose, he goes on to insist upon the full consummation of the marital relationship, being prompted to this perhaps by the representations made in the letter of the Church, of a tendency towards a false asceticism in this respect, or of the actual practice of it among them.Let the husband render unto the wife her due, and likewise also the wife to her husband. cannot therefore mean simply , due benevolence, as the Rec. Text has it [which was either substituted as an expository gloss on the supposition that the due was one of affection merely, or as an euphemism], but it refers to the due of marriage, debitum tori. That marital intercourse should here be set forth as a matter of duty, belongs to the higher ethical aspects of the case. [See Harless, Christ. Ethik. 52, A. a., Wuttke Sittenlehre, 15, 3]. This he proceeds to establish more fully in the next sentence, omitting to connect it with any causal particle (for).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.Here he shows that it is implied in the very nature of marriage, that the granting or withholding be not at the caprice of either party, but that each possesses a legitimate claim upon the body of the other, and has a right to its enjoyment. This is a reciprocity whereby alone marriage receives and maintains its monogamous character. The ellipsis at the close of each of these clauses is evident, and the nominatives must have their verbs supplied from what precedes. In the expression: the wife hath not power over her own, and: the husband hath not power over his own, Bengel detects an elegant paradox. [The ground of this being anothers, while they are their own, is to be found in the oneness of body in which the marriage state places them. Alf.]. It is to this power that the next injunction refers: Defraud not one another. At any rate, it amounts to the same thing, whether we say, of this power, or, of your body, or, of the due. What he forbids is the arbitrary refusal of intercourse when the other party desires it. Except it be, . [The belongs to . On the attachment of this particle to other than verbs, see Jelf, 430, Obs. a.]. There is here a limitation upon the above prohibition [which is elliptical in form; and, though it would naturally be supposed from the preceding verb, plainly implies a modification in meaning. It is not defrauding that he allows, but abstaining, as is evident from the appended condition], that both parties are agreed upon it, so that the rights of both parties are preserved: from mutual agreement, . But even then the arrangement must only be for a time, . This might indeed denote some particular, suitable occasion that might occur, calling for Such abstinence. But, according to later usage, it must be understood of some fixed definite period [Jelf, 38, 2, b] And this meaning is sustained by the purpose expressed, in its whole extent. First, he mentions religious exercises, for which they might wish to have time and rest.that ye may give yourselves to prayer,undisturbed by the excitements of this mighty passion. Such extraordinary and protracted devotional exercises were, in later times, enjoined for particular festival seasons, connected with fastings (hence the addition in the Rec. Text of )10. And it is possible that the beginnings of this custom are to be found in this period, though such seasons were evidently of a purely voluntary character. That indulgence in sexual intercourse did not comport with holy solemnities, was a point assumed alike in the Old Testament (Exo 19:15) and among pagan nations. [Yet, as Harless well says, Christliche Ethik, 44, c., we are not to suppose that the Apostle meant to say that such abstinence was a necessary condition to a spirit of prayer in general, but only that it was a suitable and necessary result of these peculiar circumstances in which the soul felt moved to special devotion toward God. To the Apostle who regarded the Christians entire life as one continuous and perpetual prayer, it was impossible that such abstinence should appear as an absolute requisite to prayer, from the simple fact that he allowed of no enjoyment whatever which was not accompanied with prayer and thanksgiving, 1Ti 4:4].And be together again.This indicates euphemistically the resumption of marital intercourse. , a constructio pregnans=come together and remain together. The dependence of upon is somewhat remarkable: hence the reading (Imp.). It nevertheless rests on good grounds.

The limitation of their abstinence to a definite period, includes two objects, that they might have leisure for prayer, and might be united again. The reason for this isthat Satan may not tempt you through your incontinency.By this he means a betrayal into that against which marriage was designed to be a safeguard, viz., those fornications which were caused by incontinence. That such incontinence existed among them was to be inferred, not only from their peculiar circumstances, but also from the fact of their being married, which showed that they had not the gift of continence (comp. 1Co 7:7). The betrayal through incontinence the Apostle ascribes to Satan. This is no mere form of speech, grounded on the supposition that all evil is to be attributed to Satan. Neither does it refer simply to seductions practised on them by the heathen, as though Satan were but another name for heathen, the enemies of the Gospel. But it strictly accords with the whole doctrine of Scripture, and especially with Pauls teachings, that there is such a hostile evil spirit existing, whose business it is to seduce the people of God, and who, on this account, is styled prminently the tempter ( ) (Mat 4:3; 1Th 3:5). But the act of temptation (), in so far as it proceeds from this spirit of evil, is virtually a putting to the proof, since it presupposes some impurity or moral weakness in the parties operated on; or implies the hope of some pernicious result to them, on the ground of some suspected vitiosity of temper. In any case, it aims to demonstrate their impurity and impiety, and to effect their fall, and so to bring shame upon God and Christ, and to cause scandal in the Church, and involve it in disgrace, and hinder its spread, and weaken it in inward power and extent (comp. Job 1:2; 2Co 2:11, etc.). means, to entice, to sin, and that, too, with the intention of betraying (comp. Jas. 13ff.; Gal 6:1; Rev 2:10; Rev 3:10). But to derive from , as though it meant not mingling, i. e., in sexual intercourse, is a philological fiction of Rckerts [one, also, which Words, adopts], which is untenable, if for no other reason than this, that never appears as= in this signification. The subst. from denotes bad mixture, such as that of insalubrious air. But the of the text is that which comes from and is=, the opposite of [So Alford and Meyer. The latter takes the your () as an emphatic allusion to the prevailing fault of the Corinthians. This Alford questions, but on hardly sufficient grounds.]

1Co 7:6. But this I speak as a permission, and not as a commandment.[This (). What? The thing is variously argued]. It refers neither to what follows in 1Co 7:8 [as Rosen., Macknight] because of what intervenes in 1Co 7:7; nor to 1Co 7:2 ff. [as Beza, Grotius, de Wette, Hodge], since the command there given, that each man have his own wife, etc., must in that case be taken concessively contrary to the direct obligation imposed in 1Co 7:3; nor yet simply to the clause preceding: and be together again, [as the ascetics Orig., Tert., Jerome, Estius, and also Calvin, because this is but a subordinate member of the preceding sentence. Alford: and the sense thus given to the passage is not consistent with the context Hodge]; but to 1Co 7:5, as a whole [so Alford, Meyer, Barnes]. The limitation imposed in regard to defrauding one another, he would not have taken as a command, as though persons were under obligation to practise longer or shorter abstinence by agreement. By permission ( )=as an allowance or concession to your weakness. [Not as a command. A proof of St. Pauls authority. He is empowered to give a precept () or to bestow an indulgence () Words.].

1Co 7:7. I wish rather () that all men were as also myself.The reason why he does not wish to impose that restriction as a command, he here proceeds to state by pointing [to the different temperaments of individuals in respect to continence,] primarily to his own peculiarity. [That continence is the particularity in his condition which he refers to is assumed by Chrysostom, and is most probable. So de Wette, Meyer, Barnes. But Words, understands it of his unmarried state.] The above construction of the connection occasioned, no doubt, the reading ; for, instead of ; but it comports equally well with the latter (which is better attested), if, with Meyer, we interpret thus: I do not say this by way of command. I rather wish that all men might have the gift of perfect continence, as I myself have, so that marriage were unnecessary.To limit the expression all men to Christians, is inadmissible. This comprehensive wish he utters in view of the near approach of Christs second coming, when humanity would be made like unto the angels, and all marrying and giving in marriage would cease.

But each one has his own gift from God.He here explains what he meant in 1Co 7:6, when he said, by permission, stating, on the other hand (), what hindered the realization of his wish. It was individual peculiarities, God had not given to every one alike the ability to practise continence. But whether by the word gift () he means an endowment of nature, or of grace, may be doubted. In view of the words all men in the previous clause we might infer that he intended the former; a natural aptitude which existed as a Providential favor outside the sphere of redemption. But the uniform use of the word in this Epistle and in the New Testament generally inclines us to the opinion that it is the lattera capacity granted by God within the Church, and therefore a proper gift of grace, grounded on an actual participation in Christs redeeming power,attached it may be, however, to a persons original disposition and temperament. Though the words all men are indeed to be construed universally, yet the Apostle has here to do only with converts, and it is these that he has in his eye when he says, each one and gift. As Bengel observes, that which in the natural man is a natural habit, becomes in the saints a gift of grace. The gift here is the entire habit of mind and body in the Christian, in so far, e. g., as marriage or celibacy is better suited to him, along with the actions suited to each state, according to Gods commandments. But in a state not voluntarily assumed, the assistance of grace is more secure to the godly. Comp. the words in Mat 19:11 : To whom it is given. The epithet , his own, is further explained;one, so, and another, so.This can either be construed generally, or applied strictly to the two subjects in discussion, viz., to continence and celibacy, on the one hand, and to the marriage state, on the other. The context inclines to the stricter construction. In this case, the second so would refer to the fitness of the Christian of the marriage state, for forming and governing the family life.

1Co 7:8-9. A special application of the foregoing in the way of advice.I say then to the unmarried, and to widows, , especially to widows; [so the must be interpreted, for widows being also unmarried cannot be regarded as a separate class.]These, therefore, must be regarded as the parties singled out to be particularly addressed; while by the term, unmarried, single persons of both sexes are meant. And the emphasis is not to be placed on the latter, as though Paul were passing here to the consideration of a new topicfrom the married to the unmarried; but it rests upon I say, [which is but a resumption of the I say in 1Co 7:6, and brings this advice under the same category as 1Co 7:7. Alford]. It is otherwise in 1Co 7:10, as may be seen from the position of the words: it is good, , as in 1Co 7:1, for them, , masculine, if they should remain as I also am, i. e., unmarried. We are not to infer from this that Paul was a widower, as Clemens, Alex., Grotius [Luther, Ewald, Selden, Conybeare and Howson] suppose, for this is in no wise here intimated [so Alf., Meyer, Bengel and others. Words, leaves the case doubtful]. In view of his own gift (1Co 7:7), however, he wishes this advice to be taken conditionally. But if they are incontinent, let them marry. = , to be master of ones selfespecially as it regards the sexual passions; a word of the later Greek. For it is better to marry than to burn. denotes the painful excitement of unsatisfied desire, which burns like a fire within, and inwardly overcomes the man, or at least disturbs and weakens the moral powers. Comp. Col 3:5; Sir 23:22-24. In saying it is better, he intends no disparagement of marriage as being a lesser evil; but only contrasts a relation which, in this case, is morally allowable and sinless, with a state that is immoral, or at least troublesome to the moral life. A second marriage among Christians is therefore not in itself unlawful; not a grievous transgression, as the Montanists and Novatians asserted; nevertheless the Church has always regarded second marriages with dislike, if only because the single marriage corresponds better with the idea of true Christian wedlock, which is a type of the union of Christ with His Church. Bisping]. [Bisping, it must be remembered, is a Romanist].

1Co 7:10-11. And to the married.This is connected directly, to the foregoing, meaning those who are enjoined to marryhence, to Christians. To limit this to such as were newly married, or to some particular parties had in mind (Rckert), is warranted neither by the expression itself, nor by the context.I command; .Here comes in the of 1Co 7:6. It implies a stringent order, an injunction to do something (comp. Luk 5:14) 1Ti 6:13. And this he exhibits as a command of the Lord Himself, i. e., of Christ, the Head of the Church.not I, but the Lord.Here he has in mind the words of Christ in Mat 5:32; Mat 19:4; Mar 10:12, communicated to him by a reliable tradition. To suppose that he had received a special revelation on the subject, is altogether gratuitous. [Nor are we to imagine that Paul here intends to draw a contrast between what he himself commands and what the Lord had commanded, as to the degree of authority involved in each. For as he himself states in 1Co 7:40, He had the mind of Christ; and what is spoken under the inspiration of the Spirit, is no less valid than that which proceeded from the lips of Jesus. And what he intends here is not to draw a contrast, but merely to assert the distinction just alluded to. He is simply telling the Corinthians, that, so far as what he was about to say was concerned, they had no need to come to him to learn it. He was merely repeating what had already been enjoined by Christ Himself. 11] The exception except it be for fornication, which does not appear in Luk 16:18, nor in Mark, is here dropped out, either because the tradition which came to him did not have the words, or because an instance of this sort had not occurred in Corinth (comp., however, 1Co 5:1), or because the matter was self-evident, fornication being itself a dissolution of the marriage bond.that the wife.The prominence given to the wife is not to be explained by supposing any reference to some existing case; but it may be accounted for on the ground of the greater inclination of the wife to obtain divorce; since she, as the weaker party, was more liable to suffer oppression, or was more naturally disposed to asceticism.do not separate herself from her husband.[, the natural expression for the wife as not having power to dismiss her husband; , the milder form for the husband (see last clause), although it is in 1Co 7:13 used also for the wife. The words are taken from the phraseology of legal divorce; but the cases here spoken of are not so much regular divorces as accidental separations. Stanley].but and if she should be separated.This and the dependent clauses are a parenthesis, so that what follows is in direct connection with what precedes. The words point to some possible case of divorce occurring hereafter contrary to the command of Christ, and not to any supposed actual separation which might have taken place before the latter should have reached them. The does not belong to the whole clause, making it equivalent to even if, etc., but simply to the verb, and may be translated by actually, or in fact. [This is not intended as an exception to the law, but it contemplates a case which may occur in spite of the law.There are cases undoubtedly which justify a woman in leaving her husband, which do not justify divorce. Hodge.]On the injunctionlet her remain unmarriedSee Mat 10:12.or let her be reconciled to her husband.The verb had best be taken like in a reflexive, sense, reconcile herself. This does not, however, exclude the mediation of others. He means that she should do her part towards becoming united to her husband; to secure his love and devote to him her love again.The injunction on the man is very short.And that the man put not away his wife.From the similarity of instruction given to both, we may infer that what was said to the woman in 1Co 7:10-11, applied also to the man (Osiander).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Marriage, its nature and obligations. In the Apostles view, marriage is a vital and life-long communion between man and woman, involving an equality of claims on the part of both. As a living fellowship, it extends over the entire personality, embracing also our physical nature. And this is precisely the peculiarity of marriage, distinguishing it from all other kinds of friendly connexion. While it involves the element of friendshipas a union of hearts mutually completing each otherit has, likewise, besides this, a mutually supplementing bodily union, viz., the sexual. This has, indeed, its psychical side; yet it comes to its full expression and consummation in the bodily life. Both are in this respect adjusted to each other, and each party needs the other for the proper fulfilment of its position in the sexual relations. The man requires the woman in order to the exercise of his procreative power, in which respect he is the image of God (1Co 11:7) the Creator; and the woman requires the man in order that her capacity for receiving may become an actual conception, and her constitutional fitness for being a mother may attain to its proper development and exercise.

These mutual needs, so divinely ordained, lead to reciprocal obligations and claims in their relations to each other. Each has a right in the body of the other, and each is bound to yield to the other for sexual intercourse, so that no capricious one-sided refusal is allowable. Only an occasional abstinence by mutual consent for higher moral and religious ends is permitted.
But another consideration comes in here. Men are sinful. All their sensual impulses, especially the sexual instinctsthe strongest of them allhave escaped from the control of the Spirit, from which they ought to receive their first motion. Instead of being the pure expression and exercise of lovefree surrender of oneself for the pleasure and gratification of anothersexual commerce has become one of the worst forms in which a degrading selfishness manifests itselfa selfishness which prompts persons to seek others only to use them for their own gratification. Among mankind thus corrupted, marriage, therefore, appears as providentially designed to guard against the inordinate and irregular satisfaction of sexual passion, so that it shall not be indulged in promiscuously, as opportunity might be afforded; but that two persons bound together during their whole life, and in their entire personality, shall devote themselves to each other even in reference to this particular, [that so, if possible, mere passion may be refined through the power of a purer affection and the discipline of domestic life].
The less now the virtue of continencethat is, the power of the spirit over the animal passionsis cultivated and trained in full strength, the more needful will it be to take care that the abstinence agreed upon for special reasons, be not too long extended, lest either party be exposed to temptation for unlawful indulgence. [See Whewells Elements of Morality, B. IV. chap. 7., Art. 630. Baxters Christian Ethics, Pt. 2 Chap. 1 and 7. Harless, Christ. Elhik, 52 A. a.; also Wuttke Sittenlehre, 152, 153].

2. Celibacy, its occasion, and how far praiseworthy. This stringency of the marriage obligation, which indeed, carries with it a wealth of moral and religious elements, is apt to evoke a reaction through the natural effort of the Christian after liberty and holinessafter an un-trammeled and undivided devotion to his Lordafter a perfect consecration of soul and body to his service, and after an undisturbed enjoyment of fellowship with Him. This effort resulting in celibacy, is morally justifiable only on certain conditions. These are: 1, Provided that it is not prompted by a carnal love of ease, and by a dread of domestic crosses, and is likewise free from all spiritual pride and ambition, which, by refraining from marriage, aspires to possess a special sanctity, and to merit a higher degree of blessedness and glory. 2, Provided it is not tinctured with mere caprice, or will-worship, or prudery, or vanity, or any such moral perverse-ness. 3, Provided it is prompted by a consciousnessnot, indeed, of an incapacity for marriage, which would render the act morally reprehensiblebut of a peculiar fitness for a single life vouchsafed by the Lord, and of a Divine call to some sphere of labor in Gods kingdom, to which the married state would offer impediments; or occasioned by providential obstructions put in the way of some desired and sought for marriage connections, and by the quiet pondering of the Divine will as indicated in such occurrences; and, 4, provided, in general, a lack of inclination for marriagewhich, on looking up to God and invoking His direction in the matter, comes to be regarded as a Divine hint as to dutyleads a person to remain unmarried. [When these conditions exist, celibacy and widowhood are states wherein some of the noblest traits of the Christian life may be displayed, and are no less honorable than that of wedlock. To disparage them in any way, is to put contempt on the plain doctrine of the Gospel. But no less un-Christian, not to say unnatural, is it to ascribe any inherent superior excellence to these states, and to make them the essential conditions of superior sanctity, and to impose them by authority upon any class of persons in the Church, as, e. g., on the clergy. The Romish doctrine on this point is not merely utterly groundless, but contrary to the express teachings of Scripture, and to the example of most of the Apostles. Paul himself specifies the forbidding to marry among the doctrines of devils, and when we would expect him to counsel virginity according to Romish teaching, he says rather (1Ti 2:15) the woman shall be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in faith and charity.] Hence, where the above-mentioned conditions do not exist, and there appears to be a demand for marriage, and a well-grounded hope that it will be a fellowship in the Lord, and for the furtherance of his kingdom, and it appears to be the will of God, then does an obligation arise to enter into it [both for the good of the parties concerned, and] for the propagation of the race, and the rearing of future generations morally, socially and religiously in this relation.

The Apostolic counsels in regard to celibacy, given as they were in anticipation of Christs speedy coming, in which case the obligation to marriage is lessened by reason of the impending dissolution of all earthly things, acquire new force whenever sure signs lead us to expect this catastrophe as at hand. [See on this subject Baxter Christian Ethics Book 2 chap. 1; Wuttke Sittenlehre 295; Schaff Hist. Ap. Ch., 112.]

3. Divorce, its wrong and its right. The voluntary dissolution of a Christian marriage is a departure from a state ordained by God,the rupture of a covenant with which members of His Church have entered with each other, in His name, and in which they have thus obligated themselves to live together as husband and wife, even under the most severe and trying circumstances, faithful unto death. A separation can properly take place only under the conditions appointed by God Himself, through Christ, viz., the actual dissolution of the marriage bond by the other party in adultery or fornication, which is in fact a surrender of ones self to a third party in such wise as is allowable only in marriage, and is reserved by the ordinance of God exclusively for those thus allied. Should any one wish to separate from his consort out of disinclination to marital intercourse, or from a dread of it, under the idea that it involved defilement, or through a general desire for liberty in this respect, he would, in so doing, be guilty of violating the most solemn obligations, and become chargeable with immorality. When conscientious scruples arise in these respects, it becomes a Christian to consult his pastor, or some experienced Christian friend, and above all to lay the matter in prayer before God, that he may be enlightened and instructed from on high, and that his partner might be induced to enter into some agreement that would not infringe on his conscience. Even though marriage has become burdensome, a person must still bear it from a sense of duty, in obedience to the Divine ordinance, and in conformity with the claims of the institution.Mere aversion on the part of the one or the other, or of both, mortifications, maltreatment, sickness however incurable, whether of body or mind, furnish no warrant for divorce. A temporary separation, accompanied with a readiness for reunion, may, under certain circumstances, be allowed as the only means for restoring again the disturbed relations, and causing a return to a right tone of feeling, and effecting a lasting improvement.

If anything else, however, can be accepted as a ground for divorce, subsumed as it were under the head of adultery, it is malicious desertion. This means, the deliberate forsaking of the one party by the other, with the unmistakable or declared design of abandoning the marriage connection altogether. And this is nothing less than the actual dissolution of the bond, by which the obligation of the other party to fidelity is annulled. Yet, in this case, no right-minded person will be in haste to obtain a formal divorce. Rather he will be inclined to wait as long as possible, in the hope of seeing some change occur in the temper of the other party, which will lead to reconciliation and cohabitation once more. And such forbearance will show itself, even in the case of adultery, for even in such circumstances may the spirit of Christian faith signalize its patience.And then, in reference to the forming of a new connection; after so severe a chastisement, which not unfrequently wears the character of a judgment on the conduct of him who suffers itit may be for the manner in which he contracted the marriage, or for the manner in which he has maintained ita true Christian will be naturally disposed to consider with great care, whether he ought to enter into a new relation; and with prayer for heavenly instruction he will seek to ascertain what is Gods will in the matter, and whether it be not a mere selfish inclination (which we are very apt to take for Gods will) that is moving him to marry again. And the whole issue of things he will leave to God, in humble resignation to His decision. And should Gods providence seem to enjoin self-denial for a longer or shorter period, he will entreat Him day by day for the supplies of that grace which shall strengthen him to endure in all patience and purity.

But here a new point comes up. If the adultery committed, whether it be in the form of fornication or of malicious desertion, be not a momentary lapse not likely to be repeated, but is a settled thing, which no patience, or gentleness, or efforts at conciliation can overcome, then it will be right to infer that the Christian character of the guilty party is in such a case entirely renounced, and to treat him as standing in the relation of an unbeliever, or, still worse, of a heathen. Here, then, we would have, to all intents, an instance of mixed marriage, such as that spoken of in the next section. It would be in vain, then to look for the hallowing of one party by the other; and all continuance in a connection, which only obstructs the purpose of the Divine calling, and mars our peace, for some vague hope of recovering the lost, would be wholly unwarranted; and contrary to the Divine will.
From that which, according to the rule of Scripture, is right for the individual believer, we may infer the duty of the Church and the State in reference to marriage. First of all, the Church acknowledges itself as bound to the work of the Lord, and can, with good conscience, sanction no divorce and marriage of the separated parties again in other connections, contrary to His expressed will. The State, as an institution, which with its enactments and executive acts is rooted in the principles of Christianity, must aim to conform its marriage legislation to these. But inasmuch as strict conformity is not possible for it, the State must at least grant the Church the liberty of abiding by the decisions of her Lord, and protect it in the maintenance of its right. It must not require the Church to bless those un-Christian marriages which it may feel constrained to allow; nor must it hinder the Church from enforcing its discipline upon those who form permanent connections after a manner ordained by it, when not accordant with the Divine rule. Such is the position to be clearly and distinctly taken in the case.

But it is a question whether our mixed congregations do not admit, or even require some modification of such proceedings?whether an extension of the principle of analogy already employed in granting divorces for malicious desertion, is not proper and necessary in other cases also, which may in like manner be regarded as a dissolution of the marriage tie. This is one of the pressing questions of the day, a further investigation of which would, however, lead us too far.
Much that is not good has place under the forbearance of our Heavenly Father. And it is a question whether the Church ought not to exercise a maternal patience towards much which she cannot sanction? This, in fact, no one will deny. Nevertheless she must hold by the authority of Gods word, and try to enforce it. And her wisdom will show itself in wise endeavors to combine the two in a befitting manner. Consult on this question Ev. Kirch. Zeit. and Neue Ev. Kirch. Zeit. for 1859 [also Whewell, Elements of Morality, 633635 and 10271037; Neander., Life of Christ, 155, note, and 224; Herzog, Enc. Art. Ehe., Bax. Ch. Eth. B. 11, 1 Corinthians 9].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

[I. Celibacy or the single state, when maintained for worthy ends, being good, and in accordance with Apostolic example: 1, instead of encountering ridicule, or held in reproach, should beheld in highest honor, 1Co 7:1; 1 Corinthians 2, ought not to be preferred voluntarily, unless in accordance with the clear will of God, as intimated in the gift of continence, 1Co 7:7; 1 Corinthians 3, should not be enforced by commandment upon any class of persons, 1Co 7:6; 1 Corinthians 4, when thus enforced it is apt to lead to gross immoralities, 1Co 7:2].

[II. Marriage, too, so far from involving spiritual contamination, as ascetics pretend, is: 1, good, as a safeguard against licentiousness and a help to purity, 1Co 7:2; 1 Corinthians 2, should be entered into with full consent to all its obligations, 1Co 7:3; 1 Corinthians 3, involves entire self-denial in affectionate regard each for the other, 1Co 7:4; 1 Corinthians , 4, can be suspended long only at a hazard to morals, 1Co 7:5; though, 5, a temporary suspension, like fasting, may occasionally be advisable, as furnishing greater freedom to devotion, 1Co 7:5. 6, Being a union for life, neither party is at liberty to move for its dissolution, and one can be released from the obligation only by the infidelity or death of the other, 1Co 7:10].

Starke:In view of the race, it was not good for the first man to be alone; in view of special circumstances and gifts it may be good for particular individuals to abide alone, 1Co 7:1.Spener.:Marriage is an antidote to the poison of sensuality.Hed.:Marriage intercourse is not sinful lewdnessnot a mere licensed fornication, 1Co 7:3.Crusius:In marriage a person parts with his liberty, and binds his entire person to another, 1Co 7:4.Marriage pleasures, like all others, may be suspended awhile for purposes of more concentrated devotion, 1Co 7:5.Hed.:Abstinence is not commanded, only allowedhence not to practise it is not sinful. Yet even here there must be moderation and self-discipline. All immodest indulgence and abuse of this holy state is an abomination in the sight of a holy God, 1Co 7:6.Hed.:Without the Divine gift of continence, it were better to marry. Yet even with this a person is at liberty to marry, for thus he is better able to preserve the purity of his married life, especially if he have a partner like-minded, 1Co 7:9.Ibid:The desire for marriage is divinely implanted like hunger for food. But alas for the heathenish dishonor and scornthe hypocritical contemptthe un-Christian prohibition put upon this sacred institution by priests and soldiers!Hed.:Marriage is no exchange bank. Love must here rule. But what the devil unites, and fleshly lust knits, and avarice and ambition couples, has poor luck and little blessing or aid. Pious people endure, and are silent, and shun evil occasions, and seek peace, 1Co 7:10.In the married state it often happens that one is not content with the other. But the only remedy in such cases is patience. It is no longer a question, what sort of a wife a man shall have, but how he shall best adapt himself to the one in possession.

Berl. Bib.:

1Co 7:2. A well-regulated marriage opposes a dam to a large current of scandals.

1Co 7:4. Many pretend that the man is not bound. But he is. He himself has concluded the bond and given the pledge, and both parties must recognize the debt.

1Co 7:5. In making vows a person must take himself into careful consideration. Few know the depths of corruption in them and the power of Satan. We must be humble. The agreement to abstain must arise from faith, and faith is humble. Earnest progress in the Divine life requires of them who marry, because of incontinence, that they cherish a constant, heartfelt confidence in God, and devote time and energy to the mortification of the body and to prayer. But since this cannot be properly done, avoid fleshly excitements; occasional abstinence becomes needful and obligatory. Yet nature must maintain its original rights; for it is not sin, but only tainted with sin. When purged by the blood of Christ, it resumes its prerogatives. It is Gods work, not the devils. In attempting to destroy the latter, I must not assail the former. Yea, the flesh often gains the more power by too much tampering with the body. In attempting more than we can carry out, we fall back sadly, and then the world taunts and vilifies.

1Co 7:7. Diversity of character gives rise to a variety of conditions, which must be harmonized by the unific power of Divine grace.

1Co 7:8. Every mode of life has its advantages and disadvantages, and a Christian must learn to strike the balance.

1Co 7:10. Marriage should be held sacred. The difficulties which attend it, God must be trusted to remove. If the law of Christianity be regarded as a law, it will, indeed, press hard; but there is mercy under such constraints, and every trouble should be considered an opportunity for the exercise of faith, hope, patience and love. Man is fickle and changeable. If now the marriage relation could be readily altered, this would serve greatly to foster this fickleness and levity, and so increase the evil. Hence, we see the holiness of the Divine ordinance even in respect to its apparent severity. Adultery alone is allowed as cause for divorce, and this because it breaks the bond. All other causes originate in a dread of the cross, and against this we must ever strive. Instead of following our natural inclinations when, e. g., a man has an invalid wife, he should reflect: so must I remain; here is my opportunity to exercise love; here I ought to be gladly; here is a Lazarus. God is now putting me to the proof.

1Co 7:11. Let her remain unmarried, and so let another burden press her, because she has wished to escape the burden of Gods law. Or let her become reconciled, this were better done. But it will cost more than a couple of words to do it. There will be needed earnest effort, a disposition to renew her covenant and begin it afresh in quite a different spirit from before.

Heubner:

1Co 7:1. A single life is commendable for a man only when it is maintained for the kingdom of Heavens sake. The worth of celibacy is conditioned on personal relations and the period in which a person lives.

1Co 7:4. Man and wife belong to each otherbody and soul. There must be a corresponding surrender on the part of each.

1Co 7:5. It is our duty to put limits on the charm of marital intercourse, in order to have time and inclination for religious exercises. There is danger of clogging from too much indulgence. Hours of solitude and prayer preserve the sweetness and purity of marriage. Christianity hits the golden mean.

1Co 7:7. It is the token of a holy heart when a person can wish that all were like him.

1Co 7:8. A false asceticism comes not within the scope of the Apostle. 1. What he gives is advice, and that, 2. suited to the times. 3. Elsewhere he gives marriage the preference (Eph 5:2 f.), and reckons the prohibition of marriage among the doctrines of devils (1Ti 4:3); 4, and ascribes no merit to celibacy, which state has worth only when the heart is pure.

1Co 7:10. According to Gods law marriages are as indissoluble as is the union of Christ with His Church.

[Olshausen:

1Co 7:2. An apparently low view of marriage; but only its negative side here presented in view of particular circumstances. There is implied here an indirect exhortation to proud Christians not to sink into the slough of sin by a contempt of marriage.

1Co 7:3. The begetting of children, not the only legitimate end of marital intercourse. It is the outward expression of a true spiritual union].

[Calvin:

1Co 7:5. The importance of abstinence in marriage for the purpose of prayer, no more proves the evil of the thing than the importance of fasting for the same purposes proves the evil of eating and drinking. But it is the part of believers to consider wisely when to eat and drink, and when to fast. So in the other case.

1Co 7:6. A false estimate of virginity led to three errors: 1, pronouncing it the most excellent of virtues, and the very worship of God; 2, adoption of it by numbers who had not the gift; 3, the enforcement of it on the ministry, and their consequent awful corruptionwhile many prudent and pious men were kept from the sacred calling, refusing to ensnare themselves in this way. See Inst. B. IV chap, XII, 2328].

Footnotes:

[1]I have taken the liberty of altering Dr. Klings arrangement. He has treated this whole chapter connectedly, and divided the text into four subjects1Co 7:1-40with captions accordingly. The divisions I have adopted seem more natural, and I have treated them separately for convenience sake.Tr.].

[2]1Co 7:1. is stricken out by Tischendorf [Alf] according to B. C. Cod. Sin., [but is retained by nearly all the critical editions according to A. D. F. K. L. Syn.].

[3] according to by far the most weighty authorities [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.1]. The Rec. has , an old gloss [found in L. and the Syriac and certain fathers], and an incorrect one arising from a mistaken interpretation of the nature of the due spoken of; [or perhaps it was a Euphemism].

[4]1Co 7:5. is an ascetic appendage, [not found in A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.1 It appears in K. L. Cod. Sin.3 in the Syriac vers and in some of the fathers].

[5]1Co 7:5.The Rec. has or a gloss. [The true reading is , as found in A. B. C. D. F.

[6]1Co 7:7. The Rec. has . This suits the sense, but is feebly supported. [It is found in B. D.2 K. L. Cod. Sin.3 Syr.; while is found in A. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.1].

[7]1Co 7:7.The Rec. , which belongs to the later Greek, is better supported.

[8]1Co 7:10. [so A. B. C. K. L. Cod. Sin.], Lachmann [whom Stanley generally follows] reads [found in A. D. F.]

[9]Menander: If a man consider marriage in a proper point of view, it is an evil; but then it is a necessary evil. Metellus Numidicus: If we could live unmarried, we should be saved from a great deal of trouble; but seeing that nature has so ordered it, that we cannot live very comfortably with wives, and without them cannot live at all, marriage should be adopted not for the sake of the short-lived pleasure it has, but rather for the perpetual safety. But this was not the general opinion. From A. Clark].

[10]On these words was afterwards founded the practice of married persons living apart through the season of Lent. Stanley.]

[11]See this point discussed by William Lee: The Inspiration of Scripture, Sect, 4, Am. Ed. p. 272, and Townsend, hoc loco.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

The Apostle is chiefly treating in this Chapter, on the Subject of Marriage. He dwells largely on the several Circumstances connected with it, and makes very many blessed Observations, by way of Improve. went.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

(1) Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (2) Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (3) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

I have often considered a great part of this Chapter as having a spiritual illustration. And sure I am, if we were to read it in many parts of it with an eye to Christ and his Church, as the Apostle beautifully spiritualized the same subject elsewhere, (see Eph 5:32 ) to this amount; we should find numberless passages in it, sweetly explained in this way. As for example: In the opening of it, while Paul speaks of the advantage a man would have in a single state; may we not say, what pains, and agonies of soul, the Son of God would have saved himself, had he never touched our nature, neither regarded our lost and ruined state? Precious Jesus! What unspeakable mercies doth thy Church, thy Spouse, derive from her union with thee? But who shall calculate, yea; what heart shall conceive the sorrows which arose out of thy Surety-ship, when redeeming our ruined nature, from the guilt and consequences of the fall?

I am not to be told, that the Apostle, in the greater part of this Chapter, is answering certain questions the Corinthians proposed to him on the subject of marriage. This is evident from the first verse, in which he takes notice of the Church having written to him upon this occasion. Nevertheless, as their questions had respect to the times in which they lived, and the particular customs to which they were subject, and are altogether in many cases mentioned in this Chapter, foreign to the manners of the present day; I venture to believe, that both the Writer and Reader of this Poor Man’s Commentary, will find it more profitable, to have our minds exercised unto godliness, under the Holy Ghost teaching, while perusing this Chapter, if we consider the Church’s union with Christ; and see whether some very sweet and precious instructions, concerning that union, may not be gathered from what is here said.

Hence, when I read, that to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband; I not only see the Lord’s solemn ordination, and appointment, from the very first dawn of revelation, when at the creation of our first parents, Adam and Eve, the precept went forth, that a man should leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they should be, one flesh; (Gen 2:24 ) but I see the blessedness of union between Christ and his Church, which that marriage of Adam and Eve was designed to represent. It was Christ, concerning whom the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him, Gen 2:18 . And it was the Church, which the Lord God did form, to be an help meet for him, and an help mate to him, which as his spouse, his bride, might be a partaker with him, and from him, of all that is communicable of grace here, and glory to all eternity to Jehovah’s praise, and the Church’s happiness. And therefore, with an eye to this, how blessedly we read, what God the Holy Ghost by the Apostle here saith, in the opening of this Chapter: let every man have his own wife, and every woman have her own husband, Christ hath but one wife, his Church; and his Church hath but one husband, the Lord Jesus. My dove, my undefiled, (saith the Bridegroom in the Canticles), is but one, she is the only one of her mother; she is the choice one of her that bare her, Son 6:9 . And elsewhere the Lord blessedly saith: Thou shalt abide for me many days: thou shalt not play the harlot: and thou shalt not be for another man: so Will I also be for thee, Hos 3:3 . Reader! do not overlook the love of Jesus, in those sweet scriptures; that amidst all our spiritual fornications, and departures from the Lord, Jesus never departs from us. The Lord God of Israel saith, that he hateth putting away. See a beautiful scripture to this effect, Mal 2:14 , to the end. See also Hos 2 throughout.

And sure I am, that no child of God, who is truly and savingly regenerated, can read in this Chapter what is said of the husband rendering unto the wife due benevolence, but must be led (if so be the Holy Ghost opens to his view the thought,) to contemplate, the unceasing grace, and mercy, and loving kindness of the Lord Jesus. With what earnestness of affection doth Jesus woo every individual of the persons the Father hath given him to himself? How many, and how unceasing are his love calls, to allure us to his arms? Though in our fallen state, we have made a covenant with death, and with hell we are at agreement; yet when Jesus comes to demand his own, he saith: your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand, Isa 28:18Isa 28:18 . By the sweet and gracious influences of the Holy Ghost at regeneration, all the holds of Satan are broken down, and the world and sin lose their charms; and notwithstanding all our loathsomeness and unworthiness as we are in ourselves, our poverty, weakness, ignorance, and the innumerable provocations wherewith we have provoked him to anger, Jesus unites us to himself, makes us his spouse, cleanseth us in his blood, cloatheth us in his robe of righteousness, makes us comely from the comeliness which he putteth upon us, brings us to his ordinances here, and will bring us home to his marriage supper in heaven, when all the purposes of his holy will are fulfilled; and grace is consummated in endless glory. Reader! Is this the due benevolence Jesus renders to his wife the Church? Oh! that you and I could bear as cheerful a testimony concerning ourselves, when it is said, in the latter part of the verse : and likewise also the wife render due benevolence unto the husband. But oh! thou dear Lord! how often, as a treacherous wife departeth from her husband, hath my poor heart been wandering from thee? Lord! let me hear thy sweet voice by the Prophet: Return ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backsliding. May the Lord enable me to answer: Behold we come unto thee, for thou art the Lord our God, Jer 3:22Jer 3:22 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1Co 7:10 ; 1Co 7:12

‘He can be nowise considered the disciple of Paul,’ says Bacon in the De Augmentis Scientiarum, “who does not sometimes insert in his doctrines, “I, not the Lord,” or again, “according to my counsel,” which style is generally suited to inferences. Wherefore it appears to me that it would be of especial use and benefit if a temperate and careful treatise were instituted, which, as a kind of Divine logic, should lay down proper precepts touching the use of human reason in theology. For it would act as an opiate, not only to lull to sleep the vanity of curious speculations, wherewith sometimes the schools labour, but also in some degree to assuage the fury of controversies, wherewith the Church is troubled.’ Again, in the Advancement of Learning (bk. II. xxv. 7), he observes that men, instead of saying, ego, non dominus , ‘are now over-ready to usurp the style, non ego, dominus ; and not only so, but to bind it with the thunder and denunciations of curses and anathemas, to the terror of those which have not sufficiently learned out of Salomon that the causeless curse shall not come.’

References. VII. 10. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 70; ibid. (6th Series), vol. vi. p. 403. VII. 12, 25. Ibid. p. 71. VII. 14. Ibid. vol. ix. p. 13. VII. 16. W. H. Hutchings, Sermon Sketches, p. 241. VII. 17. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 405; ibid. (6th Series), vol. ii. p. 299. VII. 19. J. Iverach, Christian World Pulpit, vol. 1. p. 262. Bishop Bethell, Sermons, vol. ii. p. 307. A. P. Stanley, Canterbury Sermons, p. 222. J. Iverach, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlvii. p. 342. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Corinthians, p. 92.

1Co 7:20

I am for permanence in all things, at the earliest possible moment, and to the latest possible. Blessed is he that continueth where he is! Here let us rest and lay out seed-fields; here let us learn to dwell. Here, even here, the orchards that we plant will yield us fruit; the acorns will be wood and pleasant umbrage, if we wait. How much grass everywhere, if we do but wait!… Not a difficulty but can transfigure itself into a triumph; not even a deformity, but, if our own soul have imprinted worth on it, will grow dear to us.

Carlyle, Past and Present (II. ch. v.).

‘If there’s anything our people want convincing of,’ says Felix Holt, in chapter forty-five of George Eliot’s novel, ‘it is, that there’s some dignity and happiness for a man other than changing his station.’ Reference. VII. 20-24. Expositor (6th Series), vol. iv. p. 449.

1Co 7:21

‘True it is,’ Dr. Arnold wrote in 1840, ‘that St Paul, expecting that the world was shortly to end, tells a man not to care even if he were in a state of personal slavery. That is an endurable evil which will shortly cease, not in itself only, but in its consequences. But even for the few years during which he supposed the world would exist, he say, “if thou mayst be made free, use it rather”. For true it is that a great part of the virtues of human nature can scarcely be developed in a state of slavery, whether personal or political. The passive virtues may exist, the active ones suffer.’

1Co 7:24

The worst feature of the rustic mind in our day, is not its ignorance or grossness, but its rebellious discontent…. The bucolic wants to ‘better’ himself. He is sick of feeding cows and horses; he imagines that, on the pavement of London, he would walk with a manlier tread.

George Gissing, Private Papers of Henry Ryecroft, p. 201.

‘Do not despise your situation,’ says Amiel. ‘In it you must act, suffer, and conquer. From every point on earth we are equally near to heaven and the infinite.

Thou cam’st not to thy place by accident,

It is the very place God meant for thee;

And shouldst thou there small scope for action see,

Do not for this give room to discontent;

Nor let the time thou owest to God be spent

In idly dreaming how thou mightest be,

In what concerns thy spiritual life, more free

From outward hindrance or impediment.

R. C. Trench.

We continually hear it recommended by sagacious people to complaining neighbours (usually less well placed in the world than themselves), that they should ‘remain content in the station in which Providence has placed them’. There are perhaps some circumstances of life in which Providence has no intention that people should be content. Nevertheless, the maxim is on the whole a good one; but it is particularly for home use. That your neighbour should, or should not, remain content with his position, is not your business; but it is very much your business to remain content with your own. What is chiefly needed in England at the present day, is to show the quantity of pleasure that may be obtained by a consistent, well-administered competence, modest, confessed, and laborious. We need examples of people who, leaving heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek not greater wealth but simpler pleasure, not higher fortune but deeper felicity.

Ruskin, Unto This Last (IV.).

References. VII. 22. C. S. Home, Relationships of Life, p. 85. J. Martineau, Endeavours After the Christian Life (2nd Series), p. 58. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 20. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Corinthians, p. 103. VII. 23. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx. No. 11G3 . Expositor (4th Series), vol. viii. p. 273. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 374.

Service in a Lowly Sphere

1Co 7:24

It is not easy to every one to display the virtue of contentment. To be conscious of possessing powers which one never has an opportunity of exercising naturally arouses restlessness or despondency. The position of a slave, for example, in apostolic times must have been galling in the extreme. He might be, and often was, far superior to his owner in capacity and in culture, and yet had nothing he could call his own. But even he was exhorted, as a Christian, to serve the Lord Christ in the position he occupied, and to do so with cheerfulness and goodwill. Instead of struggling for his freedom, and so embittering his own lot, and that of other slaves, by a hopeless servile war, Paul urged that he should remain in the position he occupied when he was called to spiritual freedom. In his letter to the Church at Corinth, addressing slaves as well as citizens, the circumcised and the uncircumcised, Christians married and single, he said, ‘Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called’. In other words, whether Christians are engaged in the doing of things great or small, they are to do them contentedly and devoutly, as part of their ministry unto the Lord. All is of His appointment, and all may be for His glory. He is glorified in us whenever and however our characters are developed and ennobled.

I. It may be well to confront the temptations which come to those who are only called to the ministry of little things, and to strip off the disguises of those spirits of evil who too often approach us as if they were angels of light.

Think of the temptation to indolence which assails a man whose work seems to him hardly worth the doing. Our Lord hinted at this in His well-known parable of the Talents, for it is the servant with only one talent who is represented as hiding it in the earth, instead of employing it for his master. The sin of neglecting one talent lay in the fact that the servant had one talent which he might either neglect or use.

Again, there are many who, in a commercial or professional career, are called to a post where drudgery is more obvious than recognition and reward. Unless they are able to accept their work as of God’s appointment, and to believe that development of character may be as great a reward as an increase of income, they are likely to regard duty as hardly worth while, and do it carelessly, without heartiness or thoroughness. Thus the ideal becomes insensibly lowered from what it was at first, and the service of earth is no longer such a preparation for the service of heaven as it was meant to be.

II. How then can we resist these and other temptations? What encouragements can we think of which may help us to continue steadily and cheerfully in our ministry of little things?

(1) We may bethink ourselves of the value of unseen work in spheres outside our own.

(2) Think, too, of the effect of obscure and even menial work in preparing men for what is higher. We are all familiar with this in the spheres of human industry, and we have good reason to believe that the principle holds good in every sphere of Divine service; and he that is faithful in a few things will, on account of his fidelity, become a ruler over many things, in a realm unseen and eternal.

(3) This reminds us that God Himself notices the ministry which man often shrinks from or despises.

(4) We may be helped still further if we reflect that the well-beloved Son, in Whom the Father was well pleased, of His own free will undertook precisely such duties, and thus made them sacred to us who are His followers.

Alfred Rowland, The Exchanged Crowns, p. 97.

Reference. VII. 24. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Corinthians, p. 112.

1Co 7:26

Among the countless problems presented to the mind, there is none more difficult than to distinguish clearly between the will of Providence and the accidents, to be surmounted, of daily life to know when we should submit to circumstances, and when we should rise in rebellion against them.

John Oliver Hobbes, in The School for Saints (ch. XXL).

More than half a century of existence has taught me that most of the wrong and folly which darken earth is due to those who cannot possess their souls in quiet; that most of the good which saves men from destruction comes of life that is led in thoughtful stillness.

George Gissing, in The Private Papers of Harry Ryecroft, pp. 13, 14.

1Co 7:29

In the fifth chapter of Alton Locke, Kingsley makes Crossthwaite, the sturdy Radical, thank God he has no children, whereupon young Locke asks him in surprise if he is a believer in Malthusian doctrines. ‘I believe them,’ Crossthwaite answered, ‘to be an infernal lie. I believe there is room on English soil for twice the number there is now; and when we get the Charter we’ll prove it; we’ll show that God meant living human heads and hands to be blessings and not curses, tools and not burdens. But in such times as these, let those who have wives be as though they had none as St. Paul said, when he told his people under the Roman Emperor to be above begetting slaves and martyrs. A man of the people should keep himself as free from encumbrances as he can just now. He will find it all the more easy to dare and suffer for the people when their turn comes.’

References. VII. 29. O. Bronson, Sermons, p. 136. J. Edwards, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. iv. p. 555. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlix. No. 2861. VII. 29-31. R. W. Church, Village Sermons, p. 305. J. H. Holford, Memorial Sermons, p. 232. J. Cumming, Penny Pulpit, No. 1504, p. 169. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. viii. No. 481.

The Brevity of Time

1Co 7:29-32

The text supplies us with three thoughts for consideration:

I. The fact of the constant passing away of time and all created things.

II. How the Christian should act in this transitory condition.

III. How such action brings blessed calmness in view of the fleeting time.

A. Maclaren.

Reference. VII. 29, 31, 32. J. Martineau, Endeavours After the Christian Life (2nd Series), p. 89.

Algebraic Religion

1Co 7:30

We are often challenged in Holy Writ to do a little spiritual algebra The great teachers have called in an x.

Let us see how this works out in various ways. The subject is Algebraic Religion. ‘As if,’ ‘As though’; it is not so, but take it as if it were so.

I. Let us look at creation in the light of this suggestion; by creation I mean this great wondrous system of things, even so far as it reveals itself to the naked eye, and let us go through it, or such portion of it as is accessible, as if it had been Divinely made, as if it throbbed with God. We do not say that it does so, but we ask ourselves to believe for the moment that it is so; and then we want to test the ideality by what we know of the fact. We are to assume that God made it all.

What is the other idea? The other x is that all came to be nobody knows how. I could believe the first theory sooner. The other lame and blind x is that somehow things atoms, molecules, whatever the little things may be got together, laid their heads together in counsel and finally came out in the shape of a universe. No, I am willing to oblige you, but I cannot; it would relieve me of some difficulty if I could oblige you, if I could say that the whole conception of things is confusion, a harum-scarum without policy, a great, marvellous display of nothingness. But the one man asks me to believe that the universe was made and is administered by a personal, living, loving God; and the other man asks me to believe that the whole thing called the universe is after all nothing at all but just a little film or species of expanded gas or magnified vapour that really means nothing and had no beginning, has no reality, and will have no ending. No! I think I will go to church. Now that you suggest the idea and ask me to look at the universe as if it were the expression of a great personality, I thank you for the idea; it does look as if it might be so; but to suggest that it is the expression of nothing leads me to say that credulity is even greater than faith.

II. Let us look at man as if as though he were obeying a Divine impulse. We do not say that he is obeying such an impulse, we are simply saying, Let us look at man in the light of the suggestion that he may be obeying a Divine impulse and working out a Divine purpose. I must say here, as I said a moment ago, that when I take in great breadths of human history it seems as if man, total man, were being machined, administered, and educated, and set to a great purpose by some living, mysterious, inscrutable Personality. What is the other x? The other x is: Man is a mere anecdote, a sort of crude and incoherent fact, generally a nuisance, not knowing whether he came from the east or from the west; a drunken kind of intoxicated and muddled dream of a thing. No; I will not walk one moment in company with that assumption. But when you ask me to look at man in great breadths of development and education and progress, as if he were working out a Divine purpose, you make a strong appeal to my reason.

There is order in all the development of life; God is ruling, directing. I might not myself have conceived that notion, but now that you suggest it, it seems to me wonderful that I never thought of it before. That is the way with all great discoveries, with all illuminated sayings and poems. The man who has been most with God speaks sentences that we ourselves would have spoken if they had occurred to us; we know their origin when we hear their music.

Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. v. p. 88.

How to Use the World

1Co 7:31

If St. Paul can give us guidance as to our relation to the world, it will indeed be opportune, for it is indeed a problem that is continually before us. And here is such guidance ‘Use the world, as not abusing it’. Short and pregnant, but somewhat perplexing! It comes at the end of a passage which leads up to this. ‘It remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.’

It comes, as you see, at the climax, after St. Paul has been discussing various departments of the world; and it is, therefore, a summary of men’s attitude to the world as a whole. But that very word ‘world’ is so perplexing. What is meant? The word has so many uses. Is St. Paul thinking of that lurid world into which Faust went off to drown himself in a great sea of new and wild experiences? Or is he thinking of the world upon which the hermits turned their backs, not willing to touch it at all, but anxious only to escape into a wilderness, and to be far from the clamour of all the world? Or is he thinking of that more ordinary world such as faces you and me day after day, into which we peer with a good deal of uncertainty and perplexity this world which we know we have renounced, and which yet is always close upon us, which presents such vast difficulty in front of us?

Well, certainly, ‘the world’ has many meanings of that sort; ana equally certainly St. Paul is speaking here of the world, not necessarily in the sense of the evil world, but rather, may I not say? of a neutral world. Not the evil world, to which the word is so often applied in Holy Scripture, being that view of the universe which has left God out of account; but a neutral, and as yet ambiguous, world which may become to us that wrong world, if we go on looking upon it as a scheme wherein we may dispense with the thought of God; but may, on the other hand, if we will regard it aright, be to us God’s world, indeed, nothing else but the kingdom of heaven. It is that world clearly; for St. Paul says we are to use it.

I. Given this world, we are to use it, but to use it as not abusing it; and there is our second difficulty. We are willing enough to do our best to use this world, but it is this limitation upon our use that is perplexing. Let me make to you two suggestions as to what this involves ‘using the world as not abusing it, for the fashion of this world passeth away’. It means, then, in the first place, that we enter into the world, for it is the place that we cannot do without. The world is the familiar sphere that we know, and, therefore, our use of it does not involve a change of circumstances. It is not an appeal to us to leave our London and go into a desert if we can find one, or in any form to change our circumstances. What is wanted, if we are to use the world without abusing it, is not a change of position, change of climate, change of scene not a change of circumstances in any shape, but a changed view, a view of the world as God’s world.

II. Secondly, it involves also in us, not merely a change of view, but an attitude with regard to the world. We must be the conquerors of the world. There is no other alternative open to us. Either I must conquer the world or infallibly the world will conquer me. There is nothing intermediate between the two. And, therefore, if we are to use the world as not abusing it, it must be that we have obtained the position of mastery over it, that we have conquered the world. Unless we have done that, the world is our master; unless we attain that, then every single detail and item in our world has a supremacy over us instead of our having mastery over it: and that whole vast complex world, unless we have conquered it, becomes a conspiracy against us. I cannot use it without misuse unless I have, in some form or another, and somehow in some way, conquered it and made it my weapon, my means, my tool.

III. We have got to come back in detail to all those different departments of our world, and there, in the power of the cross, do our bits of renunciation. There are many steps that lead up to the cross of Calvary, and much of the way is uphill, and many steps are blood-stained; it is only by slow degrees and with great difficulty and halting footsteps and failing heart and courage that we can make our way there, or even take the pains the pains! for it is that of conquering the world. But as you do it step by step and day after day a transformation takes place as you know a transformation of yourself and a transformation of your surroundings. Each bit of the renunciation that you make is a victory; each victory that you gain lets you into a larger sphere; each opening out of your sphere sets you in a more glorious fellowship with the Saints. And so as we go on day by day our world expands and victories increase; our knowledge of God is enhanced, our nearness to the Saviour is made more near. We ourselves wake up to find ourselves changed men in a changed universe a universe that is for us no longer a mere conspiracy against us no longer an evil world which we can only renounce, but, thank God, a kingdom of heaven of which, by His grace, we are the inheritors.

W. H. Frere, The Church Times, 20th November, 1908.

Fashion

1Co 7:31

We all speak of the tyranny of fashion; and yet we most of us obey it. There are some people who seem to think that in regard to manners as well as habits and usages, all are sufficiently condemned if you call them old-fashioned; all are sufficiently recommended if you can only describe them as being in the very latest fashion, and the point that I want to emphasise is this, that if the Bible counts for anything, and if the Lord Jesus Christ, His character and His teaching, goes for anything, then all standards, all styles, all methods, all usages, be they fashionable or not, have got to be brought to the test of a certain fashion that He set a fashion of thinking, a fashion of living and of attitude towards life, and that by that they shall be justified, or by that they shall be condemned.

I. Undue deference to fashion must result in a peril to your sincerity. What I want to urge upon you is this: that for the sake of something which after all is an artificial advantage you are sacrificing the substantial advantages of life. And what does it come to after all? To a matter of pretence, to a matter of hypocrisy, to an attempt to appear to be something that we are not: in point of fact it comes to the sin against which Jesus Christ waged His most ceaseless war, insincerity, hypocrisy, the ugly venomous poisonous fruit of the tree of the idolatry of fashion. If you believe for a single moment that by the use of any form or phrase you are either deceiving yourself, or deceiving another person, it is your bounden duty as a Christian to make yourself more explicit.

II. The peril to individuality and personality from the undue deference or idolatry of fashion is a very real peril in our time, and in all times the slave of fashion ceases to be himself or herself, becomes a mere mirror into which you look in order to see the reflection of their times. You look into their lives not to discover their own personal wealth and riches, but in order to see reflected there something which they have mirrored of the world outside. Dare to be yourself. Resolve from the very first that you will not be slaves of any mere shibboleth, any mere formula, any mere usage of society. Think of the one and only Leader who is worthy of our homage, I mean the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it was written in golden words that He was made in fashion as a man, and He made manhood the fashion, so that our late Laureate rose and said about Him, ‘The highest holiest manhood Thou’. That is the only fashion worth having. Nothing is ever going to surpass it

C. S. Horne, Christian World Pulpit, vol. LXX. p. 273.

References. VII. 31. George Adam Smith, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xliv. p. 44. E. A. Askew, The Service of Perfect Freedom, p. 13. J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons (9th Series), p. 199. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. liii. No. 3032. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 261. VII. 32. J. S. Maver, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lix. p. 46. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxviii. No. 1692. Expositor (6th Series), vol. i. p. 372; ibid. vol. iv. p. 398; ibid. vol. vii. p. 372. VII. 33. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 420.

1Co 7:33

‘I’ll never marry,’ says Felix Holt in George Eliot’s novel of that name, ‘though I should have to live on raw turnips to subdue my flesh. I’ll never look back and say, “I had a fine purpose once I meant to keep my hands clean, and my soul upright, and to look truth in the face; but pray excuse me, I have a wife and children I must lie and simper a little, else they’ll starve”; or, “My wife is nice, she must have her bread well buttered, and her feelings will be hurt if she is not thought genteel”. That is the lot Miss Esther is preparing for some man or other.’

1Co 7:34

In the third chapter of Adam Bede, George Eliot makes Seth plead thus with Dinah Morris: ‘I know you think a husband ‘ud be taking up too much o’ your thoughts, because St. Paul says, “She that’s married careth for the things of the world how she may please her husband”; and may happen you’ll think me overbold to speak to you about it again, after what you told me o’ your mind last Saturday. But I’ve been thinking it over again by night and day, and I’ve prayed not to be blinded by my own desires, to think what’s only good for me must be good for you too, and it seems to me there’s more texts for your marrying than ever you can find against it.’

References. VII. 34, 35. Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lvi. p. 150. VII. 38. Expositor (6th Series), vol. i. p. 285.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Peculiar Questions

1 Corinthians 7-9

“I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” “I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.” “I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” Let us see what kind of quality we have to deal with, apart altogether from the mystery of inspiration, when we are dealing with such a man as the Apostle Paul. What was he out of the chair? Of what quality are God’s princes? Unrobed and unmitred and unchaired, how does this man walk abroad? Will he be weak as other men? Will his want of mental capacity be painfully obvious? Or is he a great instrument, a man of immense and dominating faculty, even when left to his own judgment, and the movement of his own mind? The answers will be found in these chapters. The Church at Corinth had been turned into a debating club. Questions of more or less interest had arisen as between the members of that community. They referred the matter to the Apostle Paul, and in these chapters he addresses himself to “the things whereof ye wrote unto me.”

The first question was one of marriage. The Apostle is not speaking about the general question of marriage, otherwise he would be contradicting in this portion of his epistolary theology what he so distinctly affirms in other portions. The questions are peculiar as to themselves, and specially peculiar as to the season at which they were discussed. The Apostle is not talking about a Christian man marrying a non-Christian woman, or a Christian woman marrying a non-professor of Christianity, although these verses are often quoted in that sense and with that limitation. Such quotation is a positive perversion of the apostolic meaning. The case is this: Here are two people, husband and wife; one of them has been converted to Christ, what is to be done? Can they live together? Must they separate? The Apostle will not allow for a moment that the Christian has any difficulty about this. He looks upon a Christian as an ever-enlarging soul, taking in more and more points of life, and acquiring more and more intellectual and spiritual territory, and holding it in the name of his Lord. He does not therefore imagine a little pedantic Christian saying, Now that I have become a Christian, what am I to do with this heathen woman? Blessed be God, the Apostle never thought of asking any such question. Christians must not be pedants. The moment a Christian sets up his little morality and says, But what must I do? he has lost Christ. But the Apostle clearly saw that the heathen woman might object; she might say, My husband is no longer the same to me he used to be, he is a fanatic, he is a fool, he has given himself up to a superstition, he has gone away with people who are evidently mad: I cannot tolerate such a life as this, therefore I must leave him. Paul says that question may very naturally come up: now what is to be done with it? It arose at home, and it must be settled at home. With wondrous fatherly insight he says, Now first of all, before you put one another away, think of the children. Then the heathen woman says, Certainly, that is a point that ought to be considered: the heathen man says, Yes, we cannot afford to treat that question lightly. Why, says Paul, do not forget this, that if one of you is a Christian, the children are sanctified by that very fact; they are no longer common children, they come into rights and relations and prospects which are peculiar and incommunicable: the children do not suffer for the heathenism, but they profit by the Christianity. What does the Apostle mean by being “sanctified”? He does not mean being made “holy,” but he means marked, specialised, separated: consider, therefore, the children before you pedantically or superstitiously give up one another. But if the unbelieving husband will depart from the believing wife, let him go; God hath called us to peace, but if the pagan will make off with himself, we cannot retain him. On the other hand, “What knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” Thy pagan partner is a home mission field: here is a set of circumstances that may be handled profitably for Christ and for yourselves. Let us therefore have no pedantry in the Church; small, moral little Christians, leaving their wives and families because they are too good to live with them. Paul said, Out upon such hypocrisy and cant! Even the veriest bed of corruption cannot taint the sun. The Christian can afford to live under circumstances which are of a discouraging and, in some instances, of a humiliating nature. The Apostle Paul therefore says, Christian husband, stand to your guns; Christian wife, keep at home: if the pagan woman wants to leave, of course she must leave; if the pagan husband wants to go, of course he must go. That Roman law was not so stern as some other law. The Roman law gave rights hear it, O heavens, and be astonished, O society! to the wife. When the Apostle says that he was speaking on this subject by “permission,” and not by “commandment,” he meant, I speak permissively, not commandingly; I accord liberty, I do not define right. That is the meaning of the Apostle’s words words which have been very often perverted and misunderstood.

Now he turns and generalises the whole situation. His principle is thus laid down ( 1Co 7:20 ): “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.” How often are these words perverted! The word “calling” is made to signify profession, situation, condition in life; and the Apostle is quoted as saying to all men, how poor and miserable soever, Men, be quiet; be content with that station in life in which it hath pleased God to place you. Nothing of the kind. I say to every man, Be as discontent as you can with your present attainments, whatever they are, if in advancing farther you can carry up a broader, nobler, more generous, and more beneficent manhood. The word calling in this verse and throughout the context has a Divine relation and not a human limitation. Thus: God calls men, and in obeying the Divine call we are to pay no attention to our circumstances; it is the call we obey, it is not the social situation which we feel, either as a burden or a crown. The social situation has nothing to do with it; there is a great call of love resounding through the ages, saying, Return, O wanderer, to thy home! The rich man says, I will go: the slave says, I will go: the uncircumcised says, I will go: the circumcised says, I will go: and the Apostle says, “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called,” and not make any difficulty about his situation or his circumstances. Thus: I was uncircumcised, what must I do? Come! But must I not first remove the stigma, the brand, or the sign of my circumcision? No. Another man says, I am only a slave, I have on the manacles and the fetters; what am I to do? Put off all these old clothes, and come in the splendid attire of a meek and a quiet spirit. Is the Apostle upholding slavery? On the contrary, he is destroying it. The Apostle was too great a man to fight any question in mere detail. He said to the slave, You lead such a lite as will make slavery impossible; be so noble, so grand, so majestic, that you will make it felt that you are not a slave in reality, whatever you may be in name. This is the subtle spirit, this is the fundamental action of Christianity, that it does not vex itself with merely passing details, but lays down sovereign principles, which, being carried out, end in liberty, growth, progress.

But the argument of the Apostle related not only to the peculiarity of the case but to the seasons which he distinguishes by the words “the present distress” The Apostle was evidently looking forward to the close of the dispensation. Many critics try to show us that the Apostle was really not looking forward to the immediate closing of the dispensation, but in my judgment they fail. I have studied their arguments, and balanced all their reasonings, and I have said, All this amounts to a theological post hoc ; these people want to prove something which they have assumed, and they want to make certain words fit in with certain foregone conclusions, and it will not do. I cannot read the Pauline epistles or other epistles without feeling that the Apostles were looking forward to the almost immediate coming of their Lord: whether that event took place in the destruction of Jerusalem, is a question which theologians may argue, more or less profitably; but it is impossible from my point of view to avoid the conclusion that these men always wrote in haste, as if they were not sure they would be able to sign their own letter before the heavens rent, and the Son of Man returned to the vision and the touch of the world. This being so, the letter is explained. The Apostle would seem to say, Brethren, you are talking about marrying, and giving one another in marriage, and what is to be done in the household under such-and-such circumstances, why, all these things are hardly worth arguing at all, already the axe is laid unto the root of the tree, already I hear a sound as of advancing footsteps, and whilst we are arguing these little local domestic matters we may be summoned to the consummation of things. Thus: This house has but one year to run in its lease: is it worth our while spending a thousand pounds in connection with it? The voice of prudence says, Certainly not; you have but a year to remain, why then should you go to this expenditure? We have but a certain time to remain in the country, shall we adjust certain questions that are now exciting the anger or the prejudice of the multitude? No, it is not worth while.

Thus we are always reasoning outside theological lines, and the Apostle says upon all these questions about eating and drinking, and marrying and giving in marriage, and all these questions about circumcision, and slavery, and male and female, Why, the whole controversy will be settled presently; there will be one gleam of light through the air, and in the twinkling of an eye the whole firmament will be filled with midday, and the Lord will come, the new relationship will be established, the new sovereignty will advene, and then where will be our little questions about marrying and giving in marriage? “Brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.” A singular word is this “abusing,” in 1Co 7:31 (ch. 7). What should we say to be the meaning of the word “abusing”? Probably we should say he abuses the world who misuses it. That is not the Apostle’s meaning. The Apostle’s meaning would be better expressed thus: “And they that use this world, as not over-using it,” not being too fussy, and making too much of nothing; playing with clay, trying to find eternity in time. Men over-use the world and get their hands too deeply into it; they play the fool with it.

The next point that is touched upon in the inquiry made by the Corinthians was about meat offered to idols, and about eating that meat. The question is a very simple one. The heathen priests took meat into the temples, and offered it to the idols, and having done this they went and sold it to the dealers who offered it in the shambles; and there was a conscience that said, Now about this meat: it has been handled by pagan priests, it has been offered on pagan altars, and it has been bought out of the heathen temples, and is now in the general shambles offered for sale: what is to be done with this meat? Some say, We cannot touch it, because it has been offered to idols. Others said, An idol! why, an idol is nothing at all; the meat is not tinged or tainted by its having been offered to nothing at all; the meat is as good as any other meat: produce it, enjoy it. The Corinthian casuist said to the Apostle under these circumstances, What shall we do? And the Apostle delivers the judgment which is recorded in the eighth chapter: and having given his own judgment upon the subject he says, After all, we must consider the weak conscience. Weakness governs the world; it is always the minority that rules, although if you were to say so in a public meeting you would be hooted from the platform. But it is always the minority that rules. It is weakness that stops the house, it is the baby that keeps the family at home; it is the lame limb that detains all the sound faculties and says, Stop! What! am I to stop because I have one lame limb? I am sound in all my other limbs, and sound in all my mental faculties, and am I to be humbled in this way? Yes, you are, and you cannot get out of it. So the Apostle says, Here is a lame man in the Church, and the Church must wait for him; and the Church says, This is the singular pass we have come to, all waiting for one lame man. The Apostle says, That is the very idea of the Church. The whole universe may be waiting for one little lame world called the earth: nobody can tell how fast the universe might get on but for this cripple called the earth. Nobody knows how great the family might have been and how wonderful in fame and influence but for the sick-chamber. The Apostle says, Here is one poor man; call him weak, do not let him be under the impression that he is strong; let him know exactly what he is, and tell him that it is to his weakness we make this obeisance. What is the use of your standing over a little baby, and pouring upon its unconscious head a whole Niagara of rhetorical expostulation? The thing is impossible. So the Apostle said, We must wait for this man: he is a man, he is not much of a man, he is about as little of a man as it is possible to be and yet be a man; but Christ died for him, therefore we must wait. Now, says the Apostle, I will tell you what I will do; I dare not say anything to anybody else, but this is my position. I can eat this meat; it is nothing to me that the meat has been offered by some heathen priest to a heathen idol; I do not care for that for one moment: but there is a man just there, who says he would be hurt in his soul if I took it. I say, Very well, I will not take it. That is the ground on which all total abstainers from innocent things must rest, if the action is to be widely influential. Many a man says, I could take this wine, I should know exactly when to give over, it would do me no harm, I could take it with a good conscience; but if I did take it, there is a poor soul that could not even inhale the odour of the wine, without the appetite fired as from hell. I say, Very well, I throw it on the ground, I will not touch it, for your sake. That argument can never be overturned; and if there be a man who never does anything for any other man’s sake, let him not name the name of Christ.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XXII

MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN IN PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

1Co 7:1-40 ; 1Co 11:2-16 ; 1Co 14:33-40 .

It will be recalled that we have been treating 1 Corinthians topically, and hence when we take hold of a subject we take in everything bearing on that subject and pass over some things. Heretofore we have left untouched 1Co 7:1-40 ; 1Co 11:2-16 ; 1Co 14:34-40 . So that the scope of the present discussion is the three passages all of 1Co 7 ; 1Co 11:2-16 , and 1Co 14:33-40 . The general topics embraced in these parts of the first letter are Marriage, Divorce, and the Position of Women in the Public Assemblies, all exceedingly delicate questions, and therefore my reserve in treating the matter. I don’t suppose there is much help in studying this letter in the commentaries. I myself had never reached a very satisfactory conclusion on some points involved until recently.

Before we take up the serious matter of marriage, divorce, and the whole question of sexual relation, there are certain antecedent matters to consider, and the first is, that whatever is here said by the apostle Paul is an answer to a letter that the Corinthian church wrote him. He commences 1Co 7 with a reference to that letter. He says, “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote.” So we see that he answers questions propounded to him. The next antecedent thing is that we must never forget the mixed, ethnic composition of this church. “Ethnic” means of many nationalities. The mixed, ethnic composition of this church and the particular distressed conditions existing at the time that he wrote, are matters of great importance. This church was composed of Greeks, Romans, and other Orientals, besides Jews.

Upon the subject of marriage, divorce, and the position of women, the Jews, Romans, and Greeks widely differed. Each nation had its own fixed custom or customs upon all of these points, and they were all converted in this big meeting, some from all these peoples. And they naturally wanted to know what was the bearing of the new religion upon this subject of marriage, divorce, and the position of women, slavery, and things of that kind.

Among the Jews divorce was granted for a very slight cause. Moses did permit divorce in this form, viz.: that no man could put away his wife without giving her a bill of divorcement; he could not put her away and leave her as goods and chattels that he was not responsible for. He must give her a bill showing that he claimed nothing from her in the future. Christ explained, that on account of the hardness of their hearts, divorce was allowed by Moses, who did ameliorate it, but didn’t give the highest law on divorce, because they were not in condition to hear it. Following that custom, Josephus tells us frankly that he put away his wife because she didn’t please him, and he assigned no other reason, and went before no court. It would be very hard to please some men, even some of the time, and very hard to please them all the time; and it wouldn’t be best to please them all the time, for much of the time they would be wrong. Among the Greeks and Romans divorce could be had for almost any reason. Moreover, the Orientals believed in the seclusion of women. They kept them in harems guarded by a eunuch; but the Romans had much broader views than the Greeks, and the Greeks were much in advance of the Orientals. A lady at Rome had great liberty without being subjected to invidious criticisms. This is the mixed ethnic condition of this church.

But another thing must be considered which is expressed in 1Co 7 . Paul says, “I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us.” There was a particular distress bearing upon the people at that time that modified the answers that he gave to some of their questions, and we can’t understand this 1Co 7 and the other paragraphs in 1Co 2 and 1Co 14 without keeping in mind that broad statement “the distress that is upon us.” That refers to the condition of the church at that time when all Christians were persecuted. No Christian knew one day what would be his financial status the next, for everything of his might be confiscated. He could not know one day whether he would be out of prison the next; he couldn’t know one day whether he would be banished the next. Day by day they were practically taking their lives in their own hands. If a man is living in a prosperous time ‘it wouldn’t be proper to answer him on the question of marriage as if he were living in unsettled conditions. In other words, what would be expedient in prosperous times, would be inexpedient in unprosperous times.

The third important antecedent thought in the understanding of those passages is the people’s misconception of the results of regeneration. Paul had said to them, “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold they are become new.” They did not know how far to carry this thought. For instance, if a married man was not converted yesterday, but became a convert today, did his marriage pass away? I will show how that this is a very practical question before we get through with this discussion. A man was a slave yesterday and unconverted; he hears the gospel of freedom preached to him, that is, that if the Son makes him free he is free indeed. He hears that in Christ Jesus there is neither bond nor free, therefore today he, being a new creature, what conclusion shall he draw from this new relation as to his slavery?

Again, the gospel was preached to them as individuals, without regard to age, sex or previous condition of servitude, and it was distinctly stated that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, free, Jew, nor Gentiles. If that be true, has not every Christian precisely the same privileges in the public assembly, whether man or woman? If there be neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, may not a woman preach as well as a man? If they stand on the same footing when they join the church, what effect does it have on the old commandment that a child should obey his parents, or that the wife is subject to her husband? It may seem that this is all a little overstrained, but the history of the world shows that these are intensely important questions.

Take the case of the “mad men of Munster,” who argued from the fact that Jesus had come to establish a kingdom upon the earth, and that that kingdom was to overcome all other kingdoms of the earth. They said, “Therefore, if I be a member of the kingdom of Jesus, that absolves me from my allegiance to any kingdom of this earth.” There were no subordinates in the land where they lived, as they were free from the law of the nation. They reasoned that if they had the liberty of a Christian, might they not take two or three wives? Hence the leader of the Munsterites did not stop until he got fourteen, but that was not quite so far as Brigham Young went. They went on, “Do we, being the children of Jesus Christ, have to pay tribute or taxes? If I be a member of the kingdom of Jesus Christ that absolves me from any kingdom of this earth, why not set up a purely religious kingdom?” One of these men was made king, and the whole power of the German Empire had to be invoked to put down this movement. Yet a great many people were converted people enthusiasts misconstruing the teaching of God upon the results that would follow our becoming new creatures.

Yet again, this gospel taught that the citizenship of a Christian is up yonder, not down here, and that up yonder neither marrying nor giving in marriage takes place. Upon this they reasoned thus: “Does not that obligate me to lay down the work of this world? Why talk about farming, merchandising, and the dull, heavy round of earthly occupations?” Just so the Thessalonians went wild, because they expected Christ to come “day-after-tomorrow,” and therefore there could be nothing for them to do except prepare their ascension robes. In other words, “Up there they don’t marry, and what effect does that have on me, since I am married? I have become a citizen of heaven, where they do not marry. Ought I not to abjure this marriage? Ought I not to go and live in a monastery and leave my wife and children on the care of the world? If I have never married, should I not become a sister, and enter into the nunnery?” Such were their reasonings.

The last great things that we are to consider in chapter 7 is the point that we have just presented: “If I contracted marriage before I was converted, was it dissolved when I became a new creature, and old things passed away? If I have not contracted a marriage, shall I avoid it?” The apostle answers it, first, from the viewpoint of the present distress that he refers to, i.e., in view of the present condition, when their property might be swept away in a day, when they must be silent or be in banishment. He takes the position that in this particular stress and under these conditions it was well not to marry. But we must not forget the old-time law that God instituted marriage as the only way to carry out the commandment of God to multiply and replenish the earth. Therefore, Paul says, “My advice to you is to let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.” It was impossible for him to take a position against the necessity of marriage, but he said that in view of that distress it might be best not to marry, but if they did marry notwithstanding the distress, they committed no sin, and if governed by the distress not to marry this was no sin, but as long as we are in this world and the sexual distinction exists, we cannot get away from that primeval law of God that marriage is honorable in all.

We know that another question was presented because of the answer given. Suppose one is already married when converted? In the middle ages this question became one of the biggest that ever occupied man’s mind. It was a common thing for a man at his conversion to say, “In view of the fact that I am now under a higher law of God, I will give up my wife and children, go from home and shut myself up in a monastery.” Hundreds and thousands of men and women took the vow never to marry. There are many cases where the men took the vows of celibacy, trying to live a life like the angels. That is the most seductive form of temptation that ever came to men, and it led to the building of monasteries and nunneries all over Europe and a greater part of Asia and North Africa, where women would seclude themselves and vow not to marry, and even married men would abandon wives and children and shut themselves up in monasteries. Paul says, “If a man is married let him not put away his wife, and let not the woman put away her husband. Your being converted does not change the law of God in regard to marriage.” So the question comes in another and different form. Under the old law of the Jews, a Jew could not marry a heathen, unless a proselyte, without the penalty of excommunication, and the ground was, that to marry a heathen puts him in danger of becoming an idolater. In Nehemiah we learn that when some of the Jews had violated that law, he put before them the alternative of either keeping the Jewish law or being excluded from the Jewish communion. Knowing what the law was on that subject, they put the question, “Here is a man who is converted and his wife is a heathen; shall the Christian put away his heathen wife?” That is very different from the original question, “Ought a Christian to marry a heathen?” which law holds now that it is best for believers to marry believers, but Paul answers that question emphatically, “No; the marriage relation is a divine institution and there is nothing in such a case to justify that man to put away his wife.”

Then the question comes in another form: “Suppose when a woman joins the church that the heathen husband makes it a ground of disfellowship and refuses to live with her, what then?” Paul said, “In such a case, if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. You have done nothing wrong and are willing to stand by your marriage contract.” But what does he mean by saying, “The husband or wife is not in bondage in such a case?” Does it mean that a voluntary separation totally abrogates the marriage tie so that the one left is at liberty to marry somebody else? That question comes up in our own civil law. Blackstone comments on it, saying, “You may grant divorce ‘ Amensa et toro,’ ” which means, “Divorce from bed and board.” In other words, people can separate; the man doesn’t have to live with that woman, and the woman doesn’t have to live with that man. But the law is emphatic that such separation is not breaking the marriage bond. It permits a possible separation. That is intensely practicable.

When I was a young preacher I was called into a council. A preacher’s wife had left him. She refused to live with him, left him, and went back to her father, and he afterwards married again, and his plea was that abandonment justified remarriage. He quoted that passage, “A husband and wife are not in bondage in such cases.” The question for that council to decide was, “Would it be a wise thing to put a man into the ministry who lived under a cloud of that kind?” One of the oldest and most distinguished Baptists that ever lived took the position that such a one was free to marry again, but I, a young preacher, dissented from him, and do still. It does not break the marriage tie so as to permit one to marry again. I quoted the declaration of Paul where he says, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives,” and he certainly couldn’t contradict himself in the same chapter. Then he says, “If her husband be dead, she shall be permitted to marry again.” That settles that question.

Paul does not discuss the only cause that does thoroughly break the marriage bond, if one is disposed to plead it, which is the case of infidelity to the marriage vow discussed by our Lord. Hence my contention is that what is here said does not discuss all of the law on the subject of marriage and divorce.

Let us take up the question, “Ought widowers and widows to remarry?” There he states that a widower under the law of Christ may marry again, though it is not mandatory. There was at one time the question raised of putting a special tax on bachelors. The Greeks and Romans had a law to that effect. It is nothing to smile at; it comes from the idea that the state is more important than the individual. They carried that law further, and forbade a bachelor to Inherit; if he remained unmarried he must turn over his property to the state.

When I was a little boy we had a kangaroo court, and a candidate for the legislature was telling what he would do if he were elected. He said, “I would change the pronoun ‘them’ for the word ‘um,’ so all the common people could say grammatically, ‘I love um,’ and I would have a law passed that would draw a tooth from an old bachelor’s head for every year he remained unmarried.”

But how does Paul answer that question? He says, “If you take this present distress into consideration, it is not favorable for contracting marriage. If you want to marry, do so, but you will have trouble in view of this distress.” But he says that it is lawful for a widow to marry again, and in the case of young widows, as in the letter to Timothy, he makes it a very urgent recommendation.

Let us take the next question: Does regeneration change the natural subordination of woman to the man, and the sphere in which each moves? The gospel preached was that in Christ Jesus there was neither male nor female. So in chapter II he answers, “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man. . . . Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled, dishonoreth her head; it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven [that was a sign of an infamous life]. . .. But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” The angels of God were hovering round watching over the assemblies of God’s people, and it grieved them to see the law of God violated. Paul goes on; he ‘is not only arguing from that old law, but he is arguing from nature: “Is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” I once knew a young fellow who was really pretty. He had great long curls that he spent a long time each day in combing and twisting and anointing with oil, and brushing. And I took the New Testament, marked this passage, and sent it to him. It made him very indignant.

Paul’s answer is that becoming a new creature, so that “old things are passed away and all things become new,” does not mean that all old things, viz.: that God’s law of order has passed away. When we get to heaven we will live as the angels live, but while we live on earth the laws of order instituted in paradise must stand.

That question comes up in a little different form in 1Co 14:33 : “God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also sayeth the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” Now they are meeting that by saying that the word of God had come to women. And it is unquestionable that the spirit of prophecy did come to women. But Paul teaches that that spirit of prophecy was subject to the person that had it; that it was not given him to violate order; and that if the spirit of prophecy did come to them, let them remember that it came to other people also.

North of the Mason and Dixon’s line we occasionally come upon a church with a woman for a pastor a Baptist church at that. I was both cheered and hissed for a statement I made when I preached in Chicago. I don’t know which was the louder, the cheering or the hissing. I started out expounding this passage of Scripture,. 1Ti 2:8 : “I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In like manner that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” Adam saw Eve and said, “Issha,” woman; it means that woman is derived from man; that she got her soul and her body from Adam. She is as much a descendant of Adam as we are. I read the scripture, and took the position that there are two distinct spheres, the man’s sphere and the woman’s sphere; that the man’s is more public; that the woman shall live in her children. When a worldly woman came to visit Cornelia and paraded her fine jewels that blazed on her head and arms and her ankles before her, Cornelia, drawing forward her two sons, Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus (the Gracchi), said, “These are my jewels, and I am going to live in these. My sphere is my home and my boys.”

There is one other question that of the slave. They said, “If I am a freedman of Christ, shall I be a slave to man?” But Paul answers that Christianity does not propose to unsettle the established order of things. Its object is to develop the inner life: “Let each one of you abide in the law you were in when God called you.” In other words, if he was circumcised, let him not try to efface his circumcision. If he was a slave when God called him, let him be satisfied with being Christ’s freedman, and with knowing that his master if Christ’s servant, and let him in his position of slavery illustrate that the truth and the power of the Christian religion is in serving, not with eye service, but showing that Christianity can come to any form of life and glorify ‘it. In yet other words, being converted and becoming a new creature, we should not disregard the established order of things which God has appointed for this world. When we get up into the other world we can adapt ourselves to conditions there.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the scope of this chapter, and what are the several topics?

2. What is the first important antecedent matter in 1Co 7 ?

3. What is the second antecedent matter, and of whom was the church at Corinth composed?

4. What is the position of Jews, Romans, and Greeks, respectively, on marriage and divorce, and the woman question in general?

5. What is the difference between the Orientals, on the one hand, and the Greeks and Romans, on the other hand, with respect to this question?

6. What condition at the time Paul wrote this letter greatly modified his answers to some of their questions?

7. What is the third antecedent thought essential to an understanding of these scriptures?

8. How did their application of this thought affect their earthly relations? Illustrate fully.

9. What was Paul’s answer to their inquiry as to whether one who was not married should marry, and what its bearing on the primal law of marriage?

10. What question arose about those who were converted after marriage, what Paul’s answer to it, and what the results of this misconception of the Corinthians as practiced in the Middle Ages?

11. Ought a Christian to marry an unbeliever?

12. What is the Christian wife or husband to do in case the unregenerated husband or wife makes it a ground of disfellowship, and refuses to live ill the marriage relation?

13. What does Paul mean by saying, “The husband or wife is not is bondage in such a case”?

14. What illustration of the author’s interpretation from his own experience?

15. What is the only cause which breaks the marriage bond, and where do we find the statement of it?

16. What is the law of marriage in the case of widowers and widows, and what legislation against bachelors?

17. What is the bearing of this subject on the relation between man and woman in the sphere in which each moves, what Paul’s teaching on this, and what his arguments for it?

18. What is the form of this question as treated in 1Co 14 , how do some people meet Paul’s argument here, and what does Paul teach that settles the question beyond all dispute?

19. What is the author’s experience on this line in Chicago, and what is his interpretation of 1Ti 2:8-15 ? Illustrate.

20, How did this subject affect the relation, of the slave and his master, and what Paul’s answer to their reasoning on the subject?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Ver. 1. Whereof ye wrote unto me ] Certain cases of conscience they had propounded, which here he answers. This he could do excellently, and so could Luther, as having had experience, and been much beaten and exercised with spiritual conflicts. Conscience is a diamond, and will be wrought on by nothing but dust of diamond, such as contrition hath ground it to.

It is good for a man ] Now since the fall, it is good, i.e. convenient for the many troubles of the married state. It is not evil to marry, but good to be wary, else coniugium may prove coniurgium, marriage a mar-age.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 40 .] REPLY TO THEIR ENQUIRIES RESPECTING MARRIAGE; BY WHICH OCCASION IS GIVEN FOR VARIOUS COLLATERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND COMMANDS. In order to the right understanding of this chapter, it will be well to remember, that the enquiries in the letter of the Corinthians appear to have been made in disparagement of marriage , and to have brought into doubt whether it were not better to avoid it where uncontracted , and break it off where contracted , or this last at all events where one of the parties was an unbeliever . These questions he answers, 1Co 7:1-16 ; and puts on their true grounds, 1Co 7:17-24 . They appear also to have asked respecting virgins , what was their duty and that of their parents, as to their contracting marriage. This he discusses in its various aspects of duty and Christian expediency, 1Co 7:25-38 . Then he concludes with an answer and advice, respecting the liberty of a woman to marry after the death of her husband.

The whole is written under the strong impression (see on this, notes, Act 2:20 ; Rom 13:11 , and 2Co 5 ; and Prolegg. to Vol. III. ch. 5 iv. 5 10) of the near approach of the end of this state of things ( 1Co 7:29-31 ), and as advising them under circumstances in which persecution, and family division for the Gospel’s sake, might at any time break up the relations of life. The precepts therefore and recommendations contained in the chapter are to be weighed, as those in ch. 8 al., with reference to change of circumstances ; and the meaning of God’s Spirit in them with respect to the subsequent ages of the Church, to be sought by careful comparison and inference , not rashly assumed and misapplied. I may also premise, that in hardly any portion of the Epistles has the hand of correctors and interpolators of the text been busier, than here. The absence of all ascetic tendency from the Apostle’s advice, on the point where asceticism was busiest and most mischievous, was too strong a testimony against it, to be left in its original clearness. In consequence, the textual critic finds himself in this chapter sometimes much perplexed between different readings, and in danger of on the one hand adopting, on overwhelming manuscript authority, corrections of the early ascetics, and on the other excluding, from a too cautious retention of the rec. text, the genuine but less strongly attested simplicity of the original.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1, 2 .] Concession of the expediency (where possible) of celibacy, but assertion of the practical necessity of marriage, as a remedy against fornication .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1 .] , transitional, passing on to another subject.

.] not, morally good : for in 1Co 7:28 expressly not sin , but inexpediency , is the reason for not marrying: nor good in the sense , of as Jerome, adv. Jovin. i. 7, vol. ii. p. 246, ‘si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum ergo est tangere:’ but expedient , generally: ‘more for a man’s best interests under present circumstances:’ Angl. ‘it is the best way,’ in the colloquial sense: so also throughout the chapter: see the word qualified 1Co 7:26 , .

] though of necessity by what follows, the man only is intended, yet does not here or in reff. = , but as Meyer remarks, regards the man not merely in his sexual but in his human capacity. Thus in its deeper reference, it would embrace the other sex also.

] so in reff.; and in Latin tangere, attingere, virgo intacta . See examples in Wetst. This expression is obviously here used in the widest sense, without present regard to the difference between the lawful and unlawful use of the woman. The idea that the assertion applies to abstinence from intercourse in the already married (see again below), is altogether a mistake.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 7:1-9 . 20. MARRIAGE OR CELIBACY? At this point the Ap. takes up the questions addressed to him by the Cor [993] Church (see Introd ., chap. 2). In replying to Paul’s previous letter, they had asked for clearer instructions to regulate their intercourse with men living in heathen sins (1Co 7:5 ); this request led up to the inquiries respecting the desirability of marriage , respecting the duties of married Christians, and the lawfulness of divorce for a Christian married to a heathen, with which ch. 7 is occupied. The headings of 1Co 7:1 ; 1Co 7:25 , chh. 8, 11, 16, indicate various matters on which the Cor [994] had consulted their Ap. The local impress and temporary aim of the directions here given on the subject of marriage must be borne in mind; otherwise Paul’s treatment will appear to be narrow and unsympathetic, and out of keeping with the exalted sense of its spiritual import disclosed in Eph 5 . Indeed, ch. 1Co 11:3-15 of this Ep. show that P. had larger conception on the relations of man and woman than are here unfolded. The obscurity of expression attaching to several passages betrays the writer’s embarrassment; this was due partly to the low moral sensibility of the Cor [995] , and partly to the uncertain continuance of the existing order of life (1Co 7:26-31 ), which weighed with the Ap. at the time of writing and led him to discourage the formation of domestic ties. In later Epistles, when the present economy had opened out into a larger perspective, the ethics of marriage and the Christian household are worthily developed (see Col. and Eph.).

[993] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[994] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[995] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1Co 7:1 . : “Now about the things on which you wrote (to me)”. = (not ); cf. the constructions of rel [996] pron [997] in 1Co 7:39 , 1Co 10:30 ; see Wr [998] , p. 198. metabatikon leads to a new topic, in orderly transition from the last: “Now I proceed to deal with the matters of your letter to me”; the questions proposed about marriage are discussed on the ground prepared by the teaching of chh. 5 and 6. They form a part of the wide social conflict between Christian and Pagan life at Corinth: see Introd . to Div. II. P. answers at once, affirmatively, the question of principle put to him: “It is right ( , honourable, morally befitting pulchrum, conveniens , Bg [999] ; see note on 1Co 5:6 ) for one ( , homini : not , man distinctively, viro ) not to touch a woman” (to live in strict celibacy). contradicts the present in the minds of some of the questioners, influenced by the sensuous atmosphere of Cor [1000] Paul is not disparaging marriage, as though he meant ., but defending celibacy against those who thought it inhuman.

[996] relative pronoun.

[997]ron. pronoun.

[998] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).

[999] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[1000] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1 Corinthians Chapter 7

We now enter on a fresh division of the Epistle, though the opening of it is naturally connected with (at least, so as to follow) the apostle’s exhortation to personal purity, which he has just shown to be due to the Holy Ghost’s presence, as well as the Lord’s purchase of us: our consequent call is to glorify God in our body.

It seems that the saints in Corinth had written, among other topics, about marriage, and the various questions it naturally raised for the Christians as yet little versed in the truth. From the laxity of heathen, especially of the Greeks and above all the Corinthians, there was a reaction toward asceticism, that favourite resource of moralists and philosophers in the East, which had thence spread more or less into the West. The apostle urges holiness, but not at the expense of liberty in Christ.

“But concerning the things of which ye write to me, [it is] good for a man not to touch a woman; but on account of fornications, let each have his own wife, and each have her own husband. To the wife let the husband render his due, and likewise also the wife to the husband. The wife hath not authority over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not authority over his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one another, unless by consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer, and again be together, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.” (Ver. 1-5.)

When Adam was made, Jehovah said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him a help meet for him. And so He builded the woman out of the man. They were to be, and were, one flesh. The apostle was the last man to weaken the order of nature. It was he who still later wrote to the Hebrews, Let marriage be every way honourable, and the bed undefiled. Here he in no way contradicts it or differs. He is in full unison with his Master (in Mat 19 and Mar 10 ) who vindicated God’s original institution from creation for man in the flesh, whatever the law might allow in view of the hardness of men’s hearts, though he maintained the superior excellence of the unmarried state, where there was power to be undividedly for the Lord and His things. But it is not so with every saint. All cannot receive it, but those to whom it has been given If any one is able, let him receive it: if he boast, he is in danger of dishonouring the Lord more than those he despises. The Lord and His apostle both caution souls. Grace may call and strengthen to live above what is not only lawful but honourable every way; and surely, if kept thus in lowliness, the former is the better portion.

But there are snares through nature as it is; and nowhere was there reason to fear more from the habits and associations of the place than at Corinth. Heathenism in some cases consecrated fornication. Because of the licentious ways, there and then of the commonest occurrence but at all times a danger, let each have his own wife, and each have her own husband. Mutual consideration to the last degree becomes both in a relationship where they that were two are no longer so but one. Grace, if it lift above nature in certain cases for the Lord’s glory, enforces the honour and duties of those who are in a natural relationship. It is the sure mark of the enemy, where grace is perverted to put contempt on the least or lowest ordering of God. If we are in the relationship, we are bound to be true to its claims. Hence the husband was to pay her due to the wife, and in like manner the wife to the husband. The married estate is inconsistent with independence of each other in all that pertains to it. The wife has not authority over her own body, but the husband; and in like manner also the husband has not authority over his own body, but the wife. Hence they were not to defraud or wrongfully deprive one another, unless by consent for a time, that they might be free for prayer and again be together, lest Satan should tempt them for their incontinency. The law made nothing perfect. Christ vindicated God’s mind and will as to the first man, but Himself was the manifestation of God in man. So does the apostle speak of marriage in words far above the thoughts and ways of Israel. What is first was never so fully stated before; but grace, as ever, presents a better thing.

“But this I say by way of permission, not by way of command. Now I wish all men to be even as myself; but each hath his own gift of God, one this way, and another that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows: It is good for them that they remain even as I. But if they have not self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.” (Vers. 6-9.) Thus did the Holy Spirit lead the large-hearted apostle to write, in what he had laid down, declaring that it was not as a commandment, but a permission. His own wish for others was that all should be even as himself. But he does not overlook that each has as God gives him. Hence to the unmarried and to widows he says, it is good for them to remain even as he; yet even then not absolutely, but only in case they can without fear of sinning in this respect.

“But to the married, not I enjoin, but the Lord, that wife be not separated from husband (but if also she be separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband), and that husband leave: [or put away] not wife.” (Vers. 10, 11.) Here it was no fresh direction from apostolic authority, but the ruling of the Lord Himself, already known, the general duty of man and wife, grounded on the indissolubleness of the tie. Wife was not to be parted from husband, nor husband to dismiss wife: if parted, she was to abide unmarried, or be reconciled; for, even if she were without fault; separation is a reproach and might be a snare.

Next we have the apostle inspired to add light as to present difficulties, and this not at all a repetition of the principle for Israel, but in contrast with it. “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, If any brother have an unbelieving wife, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not leave [or put away] her; and a woman which hath an unbelieving husband, and he consents to dwell with her, let her not leave [or put away] him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife,* and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother;** since then your children are unclean, but now are they holy.” (Vers. 12-14.) Here it was the grave question of mixed marriages, where one of the parties already united, and not the other, had been won to Christ by the gospel. In this the grace of Christianity is strikingly contra-distinguished from the rigour of Judaism. (Compare Ezr 9:10 .) One of the ways in which Israel abode a holy people was in refusing to mix with the heathen in marriage. Those who thus intermarried, or took strange wives, were polluted, and their children were unclean; when they felt and judged the sin, they proved it by not only offering a ram for the trespass but putting both away. The holiness of the Christian is not only intrinsic, instead of being fleshly and external, but there is a far more gracious consideration, and a largeness, of which the law knew little or nothing. Thus, if husband or wife were a believer, he or she was not defiled by union with the unbeliever, but contrariwise the unbeliever is sanctified, and the children are holy.

* The best MSS ( A B C K L Q, etc.) do not give as in D E F G and some ancient versions

** is read by p m. A B a D p.m. E F G P, etc., by the mass, and by almost all the ancient versions.

In this way does the Spirit of God comfort the believer whose wife or husband, as the case might be, still remained an unbeliever; for I presume it was as true of an Israelite as of a heathen. It was of course a grievous trial to be so united. If the believer were the wife, she might be suspected and thwarted at every turn by her unbelieving husband. He would naturally be vigilant that the children should be kept from Christian truth and privileges of every kind, and would himself show his contempt for that which his wife valued, resenting above all the calm confidence of faith that counted idols nothing and confessed the Lord Jesus before men. But she is here instructed and strengthened by the apostolic injunction. If her husband consented to dwell with her, spite of that confession, she was not called to quit or put away her unbelieving husband, for he was sanctified in her, as the children were holy. What a relief this must have been to godly but scrupulous souls, who had been brought to God by the gospel, after being married to Gentiles or Jews, with children brought up in Judaism or idolatry! Were they troubled when they read in the scriptures that of old the requirement was to abandon the ill-assorted wife and the children so born? The grace of the gospel, as the apostle shows, delivers from all uncertainty as to God’s mind, and pronounces the unbeliever, whether husband or wife, to be sanctified in the believing correlative, and the children holy, not profane.

We have seen then the striking contrast between the gracious power of the gospel and the weakness of the law: under the one, the unbeliever sanctified in the believing relation and the fruit of their union holy; under the other, the Jew defiled and the children unclean.

But it may be well here to notice the use made of verse 14 by both the parties to the baptismal dispute. Thus writes Dr. Wall in his “History of Infant Baptism” (I. , 144, 5,Exo 4 Ed. 4,1819):

“Mr. Walker has taken the pains to produce quotations out of almost all the ancient writers, to show that this was a common phrase with them to say, an infant or other person sanctified, when they mean baptized; and I do, for brevity’s sake, refer the reader to his book. The scripture also uses it so (1Co 6:11 ; Eph 5:26 ), which makes that explication of 1Co 7:14 , ‘Now are your children holy,’ which is given by Tertullian, St. Austin, St. Hierom, Paulinus, Pelagius (chap. 19), and other ancients, and since by Dr. Hammond, Mr. Walker, etc., much the more probable; whereby they make the words () holy, and (), has been sanctified, to refer to baptism. – Their explication is also the more probable, because there has no other sense of those words been yet given by expositors but what is liable to much contest; but especially that sense which some Antipaedo-baptists have endeavoured to affix to them (of legitimacy, in opposition to bastardy) seems the most forced and far-fetched of all. The words are , . . . he grammatical translation of which words is, ‘For the unbelieving husband [or an unbelieving husband] has been sanctified by the wife;’ . . . . and our translators altered the tense, and put is sanctified instead of has been sanctified; because they thought, it seems, the sense required it; but without any such alteration, the paraphrase given by many learned men is to this purpose: – For it has ordinarily come to pass, that an unbelieving husband has been brought to the faith, and so to baptism, by his wife; and likewise an unbelieving wife by her husband. If it were not so, and if the wickedness or infidelity of the unbelieving party did usually prevail, the children of such would be generally kept unbaptized, and so be unclean; but now we see, by the grace of God, a contrary effect, for they are generally baptized, and so become holy, or sanctified.”

The intelligent Christian will see that, the ancient fathers notwithstanding, scripture does not warrant this usage. 1Co 6:11 , and Eph 5:26 , teach a truth as different from the bearing of 1Co 7:14 as from 1Ti 4:4 , 1Ti 4:5 , the cleansing power of the word as applied by the Spirit. The Christian, the assembly, is thus sanctified. It is a real divine work: cf. Joh 13:15 , and 1Jn 5 . Blood expiates, but water purifies; that is, the word, as the expression of the truth and the revelation of God in Christ, judges all contrary to God within and without. Thus are the saints, from first to last, formed morally to have part with Christ on high. His power will complete all at His return, as His first coming in love laid the foundation for all in the gift of Himself for us. It is ignorance of these scriptures to confound with them 1Co 7:14 , as may yet be shown more fully. But the ancients, and those who build on them, are scarce darker as to this than the moderns, even if evangelical. Washing by the word is outside their traditions; it is perfectly certain in scripture, and most momentous for christian doctrine and practice.

But Dr. Wall’s criticism is unsound. Our translators were far nearer the truth than he. His alteration of the tense not only is not required but falsifies the sense. The aorist would be the form, rather than the perfect, to convey his notion and bear his paraphrase. The perfect expresses a state consequent on an act, whether we say “is,” or “has been, sanctified.” But it means the permanent result of a completed action, and not what ordinarily comes to pass, a sense which the gnomic or iterative aorist may approach as in Jas 1:10 , Jas 1:23 ; 1Pe 1:24 . Hence the teaching deduced is all wrong. The apostle means a sanctified, or holy, state, actually and always true of the husband and children of a believing wife, not of what generally becomes true. Not a hint is dropped in this verse of being converted or brought to baptism.

Must we then embrace the view which prevails among Baptists? Not so. Legitimacy is out of the question. The children are said to be , not , the danger was lest they should be , not . The marriage of believers is no more lawful than that of unbelievers. The question is as to God’s sanction for the Christian’s conscience of a mixed marriage, and its fruit; and, as to this, the apostle decides that the unbelieving partner is hallowed in the believing one, and the children holy, not unclean: the one being placed in that state of holiness by the faith of the other, and the children viewed as in it already. Of fitness for baptism, on the one hand, the text says nothing: if it did, it would be asserted for the unbelieving husband or wife, no less than for the children. On the other hand, it is a mean and untrue sense of that it refers to the lawfulness or validity of the marriage, especially as all turns on the faith of at least one of the parties. So Mr. Booth’s effort to render to, instead of “in,” is futile. Luk 1:17 , l Thessalonians 4: 7, and 2Pe 1:5 , 2Pe 1:6 , 2Pe 1:7 , give not the least warrant for it, any more than 1Co 7:15 . The first is elliptic, and has a pregnant force. John was to turn disobedient ones not merely to, but so as to abide in, thoughts of just men. (2) God called us, says the apostle to the Thessalonians, not for uncleanness, but in sanctification, which similarly is far stronger than , to. (8) Peter calls on the christian Jews, in their faith to supply or have also virtue, in virtue, knowledge, etc.; as Paul reminds the Corinthians, God hath called us in peace.

It remains clear then that the unbelieving husband is sanctified in virtue of the christian wife, and the children holy, to the relief of those that were troubled by scruples from God’s judgment of such a state of things among the Jews. God’s grace in the gospel reverses the sentence of the law, to the pure making pure what had hitherto been unclean. Otherwise it might have seemed the duty of the believing husband to have put away his unbelieving wife and their children, as Gentile admixture was abhorrent to the law. Hence the apostle keeps up the language of the Jewish ceremonial, even where he determines the question by God’s gracious and holy sanction of such marriages and their offspring, in contrast with the obligation of the Jews as shown in Ezra and Nehemiah.

We have now the question raised of separation on the part of the unbeliever. “But if the unbelieving separateth himself, let him be separated. The brother or the sister* is not in bondage in such [circumstances]: but God hath called us in peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, if thou shalt save thy husband? or what knowest thou, O husband, if thou shalt save thy wife? Only** as the Lord divided to each, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the assemblies.” (Ver. 15-17.) Thus, if the unbelieving party in the relationship were to sever himself from the other, the believer is released from bondage, be it the brother or the sister in the case. Not that such an act on the unbeliever’s side gives to the believer thus abandoned licence to marry, but that the believer is thereby left the more free to serve the Lord by the other’s separation. Such a union after all is apt to involve strife, the natural man hating the life of the Spirit. Not that this would justify anything on the believer’s part to break the marriage tie: the unbeliever is supposed to have broken it of himself or even herself; and “in peace hath God called us,” (or “you,”) not to seek separation. On the contrary, whatever the trial involved in such a life, the brother or the sister must earnestly desire the salvation of the unbeliever; but this after all is in God’s disposal. “For what knowest thou, woman, if thou shalt save the husband? or what knowest thou, husband, if thou shalt save the wife?” If it were so, what a joy! We have to acquiesce therefore in the ordering of the Lord and as we should on no account take the initiative into our own hands, so also to save the unbeliever is a question, and should not swamp everything else. Thus the apostle even here cautions by pressing the rule, whatever the issue: “Only as the Lord divided to each, as God hath called each, so let him walk.” This was intended to guard against undue or excessive feeling. Our place is one of intelligent subjection, owning the Lord’s allotment and God’s call: the one at the time of conversion, the other the permanent condition. So was each to walk. If Judaism enfeebled, Christianity strengthened a sense of relationship, and meets every difficulty and complication in grace. Nor was the apostle laying down anything peculiar on the Corinthians because of their peculiar circumstances: “So I ordain in all the assemblies.” There may be ever so many assemblies, but the order of all is one, and apostolic authority is universal. Nothing is more opposed to its true idea than ecclesiastical independency. The notion of different bodies, each with a distinct regimen, is a modern invention, while the assumption of a continual power of regulation in or over the church may be ancient but is no better. Neither the one nor the other was “from the beginning,” when the foundation was laid by the apostles and prophets. There is no authoritative regulation now outside the word of God, though the Lord raises up those that guide and take the lead, but they, as all, are bound by scripture to which the Spirit answers in power.

* is omitted by p.m. F G P, etc.

p.m. A C K, etc, have , “you.”

** is in some cursives and ancient commentators changed into and joined with the foregoing, evidently to escape a difficulty. It appears to be really an elliptic phrase to the effect that there is no more to say except that, etc.; which we turn briefly by “But,” or “Only “

In the first clause A B C D E F G, many cursives, versions, etc.; in the second A B C D E F, and many cursives, versions, etc.

p.m. B read “hath divided.”

It will be seen that the authorised version following the common text inverts the true relationships here. It is God that has called, the Lord that divided, not the converse, as in what is known as the Received Text.

“Was any one called circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any one been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping God’s commandments. Let each abide in that calling in which he was called. Wast thou called [as] a bondman? Let it not be a care to thee; but if also thou canst be free, use [it] rather. For the bondman called in [the] Lord is [the] Lord’s freedman: likewise he that was called free is Christ’s bondman. Ye were bought with a price; become not bondmen of men. Brethren, wherein each was called, in this let him abide with God.” (Vers. 18-24.) Christ thus raises the Christian superior to all circumstances. Hence, when called of God, it is not worth while to change. Why should the circumcised man care to disguise or obliterate the fact of his circumcision? Why should the uncircumcised seek or submit to it? It is no longer a question of distinctions in the flesh. What God values, and what the Christian should, is keeping His commandments, not forms of truth or schools of doctrine, which are an unquestionable danger. The believer is sanctified to obedience, and this, the obedience of Christ, not that of a Jew, as the apostle of the circumcision himself insists. (1Pe 1:2 .) So does the apostle of the uncircumcision here.

But we are led somewhat farther. “In the calling in which each was called, in this let him abide. Wast thou called a bondman? Let it” (that is, the bondage) “not be a care to thee. But if also thou canst be free, use it” (that is, the freedom) “rather.” I am aware that many in ancient (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecum., Phot., etc.,) and in modern times (Bengel, De Wette, Estius, Meyer, etc.) take this last verse (21) quite differently, supposing it to mean, Even if thou canst be free, use it rather (that is, the bondage). Prefer to be a slave rather than a freeman. This however appears not only to be extravagant, but to make the human circumstances of too much weight, as if slavery were more favourable for christian walk than freedom. Yet even the Syriac so construed the words; and such is the view taken in one of the most recent of English versions. The true sense is given in the authorised Bible; and such was the conviction of the Reformers and of most since the Reformation.

It may be well to notice here the grounds of the question. The Dean of Canterbury thus argues for the sense of remaining rather in slavery: “This rendering …. is required by the usage of the particles, – by which, see Hartung, Partikel-lehre, i. 139, the , ‘also’ or ‘even,’ does not belong to the , as in , but is spread over the whole contents of the concessive clause. . . . It is also required by the context: for the burden of the whole passage is, ‘Let each man remain in the state in which he was called.'” It is remarkable that the same commentator, in his note on, Mar 14:29 , seems to reverse this statement, and says that the before intensifies the whole hypothesis; the after intensifies only that word which it introduces in the hypothesis, citing Klotz on Devar. p. 519 f. (I cite from the fifth edition of both vols.) Allowing however that the latter is incorrect, I maintain that the principle is quite consistent with the ordinary version and view. For the effect of following is in some cases simply to emphasize the verb that follows; whereas , were this the reading, would really be more in favour of the sense desired. For we should then translate it, Wert thou called, a slave? Let it not trouble thee; but even if thou canst become free, use it [that is, slavery] rather. But these very epistles to the Corinthians furnish plain instances, which prove what is just affirmed. Thus, in 1Co 4:7 , the Dean gives (New Testament newly compared, 1870) “if thou didst receive.” As Madvig observes, the is often best rendered by the emphatic present or past (do, did), or emphatic auxiliary. So 2Co 4:3 , 2Co 4:16 ; 2Co 5:16 ; 2Co 7:8 (three times), 12; 2Co 11:6 , 2Co 11:15 ; 2Co 12:11 . In every case the right rendering is “if also” where an additional fact is intended; “if even” or “though” where it is not.

In the text under discussion then the apostle meets the question as to one called while a slave by the answer, Let it (that is, , understood from the preceding ) not be a care to thee; as he meets the added supposition, but if also thou canst be free, which of course might occasionally be, rather use it (that is, , understood from the preceding ). The context is in no way decisive against this; for as abiding in the marriage state has the exceptional provision for separation enforced by the unbeliever, so for the slave there is the analogous provision for the use and even preference of freedom. Manifestly too if the unmarried have an advantage in being less divided in caring for the things of the Lord, a similar remark tells perhaps as much in favour of the freeman compared with the slave. (See vers. 32-85.) The objections urged are null. Thus is in its right position here, not after . Again, is required rather than as one may see by comparing 2Co 4:16 , and Phi 2:17 . Nor is a demonstrative needed after more than before . The imputation of inconsistency with the general context and with verse 22 in particular has been already disposed of; the depreciation of the prevalent view of the apostolic precept as “worldly wisdom” is as unjust, as it seems important to rescue his teaching from the total absence of sobriety implied in the preference of slavery to freedom. Gal 3:28 , and 1Co 7:29-31 , are quite consistent, and with one equally as the other. Nor is there any weight in the argument as to , the import of which suits the use of freedom as a new thing no less than slavery as an old. Besides, it was meant to express not the act of entrance on freedom, implied in , but of using it when given. Indeed it is evident that, as the other view of slavery, . is a hard or vague phrase, and thus differently understood by Bengel, etc., of late, as compared with Chrysostom of old.

The apostle explains, “For the bondman that was called in [the] Lord is [the] Lord’s freedman.” Such is the correct force, “freedman” rather than freeman. means one who was made free, not who was free-born. It is the accurate term here, and it is the more emphatic, because freeman or free-born () follows immediately. “Likewise he that was called [being] free is Christ’s bondman.” Christ alone puts every one in his place and true light: emancipation by human means cannot effect or approach it. The christian slave is the Lord’s freeman; the christian freeman is Christ’s slave. The Lord’s authority breaks the fetters of the one to his faith; the grace of Christ reduces the other to slavery for his heart. “Ye were bought with a price.” Whether it be the freeman or the bondman, all were bought. The saints are the purchase of Christ’s blood: so indeed is all the world; but believers alone acknowledge it, and they are called to act on it. “Be [or become] not slaves of men:” an exhortation as incumbent on the free as on the slave. A single eye alone secures true service, and yet is perfect liberty. They were already serving the Lord Christ: only so can the Christian serve aright in any case.* Strange to say, none are so prone to slip into human bondage as those who profess the Lord’s name: so the second Epistle to the Corinthians shows. But this was real forgetfulness of Christ and unfaithfulness to Him. Christianity in its true power brings into responsibility no less than into liberty, and as this is true in doctrine, so it is of all consequence to be remembered in practice. “Wherein each was called, brethren, in this let him abide with God.” “The calling” appears to mean a man’s providential condition when called of God, as here we see it applied to circumcision or uncircumcision, freedom or slavery, not earthly occupations, commonly supposed, some of which might involve not a little that would clash with God’s word and offend a Christian’s conscience. Here all pleas for continuance in evil, because one was converted by God’s grace spite of them, is effectually cut off, for the believer is called to abide “with God.” If one cannot continue with God, it is high time to ask His direction who assuredly never calls a saint to do evil but to cease from it at all cost.

* Whitby’s idea is very poor: that the exhortation was to slaves who had been freed not to sell themselves into slavery again. Not only is it a word for all Christians bond or free, but it is a warning against a more subtle bondage into which the free might slip as much as the bond.

The apostle had spoken of the married relation, Christians on both sides or mixed. Now he takes up the unmarried. “Now concerning virgins command of [the] Lord have I none, but I give an opinion as having received mercy of [the] Lord to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good because of the present necessity that [it is] good for a man to be so. Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But if even thou shouldest have married, thou didst not sin; and if the virgin should have married, she did not sin. But such shall have tribulation in the flesh; but I am sparing you.” (Vers. 25-28.)

In “virgins” or we see an usage of the word not exactly unknown in classical Greek (see Jacob’s Index to the Anth. Gr.) but so unusual that most New Testament commentators seem indisposed to allow it. Of the ancients Theodore of Mopsuestia found no harshness in the language. ” , , . As to its contextual propriety there ought to be no doubt. That it should be rarely said of males in ordinary Greek authors no one acquainted with the morality of the heathen can be surprised at. If therefore it were absolutely strange among their productions, I should not consider this a valid objection to its extension in christian or apostolic hands. What believer would limit to its sense in classic Greek? We shall find a further use of the word, lower down, natural indeed yet uncommon, the admission of which appears to be essential to a due understanding of the closing verses, where it is used for a man’s own state, not of his daughter; but of this more in its own place.

It is the general question of entering on the married relation by brother or sister; and this too the apostle solves, not on the Lord’s authority as commanding, but by giving a judgment of his own grounded on the opposition of the age to Christianity. It is not the instant but the present necessity which makes it best to remain as one is: such is the force of the word everywhere else in the New Testament as in other writings. It was then existing, not impending merely; nor is there any reason that I know to think that it does not exist still, as it will till the Lord come. Men habitually deny, as Christians are too apt to forget, it; but the apostle had it ever before him and sets it before us. He never conceives of a truth, especially one so solemn, without a corresponding effect on practice. Till the day of the Lord the earth is a scene of wickedness, confusion, and misery: why act as one who likes a settled life there, if indeed you are a pilgrim and stranger? It is not the special time of tribulation or of apostasy before the Lord comes in judgment that he has before him, but that the gospel necessarily encounters enmity where in its purity the world discovers its own doom as unbelieving and already judged.

Yet the apostle guards the abuse of his commending a single life to the Christian ordinarily. The married should not seek its dissolution, any more than the single seek to be so bound; and again he would keep the conscience free for such as might marry. Neither man nor woman sins in being married, whatever may be its inexpediency to the christian judgment. For trouble in the flesh is inevitable for such, and the apostle desired that they should be spared this.

Next he recurs to the topic of faith’s estimate of present things, not more constantly before him than needed by the Christian. “But this I say, brethren:* the season is straitened: henceforth that both those that have wives be as having none, and those that weep as weeping not, and those that rejoice as rejoicing not, and those that buy as possessing not, and those that use the world as not using [it] for themselves; for the fashion of the world passeth away.” (Vers. 29-81.) It is no common-place on the brevity of time, but the solemn affirmation that the time is shortened henceforth (that is, as I suppose, since Christ’s death and the call of the church) in order that the believer should hold all but Christ with a loose hand – all things in which men might rejoice, however sorrowful their lot may be. But the Saviour has changed all for the Christian, who looks on the earth as His place of rejection and follows Him in spirit into the heavens now opened, whence he in peace awaits Him with joy unspeakable and full of glory. This world has really no more permanence than the shifting scenes of a theatre.

* D E F G, many cursives, and versions (and so the Elzevir T. R., not R. S.), but A B K L P, thirty cursives, etc., reject it.

F G and other authorities read . R. S. has . Elz and Griesbach without the colon.

. p.m. A B, Arm. Cop. Basm., changed into . in most uncials and cursives, and so in T. R. to accord with usual grammar. Alford is wrong however in denying the ace. in Xen. . xi. x., . viii. i. 1.

The construction here given of the opening clause seems to me the true one; others involve us in harshness and break the connection.

“But I would have you to be without care. The unmarried cares for the things of the Lord, how he shall please the Lord; but he that hath married careth for the things of the world how he shall please his wife. Divided also* is both the wife and the virgin: the unmarried careth for the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she that hath married careth for the things of the world how she shall please her husband. But this I say for your own profit, not that I may cast a snare [lit. a noose] over you, but for what [is] seemly and waiting on; the Lord undistractedly.” (Vers. 32-35.) Here the apostle urges the greater exemption from earthly anxiety for serving and pleasing the Lord, which the single man or woman enjoys as compared with the married. There is less weight in the race and less distraction from the goal. Yet even here the apostle speaks with caution and delicacy. He would not entangle any, he sought their welfare with a view to seemliness and undistracted attendance on the Lord.

* . A B D P, many cursives and versions, omitted in T. R., following most authorities, as also before . which has overwhelming weight. Lachmann and Reiche point thus: , . .,., ….

. B, F, G K L, etc.

all the most ancient uncials and many cursives, etc.

Here however I must take the opportunity of protesting against the remarks of a late commentator. “Since he [the apostle] wrote, the unfolding of God’s providence has taught us more of the interval before the coming of the Lord than it was given even to an inspired apostle to see. And as it would be perfectly reasonable and proper to urge on an apparently dying man the duty of abstaining from contracting new worldly obligations – but both unreasonable and improper should the same person recover his health, to insist on his abstinence any longer: so now, when God has manifested His will that nations should rise up and live and decay, and long centuries elapse, before the day of the coming of Christ, it would be manifestly unreasonable to urge – except in so far as every man’s is , and similar arguments are applicable – the considerations here enforced.” This may sound plausible to men in Christendom who have let slip the view scripture gives of the total ruin of man and the world, and the imminence of that judgment of the quick on which all the inspired writings insist, just as truly as those of Paul. To my mind it is a lamentable pandering to unbelief and worldliness, as it springs from the lowest conception of the authority of God’s word. Doubtless the truth was so revealed that none beforehand could know that God would lengthen out the interval which severs from us the coming of the Lord. But the moral grounds are increasingly strong, not weaker. The apparently dying man is now only a great deal nearer more evidently the moment of dissolution instead of his having recovered health and strength so as fittingly to enter on new obligations. The deepening darkness of Jew and Gentile, and not of Mahometanism only but of professing Christendom, warns every eye which can see that a crisis from God is at hand; while the bright hope of the Christian, independent though it be itself of all circumstances, and essentially of heaven with Christ, shines out but the more if possible as he sees the day approaching.

It is in the next section that we have employed as equivalent to . For there is no question here of a man’s daughter but of his own state. The Lord deserves to have us wholly devoted to Himself. This is true christian reckoning. “But if any one thinketh that he is behaving unseemly to his virginity, if he be past his prime, and so it ought to be, let him do what he will: he is not sinning: let them marry. But he who standeth firm in his heart, having no necessity, and hath authority over his own will, and hath judged this in his own* heart to keep his own virginity shall do well. So that he that marrieth [his own virginity] doeth well, and he that marrieth not shall do better.” (Vers. 86-38.) Apparently this, the plain key to the passage, was not seen before the well-known Locke observed it, and produced excellent reasons drawn from the context, which commend themselves to any dispassionate mind. The great emphasis given to the heart’s purpose (for instance, “one’s own will” and “one’s own heart”) suits perfectly if it be a question of one’s own virginity, but how a daughter’s? There they sound beyond measure arbitrary and inconsiderate. If it mean one’s persevering unmarried himself, it is easy to see the force of all; as to a daughter or ward, it seems out of the way. The wonder is that Whitby should be among the few who follow Locke’s interpretation. The phrase is no doubt peculiar; but the apostle may have been influenced by the Hebrew idiom which uses the plural for the abstract idea. The singular seems more suited to the Greek tongue, which allows sometimes of a secondary sense, as e.g. life, and means of life.

* supported by the best MSS is wanting in T. R. in the first case, , in the second.

The fut. A B., etc.; the pres. most MSS, etc.; and so in the end of verse 38.

in both places is sustained by the best witnesses, as is the addition of , though the order is not always the same, and it may have been inserted.

“A wife is bound* as long as her husband liveth; but should the husband+ have fallen asleep, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in [the] Lord. But she is happier if she so remain according to my opinion, and I also think that I have God’s Spirit.” (Vers. 39, 40.)

* is added in Tex. Rec. with many excellent authorities, but the best omit it.

is added in T. R. following many witnesses, but not the highest.

The close of the chapter takes up widows especially and is a remarkable instance of opposition between the apostle’s mind and the church councils which dared to treat a widow’s marrying as so evil that the church had to refuse its sanction and prayers. The marriage tie of believers is for life. Death separates. Not only the widower but the widow becomes thus free to marry again. But the apostle gives his judgment against it: not on moral grounds, of which only superstition could raise a question, but as the happier state to abide in. Even here we have no such language as sprang up later when celibacy was cried up as the highest of christian virtues, and re-marriage was denounced as unchristian. On the contrary, even for the widow, the apostle qualifies her marrying again “only in the Lord:” a phrase which goes farther than the fact that both are Christians and demands that it be after a christian sort. Yet here again the apostle points out what he judged more expedient on spiritual grounds. Had others given a different opinion? He, if any man might, gives his judgment as one who thought he had God’s Spirit. He was inspired to put it thus, not as if he were of doubtful mind, but as avoiding an express command from the Lord, and rather as a matter of apostolic counsel.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 7:1-7

1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

1Co 7:1 “Now concerning the things about which you wrote” Possibly the issues addressed in chapters 1-6 were related to Paul by Chloe’s people. The phrase “now concerning” refers to specific questions that the church at Corinth sent to Paul probably by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (cf. 1Co 7:25; 1Co 8:1; 1Co 12:1; 1Co 16:1; 1Co 16:12). It is very difficult to interpret this chapter without knowing exactly what questions the Corinthians asked and who asked them (i.e., the faithful believers, the libertine group, the ascetic group, or one of the factious house churches).

NASB, NKJV”it is good for a man not to touch a woman”

NRSV”it is well for a man, not to touch a woman”

TEV”A man does well not to marry”

NJB”Yes, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman”

The term “good” has a wide semantic field, but in this context it means “profitable” or “to one’s advantage” (cf. 1Co 7:1; 1Co 7:8; 1Co 7:26). It is used in this same sense in the Septuagint in Gen 2:18. Paul’s whole purpose is what is best for the individual in times of distress and what is best for the Kingdom of God.

This may refer to

1. a quote from the letter that the Corinthians wrote to Paul

2. a slogan of one of the factious groups

3. a phrase taken out of Paul’s preaching, but misinterpreted and applied in an ascetic, legalistic, or libertine way

This term “touch” has many different connotations, “lay hands on,” “handle,” “control.” It came to be used metaphorically of sexual contact (cf. LXX Gen 20:6; Pro 6:29; Josephus’ Antiquities 1.163; also Plato, Leges 8.840a; and Plutarch, Alex. M. 21.4. See Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker’s Lexicon, p. 102, but not used in a sexual sense in the Koine Papyri from Egypt).

Paul is not depreciating marriage or human sexuality, but humanity’s abuse of sexuality. Mankind always takes God’s gifts beyond God’s bounds. The social climate of Corinth was immoral to the extreme (cf. 1Co 7:2 a).

NASB”But because of immoralities”

NKJV”Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality”

NRSV”But because of cases of sexual immorality”

TEV”But because there is so much immorality”

NJB”yet to avoid immorality”

Marriage was not a problem for Paul. This is a present active imperative, third person singular. Many believe he was a rabbi because he studied under Rabbi Gamaliel and he was zealous for the law. He knew that marriage was considered necessary to fulfill Genesis, “be fruitful and multiply” (cf. Gen 1:28; Gen 9:1; Gen 9:7). Sex is a gift from God. Gentile society was so sexually permissive and immoral because sex was used in pagan fertility worship practices that Paul felt it necessary to address the issue.

Paul addresses the theological topic of celibacy and the current setting of persecution. There is a spiritual gift of celibacy. It is not more spiritual than marriage. The single person is able to devote more time, energy, and personal resources to ministry. This is good, but not for all, not for the majority!

Paul’s real issue in this context is not singleness, but “stay as you are.” The times were hard. Persecution was increasing. History tells us of three empire-wide famines during this period. Paul affirms marriage (cf. 1Co 6:16), but in the current social setting advocates singleness. This is not necessarily a universal principle, but a temporary, cultural admonition.

Paul’s concern in 1Co 7:2 is the pervasive immorality of first century Greco-Roman culture. In a promiscuous society faithful, monogamous marriage is far better spiritually, emotionally, and physically than pagan worship. Not only is marriage affirmed, but the proper responsibility of each partner is affirmed.

1Co 7:2 “each man is to have his own wife and each woman is to have her own husband” These are two present imperatives, but are not functioning as commands, unless this anticipates 1Co 7:5. This is a grammatically parallel structure, as are 1Co 7:3-4. Marriage is not the exception; it is the norm, not a concession (cf. 1Ti 4:3; Heb 13:4).

1Co 7:3 This verse also has two present active imperatives. Paul gives four guidelines in two verses. It is just possible that Paul is dealing with two problems in this area of human sexuality (cf. Gordon D. Fee, To What End Exegesis, pp. 88-98).

1. promiscuous Christians who continued their previous pagan sexual patterns, particularly at pagan temples and feasts (i.e., libertines)

2. Christians who have made even married sex a spiritual taboo (i.e., ascetics, cf. 1Co 7:5 and thereby 1Co 7:1 becomes a slogan or one of the factions)

1Co 7:4 This verse shows Paul’s ability to balance the impropriety of his own culture (cf. Eph 5:21-33). In Paul’s day wives had few rights. Paul addresses both married partners with a mutual responsibility. Sexual needs are not evil. They are a God-given desire.

1Co 7:5 “Stop depriving one another” This is a present active imperative with the negative particle, which usually implies “stop an act in process.” This relates to the problem of asceticism in the Corinthian church. It also asserts that sex, or withholding sex, must not be a tool to control one’s spouse!

“except by agreement” This phrase begins with ei mti, which means “unless perhaps” or “unless it be” (cf. Luk 9:13). It is giving one possible exception to the stated norm. This type of structure (i.e., a rule then an exception) is used throughout this chapter. Paul is walking the theological tightrope between legalism/asceticism and libertinism/antinomianism. Each faction had its own agenda and slogans!

Notice Paul is expressing an egalitarian model. The husband does not have the right to choose alone! Biblical male headship is tragically misunderstood. The husband must act in self-giving ways for the maturity of the family (cf. Eph 5:25-29), not for personal interest or in personal preference, but in spiritual stewardship.

SPECIAL TOPIC: WOMEN IN THE BIBLE

NASB, NRSV”so that you may devote yourselves to prayer”

NKJV”that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer”

TEV”in order to spend your time in prayer”

NJB”to leave yourselves free for prayer”

“Fasting” is in the Textus Receptus following the MSS c, K, and L and the Peshitta. However, the vast majority of ancient Greek texts, P11, P46, *, A, B, C, D, G, P, most ancient translations, and most modern English translations, do not include it. The UBS4 gives the shorter text an “A” rating (certain).

The NT principle on voluntary fasting periodically for spiritual purposes is paralleled here with sexual abstinence within marriage periodically for spiritual purposes. As fasting focuses the mind on God’s will, so too, can limited sexual abstinence.

SPECIAL TOPIC: FASTING

“so that Satan will not tempt you” Even married couples need to be extremely careful of Satan’s insidious temptations within marriage. Human sexuality, though a gift from God, is a powerful human drive. Satan uses this aspect of biological need as a tool to alienate fallen mankind from God. This is true both for lost and saved, though at different levels (cf. 1Ti 5:14-15).

In this context there is obviously a problem addressing a theology of human sexuality in the church of Corinth. Probably it had both extremes of asceticism or libertinism.

SPECIAL TOPIC: PERSONAL EVIL

“because of your lack of self-control” This is the term kratos, which means “power,” “strength,” “rule,” with the alpha privative, which negates the meaning. This lack of self-control is mentioned in

1. Mat 23:25 in connection with the scribes and Pharisees

2. 1Co 7:5 in connection with married couples

3. 2Ti 3:3 in a list of vices.

The related term, egkrateia, has the connotation of self-control, especially related to sexual activity.

1. Act 24:25 in a list of virtues presented by Paul to Felix

2. 1Co 7:9 in Paul’s discussion of marriage rights

3. 1Co 9:25 in connection with athletic training

4. Gal 5:23 in Paul’s list of the fruits of the Spirit

5. 2Pe 1:6 in a list of character traits which bring maturity.

Self-control is (1) a spiritual fruit of the Spirit and (2) a developed practice of controlling the natural desires. The domination of the redeemed human spirit over the flesh is possible with the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Natural desires are not evil unless they are taken beyond God-given bounds.

1Co 7:6

NASB”But this I say by way of concession, not of command”

NKJV”But I say this as a concession, not a command”

NRSV”This I say by way of concession, not of command”

TEV”I tell you this not as an order, but simply as a permission”

NJB”I am telling you this as a concession, not an order”

Does 1Co 7:6 refer to (1) 1Co 7:1-5; (2) 1Co 7:3-5; (3) 1Co 7:5; or (4) 1Co 7:7? Paul is giving his Spirit-led opinion. He expected

1. the Second Coming at any moment

2. increased persecution at any moment

3. continuing famine

His purpose was to help believers cope with current circumstances, not limit them.

1Co 7:7 “Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am” This may refer to (1) Paul as a single person; (2) Paul as content; or (3) Paul as self-controlled (cf. 1Co 7:9). Paul was probably married at one time because of the cultural pressure from his Jewish background and the implications of Act 26:10, where Paul seems to be a member of the Sanhedrin (i.e., “I cast a vote”). If he was part of the Sanhedrin, he had to be married.

Paul’s desire that all believers remain as he was, needs to be clarified in several ways.

1. Paul expected the Second Coming in his lifetime, as did all first century Christians. The any-moment return of Jesus (see Special Topic at 1Co 6:14) is meant to be a strong motivator towards Christlikeness and evangelism in every age.

2. Paul’s view must be seen in light of God’s command “to be fruitful and multiply” of Gen 1:28. If Christians were all single what of the next generation?

3. Paul himself had a high view of marriage (cf. 1Co 6:16), how else could he use it as the analogy of Christ and the church compared to husband and wife in Eph 5:22-33?

“each man has his own gift from God” This seems to refer to celibacy as one of many spiritual gifts (cf. Mat 19:12). It is not listed in any of the list of gifts (Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4). It does not seem to be a typical action or function as other gifts. Paul is using the word “gift” in a specialized sense.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

concerning. App-104.

the things whereof = what things.

ye wrote. The Corinthians had written a letter, but carefully avoided any reference to the disorders among themselves. These had been reported by the members of Chloe’s family (1Co 1:11, 1Co 1:12), and the scandal referred to in 1Co 5was a common report, which was perhaps made known by Stephanas and others (1Co 16:17). But see Heb 13:4.

unto = to.

man. App-123.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-40.] REPLY TO THEIR ENQUIRIES RESPECTING MARRIAGE; BY WHICH OCCASION IS GIVEN FOR VARIOUS COLLATERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND COMMANDS. In order to the right understanding of this chapter, it will be well to remember, that the enquiries in the letter of the Corinthians appear to have been made in disparagement of marriage, and to have brought into doubt whether it were not better to avoid it where uncontracted, and break it off where contracted, or this last at all events where one of the parties was an unbeliever. These questions he answers, 1Co 7:1-16; and puts on their true grounds, 1Co 7:17-24. They appear also to have asked respecting virgins, what was their duty and that of their parents, as to their contracting marriage. This he discusses in its various aspects of duty and Christian expediency, 1Co 7:25-38. Then he concludes with an answer and advice, respecting the liberty of a woman to marry after the death of her husband.

The whole is written under the strong impression (see on this, notes, Act 2:20; Rom 13:11, and 2 Corinthians 5; and Prolegg. to Vol. III. ch. 5 iv. 5-10) of the near approach of the end of this state of things (1Co 7:29-31), and as advising them under circumstances in which persecution, and family division for the Gospels sake, might at any time break up the relations of life. The precepts therefore and recommendations contained in the chapter are to be weighed, as those in ch. 8 al., with reference to change of circumstances; and the meaning of Gods Spirit in them with respect to the subsequent ages of the Church, to be sought by careful comparison and inference, not rashly assumed and misapplied. I may also premise, that in hardly any portion of the Epistles has the hand of correctors and interpolators of the text been busier, than here. The absence of all ascetic tendency from the Apostles advice, on the point where asceticism was busiest and most mischievous, was too strong a testimony against it, to be left in its original clearness. In consequence, the textual critic finds himself in this chapter sometimes much perplexed between different readings, and in danger of on the one hand adopting, on overwhelming manuscript authority, corrections of the early ascetics,-and on the other excluding, from a too cautious retention of the rec. text, the genuine but less strongly attested simplicity of the original.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Shall we turn now in our Bibles to the seventh chapter of I Corinthians.

The Corinthian church was a mess. There were just a lot of problems, a problem with carnality. There were divisions in the church, some saying that they were of Cephas, or Peter, and others saying that they were of Paul, and some saying that they were of Apollos. They were suing each other at law, going to the earthly courts. And Paul had received the report, so he wrote to them about these things. But basically his purpose of writing was to answer a letter that they had sent to him with certain questions. So, Paul beginning with chapter 7 is responding now to their letter and the questions that they had asked in their letter to him.

Now, it is important that we understand, really, the background of this situation in Corinth. Corinth was an extremely pagan city. On the acropolis above Corinth there was a great temple to Aphrodite, and the temple priestesses would come down into Corinth each evening. They were prostitutes, and the worship of the goddess was supported by the earnings of the prostitutes.

In this city God had many people. For when Paul was there in Corinth, the Lord encouraged him, and said, “I have many people in this city.” So, Paul established the church there. But, as I say, the church was a mess.

They had a lot of weird kind of teachings, doctrines that had spread. They felt that the body was completely evil, and so that left a twofold kind of an attitude. First, there were those who said because the body is totally evil it doesn’t matter what you do with your body; your body doesn’t count. It is your spirit that counts, so you can do with your body what ever you want. It doesn’t matter. You can use your body for fornication or whatever you desire, the body is totally evil anyhow, so it doesn’t matter what you do with your body. Others coming from that same base that the body is totally evil said you shouldn’t then do any of those naturals things in the body. Even if you are married you should restrain from relations with your wife, because everything of the body is evil, all of the urges or desires or whatever are evil. And so there was this second tendency toward asceticism.

So Paul is dealing here, beginning in chapter 7, with this concept of whether or not as a Christian I should be married, or if I am married should I have intimate relationships with my wife. So, he begins the seventh chapter by saying:

Now concerning the things whereof you wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband ( 1Co 7:1-2 ).

Trying to live a celibate life is unnatural, and Paul recognizes it as such. It is good if you can not touch a woman, but yet, that is an unnatural condition. Therefore, every man should have a wife, and every wife should have a husband.

It is interesting that nothing is ever said in the scripture about Paul being married, but I feel that he obviously was. Number one, he was a rabbi. And according to Jewish law, every man should be married and have children, because God said be fruitful and multiply. And they felt that that was a divine injunction that every man should fulfill, and that if you did not have children you were killing, actually, your progeny. So being a rabbi, and as he said concerning the righteousness of the law, “I was blameless,” he no doubt was married. Also, it is indicated that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, and a requirement of the Sanhedrin, who was a judge of sorts, was that he be married, because they figured if a man is married he is more merciful. I think he at least has greater understanding.

Now, the question arises: What happened to Paul’s wife? And there are two speculations. One that she died. But the other, which is probably more correct, is that when Paul embraced Christianity, she left him. That is the general tradition that is carried through the church.

Now, the seventh chapter here is written with an overlying thought, which he brings out in verse 1Co 7:29 , and that is, time is short. Paul felt that the Lord was coming very, very soon, and so because time is short, he is giving these instructions concerning marriage. It would seem to be that he is discouraging getting married, but if so, it is only because of his concept that time is so very short. We really don’t have time to get married. But, to avoid fornication, every man should have his own wife and every woman have her own husband, especially in the conditions that existed there in Corinth.

And let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise the wife to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not the power of his own body, but the wife. Therefore do not withhold the sexual rights from each other, unless it be with consent for a time, that you might give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency ( 1Co 7:3-5 ).

So, Paul here is declaring that the sexual relationships within marriage are proper, and that the wife should seek to satisfy the husband and the husband should seek to satisfy the wife. And that you should not withhold from each other unless it be by a mutual consent, and then only in a specified period of time as you’re giving yourselves to fasting and praying, because the temptations are apt to be too great. The pressure is too great on each other.

But I speak this by permission, and not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself. But every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I ( 1Co 7:6-8 ).

Now, Paul, of course, at this point was unmarried, and he is advocating his status of not being married, but he recognizes that there is a gift of God in a sense for this position.

Now, Jesus talked about those who were eunuchs by birth. Some were called of God for this, others became such for the kingdom of God’s sake. But Paul having that gift and recognizing that it was something that God had done, because the normal, natural physical drives promote marriage. It is not natural not to have a sex drive. It is the fourth strongest drive that we have, following the air, thirst, and hunger. It ranks right there near the top. And if a person doesn’t have a strong sex drive it means that perhaps God has taken it away in order that this person might be a special instrument for God freed from the . . . well, as Paul said, the cares that come upon a person when they get married.

Marriage does present a whole different situation. Before I was married, I could travel freely across the United States. All I needed was a sack of apricots and I could go. I only stopped at service stations for gasoline. I never stopped at restaurants. When I was going I like just to get there. After I got married it became different.

We were coming home from Phoenix and my wife said, “Honey, I would like to have a cup of coffee.” And I kept going past the coffee shops. She said, “Honey, I would like to have a cup of coffee!” “Sure, who wouldn’t?” And I went by another coffee shop, and boy, I felt her foot go on the floor that had she had a brake there I would have been thrown through the windshield. I got the message, and we stopped at a coffee shop. But, that is a waste of time.

But, as Paul said, if you are married you don’t really care so much for the things of the Lord, you care for your wife, how you are going to please her, since you have to live with her. And thus, you want to please her proper. That is correct.

So, Paul said, “If you have the gift, that is good. Live like I do. For the unmarried and the widows, stay like I am.”

But if you don’t have this gift: but it is better that you marry than [to have a burning compassion or a burning lust] to burn with lust. Now to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife ( 1Co 7:9-11 ).

This, of course, was the teaching of Jesus Christ. So Paul said, “This is not my command, it’s the Lord’s.”

But to the rest I will speak ( 1Co 7:12 ),

Now, the Lord didn’t speak specifically in these issues, so now Paul speaks as an apostle.

But to the rest I speak, not the Lord [dealing now with a special situation]: If a brother has a wife that does not believe, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And if the woman which has a husband that believes not, and if he is pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy ( 1Co 7:12-14 ).

So, either the husband or the wife believing, bring into the home a holy environment by which the children are covered.

Many times I am questioned as to the fate of children who die. Or more often, the question arises if the church is raptured, or when the church is raptured will the little children all go up in the rapture. I can speak for surety on the children of a saved parent, either one or both, that they are protected and covered by the believing parent. I do not have that same surety where the parents are unbelievers. I personally feel that because they are not at an age of responsibility, God will be gracious and merciful unto them. And I believe strongly in the justice and the fairness of God. Though I do not have a sound scriptural base, I don’t have any scripture that says that all children are going to go up in the rapture, or all children that die are saved. We do know that it is so if there is a believing husband or wife.

Now, my feeling is, why live under the cloud of a question? Why even worry about it? Just receive the Lord and know. But, we do know as far as a believing parent that the house is sanctified by either one being a believer.

But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God has called us to peace ( 1Co 7:15 ).

So, if on your receiving Jesus Christ your husband or your wife just can’t handle you anymore, they say, “Look, I didn’t bargain for this. I can’t stand you. I can’t live with you like this,” then let them depart. You are not under bondage. You are not under bondage to remain with them in such cases. Let them depart. God has called us to peace, not to warfare in marriage.

For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how do you know, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all churches ( 1Co 7:16-17 ).

Now he deals with what condition you were in when God called you.

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Therefore let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called ( 1Co 7:18-20 ).

When God saved you, were you an uncircumcised Gentile? Then don’t bother about going through the Jewish rite of circumcision. Remain as you were when God called you.

Now, if you were a servant when God called you, don’t worry about it if you can be free, then use your freedom rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman ( 1Co 7:21-22 ):

Now, you may still be a servant as far as man is concerned, but you are free now and you are God’s freeman.

also he that is called, being free, becomes Christ’s servant ( 1Co 7:22 ).

So, the calling in where I was called, abide in that calling. Don’t try to change things radically after you’ve become a Christian, unless the life that you were living, or the occupation that you had is so totally antagonistic towards Christian principals that you have got to get out.

You were bought with a price; therefore don’t be the servants of men ( 1Co 7:23 ).

If you are a servant of man, realize that you are a servant of Jesus Christ. And so that is basically where we all are, servants of Jesus Christ.

Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful ( 1Co 7:24-25 ).

Now we are dealing with an interesting area here, and there are three possible interpretations. There are those that say that Paul is talking now to the fathers who have daughters who are virgins. And that he is dealing with the situation of whether or not you allow your daughter to get married.

There is the second that, again, takes in the cultural aspects. There were those people who were living together and even sleeping in the same bed, but not having conjugal relationship. And even . . . they were just sort of . . . the trial marriage kind of thing but without the sex aspect of it, seeing if you get along living together, yet not entering into a physical relationship. This was a common practice in those days there in Corinth.

The third thought is that there were also those who did get married, but felt it was more spiritual not to have sex even in marriage. And I personally feel that Paul is probably referring to this third category. The language sort of precludes a father having a daughter who is a virgin and giving her in marriage, the language sort of precludes that. I think that it probably is referring to this third concept of “we are more spiritual because we don’t have sex. Yes, we are married, but my wife is still a virgin.” Weird! I couldn’t handle that, but this is what I feel was the issue that Paul was addressing in this part. “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I’ll give my judgment, as one who has obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”

I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, it is good for a man so to be. Are you bound unto a wife? Don’t then seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Then don’t seek a wife ( 1Co 7:26-27 ).

Again, Paul is saying this under the whole umbrella of time is so short. Later on, when he wrote to the church of Ephesus, realizing that the coming of Jesus evidently wasn’t going to be immediate, he used the marriage relationship as a beautiful example of the deep relationship that exists between Christ and His church, and uses it in one of the most beautiful illustrations of relationship that can exist.

So, are you married? Don’t seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Don’t seek a wife.

But and if you married, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: and I would just spare you ( 1Co 7:28 ).

He is saying, “Hey, marriage is not always what it is trumped up to be. You can have difficulties in marriage.”

This I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains, that both they that have wives be as though they had none ( 1Co 7:29 );

Now, that has to be interpreted in the context. For in the context he said, “He that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. He that is not married actually just seeks to please God.” So, when he says that they that are married should be as though they are not married, he is just saying that you should be concerned in pleasing God. That should be your primary concern.

And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoice not; and they that buy, as though possessed not; and they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passes away ( 1Co 7:30-31 ).

Time is short. He is actually saying, “We don’t have time, really, to get involved in marital relationships. We don’t have time to indulge in grief or sorrow. We don’t have time for partying and revelry. We don’t have time to amass possessions. We are in the world, but let’s not abuse it. Let us use it; we have got to live. We have got to eat so do what you have to, but don’t get overly involved, for the fashion of the world is passing away, or is rapidly passing away.”

So, as Paul was looking at the situation in his day, at the deterioration of the whole social scene of the things taking place, he gives these warnings. Time is short, things are rapidly passing away, we really don’t have time for the extraneous.

But I would have you without this carefulness ( 1Co 7:32 ).

Full of care is a better way . . . we understand that better. I would keep you freed from that fullness of care, worry.

He that is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, that you may attend upon the Lord without distraction ( 1Co 7:32-35 ).

So he is just saying that in giving yourself completely to serving the Lord, a wife can be an encumbrance, can be a hindrance. You have to now take her into consideration, and your real interest is pleasing her. That is proper. We should be concerned, fellows, in how to please our wives. And you wives should be concerned in how to please your husbands. And we need to take careful consideration of these things. It is proper. It is right.

I think that, again, a man has to be gifted to live a single life. And that if God has not gifted you, as the scripture says, he who has found a wife has found a good thing and favor of the Lord. Paul is talking out of the concept that time is so short; we don’t have time for these things now. And it could be that we are approaching that kind of a situation again as we come to the end of the age. However, the Bible does not speak despairingly of marriage, but does hold it up as God’s plan and God’s purpose for man. It is the natural thing. It is unnatural not to be married.

But if a man thinks that he behaving himself uncomely towards his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sins not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity ( 1Co 7:36-37 ),

Having no necessity is an important clause.

but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, he does well. So then he that gives her in marriage does well; but he that gives her not in marriage does better. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she so abides, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God ( 1Co 7:37-40 ).

Now, in my judgment, she would be happier to remain unmarried. It is an interesting situation. It must be looked at in the light of the conditions in Corinth and in the light of Paul’s concept that time was short and it was almost over.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

1Co 7:1. , Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote) He sets before us his subject at the first with elegance, rather generally than particularly. The apostles in their epistles often treat of marriage; the apostle Paul alone, once and not of his own accord, but when he was asked, advises celibacy, and that too very gently. [So far is this from being a subject, which ought to be obtruded upon mankind by human precepts.-V.g.]-, good) This agrees with the feeling, which pervades the preceding chapter. Comp. below 1Co 7:7-8; 1Co 7:26; 1Co 7:34, in the middle of the verse, 35 at the end, 40. It is good, i.e. becoming, suitable, for the sake of liberty and exemption from what is due [by a husband to his wife], 1Co 7:3, and for the sake of keeping ones power, which he has over himself undiminished, 1Co 7:4; though on the other hand touching, 1Co 7:1, has always modesty as its accompaniment among them that are chaste.-, for a man) in general, although he be not a Christian, 1Co 7:7; 1Co 7:26.-, a woman) and in like manner for the woman not to be touched. In what follows, the one relation involves the other.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 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. (Gen 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 distress 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.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Certain difficulties had arisen in the Corinthian Church concerning which they had sent inquiries to Paul. He now answers their questions. These answers contain principles of permanent application.

The principles concerning marriage may thus be simply stated: First, marriage is in itself honorable and right. Second, where married union of converted and unconverted men and women is concerned, the believer, at least, is not to take the initiative in bringing about a dissolution. The supreme thought in the apostle’s mind throughout this whole section is the relation of the Christian to the Lord. That must be zealously guarded. Everything else must be subservient to it because of the urgency of the Lord’s business. The apostle then leaves it to each to make personal settlement of all these difficulties in the light of this supreme relationship.

Let the daughters of the King settle the question of marriage always and only within this sphere, consenting or refusing, according as such action will help or hinder their highest realization of the fulfilment of His glorious purposes.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

7:1-40. MARRIAGE AND ITS PROBLEMS

We here begin the second main division of the Epistle, if the Introduction (1:1-9) is not counted. The Apostle, in a preamble (1-7), points out that marriage is a contract, and the normal relations must be maintained, unless both parties agree to suspend them. Ideally, celibacy may be better, but that is not for every one. Then (8-40) he gives advice to different classes. Superius (5, 6) locutus fuerat de illicitis; nunc vero (7) loquitur de licitis (Atto).

7:1-7. Celibacy is Good, But Marriage is Natural

As you ask me, I prefer my own unmarried condition; but for most of you it is safer to marry, and let husband and wife observe conjugal duty to one another.

1 But now, as to the questions raised in your letter to me. Continence, as you suggest, is doubtless an excellent thing. 2 But this ideal state is not for every one, and, as temptation is inevitable, and abounds at Corinth, the right remedy is that each man should have a wife of his own, and each woman a husband of her own. 3 And the marriage should be complete, each side always rendering to the other what is due. 4 A married woman cannot do as she likes respecting her own person; it is her husbands. And in the same manner his rights are limited by Heb_5 Abandon the attempt to combine celibacybv with matrimony. When both agree to it, continence for a limited time may be a good thing, if you have the intention of devoting yourselves the better to prayer, and then coming together again. If the time is not limited, you will be giving Satan a permanent opportunity of using your incontinence to your ruin. 6 But I give this advice rather by way of permission and indulgence than of injunction and command. 7 Still, my own personal preference would be that all men should remain unmarried, as I do myself. But people differ, and Gods gifts differ, and each must act as Gods gift directs him.

It is clear from the words with which this section opens that the discussion of the questions which were raised in the letter sent by the Corinthians begins here. In the remaining chapters (7-16) we cannot always be sure whether he is referring to their letter or writing independently of it: but in the first six chapters there are no answers to questions asked by them. With regard to the questions discussed here, it is likely enough that every one of them had been asked in the letter. The Apostle does not write a tract on marriage; it would, no doubt, have been different if he had done so. He takes, without much logical arrangement, and perhaps just in the order in which they had been put to him, certain points which, as we can see, might easily have caused practical difficulty in such a Church as that of Corinth.* In so licentious a city some may easily have urged that the only safe thing to do was to abstain from the company of women altogether, , like those condemned in 1Ti 4:3. Or they may have maintained that at any rate second marriages were wrong, and that separation from a heathen partner was necessary. Our Lords words (Mat 19:11, Mat 19:12), if they were known to the Corinthians, might easily give rise to the belief that marriage was to be discouraged. Quite certainly, some forms of heathen philosophy taught this, and asceticism was in the air before the Gospel was preached. In any case, it is unlikely that disparagement of marriage was a special tenet of any one of the four parties at Corinth. No one has conjectured this of the Apollos party: but for different and very unconvincing reasons different commentators have attributed this tenet to one or other of the three parties. Still, some persons at Corinth had raised the question, Is marriage to be allowed? They had not raised the question, Is marriage to be obligatory? See Journ. of Th. St., July 1901, pp. 527-538.

1. . An elliptical expression (such as is common enough) for , , or , : cf. Luk 9:36; Joh 7:31. Bachmann quotes from papyri, , . Note that there is no after , and there is probably no here: B C 17, Am. RV. omit. The is perhaps merely transitional; but it may intimate that the subject now to be discussed is in opposition to the one which has just been dismissed. He is passing from what is always wrong to what is generally lawful. It is putting too much meaning into the plural verb to say that we may infer from it that the letter was written in the name of the whole Church. It is probable that it was so written; but even if it came from only a few of the members, the Apostle would have to use the plural. There is nothing to show that the words which follow are a quotation from the letter, but they express what seems to have been the tone of it. Having in the two previous chapters warned the Corinthians against the danger of Gentile licentiousness, he here makes a stand against a spirit of Gentile asceticism.

. For a man, he does not say for a husband (). A single life is not wrong; on the contrary, it is laudable, . This he repeats vv. 8 and 26; cf. 5:6, 9:15; Gal 4:18. He is not dissuading from marriage or full married life; he is contending that celibacy may be good.* For those who can bear it, it may be a bracing discipline (9:24, 27): but not all can bear it. For see Gen 20:6; Pro 6:29; and cf. virgo intacta.

2. . The plural (Mat 15:19; Mar 7:21) refers to the notoriously frequent cases at Corinth. Atto paraphrases Neque enim ita volo prohibere licita, ut per illicita errent, and adds, Nota quia non dicitur, propter propaginem filiorum, sed propter fornicationem. To Christians who believed that the end of the world was very near, the necessity of preserving the human race from extinction would not have seemed a very strong argument.

This passage is sometimes criticized as a very low view of marriage. But the Apostle is not discussing the characteristics of the ideal married life; he is answering questions put to him by Christians who had to live in such a city as Corinth. In a society so full of temptations, he advises marriage, not as the lesser of two evils, but as a necessary safeguard against evil. So far from marriage being wrong, as some Corinthians were thinking, it was for very many people a duty. The man who wrote Eph 5:22, Eph 5:23, Eph 5:32, Eph 5:33 had no low view of marriage.

. This forbids polygamy, which was advocated by some Jewish teachers.

. The Apostle seems always to use , , or (Eph 5:28, Eph 5:31, Eph 5:33) of a mans relation to his wife, but (14:35; Eph 5:22; Tit 2:5) of a womans to her husband (1Th 4:4 is doubtful). Does this show that he regarded the husband as the owner and the wife as being owned? Rom 14:4 somewhat encourages this. But the difference between and was becoming blurred: see J. H. Moulton, Gr. 1. pp. 87 f.; Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 122 f. A few texts omit …

. Have, not keep, as is clear from the use of and not in v. 1, where we should have had and not , if married people were under consideration. In vv. 12, 13, cannot mean keeps, and does not mean that married people are to continue to live together, but that unmarried people are to marry. The imperative is hortatory, not merely permissive.

3. . Here he is speaking of married persons, and therefore has the article, and we have and not .

. Not found in LXX, but frequent in papyri in the common sense of debt (Mat 18:32; Rom 13:7). See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 221.

. Present imperative: the mutual recognition of conjugal rights is the normal condition, and it is not the conferring of a favour (), but the payment of a debt (). Cf. the change from (the questioners view) to (Christs correction) in Mat 22:17, Mat 22:21.

( A B C D E F G P Q 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) is to be preferred to (K L, Syrr.), or . . (Chrys.), or . . (40), which may have been euphemisms adopted in public reading. Or they may be ascetic periphrases to obscure the plain meaning of . . Cf. Rom 8:7.

A, Copt. Arm. omit before .

4. . It is probably not in order to mark the equality of the sexes that the order is changed: the wife is here mentioned first because she has just been mentioned in the previous verse. Equality between the sexes is indicated by using the same expression respecting both, thus correcting Jewish and Gentile ideas about women.

. The words involve, as Bengel points out, elegans paradoxon. How can it be ones own if one cannot do as one likes with it? See on 6:12. But in wedlock separate ownership of the person ceases. Neither party can say to the other, Is it not lawful for me ( ) to do what I will with mine own? (Mat 20:15). By pointing out that the aim is to be, not self-gratification, but the fulfilment of a duty which each owes to the other, St Paul partly anticipates the criticism mentioned above. He raises the matter from the physical level to the moral.

5. . After what has been stated it is evident that refusal amounts to fraud, a withholding what is owed. The pres. imperat. may mean that some of the Corinthians, in mistaken zeal, had been doing this; cease to defraud. Three conditions are required for lawful abstention: it must be by mutual consent, for a good object, and temporary. It is analogous to fasting. Even so, the advice is given very tentatively, . Temporary abstention for a spiritual purpose is advised in O.T.; Ecc 3:5; Joe 2:16; Zec 12:12-14:* but it is an exception for certain circumstances, not a rule for all circumstances: illud sane sciendum quia mundae et sanctae bunt nuptiae, quoniam Dei jussu celebrantur (Atto). For cf. 11:20, 14:23; Luk 17:35; Act 1:15, Act 1:2:1, 44, 47, Act 1:4:26; for , Mat 23:25. Here . is probably to be taken as co-ordinate with the clause ., and as giving a second aspect of the reason for limiting the time of abstention. Aristotle made a frequent term in Greek philosophy; in the Bible it is very rare. Calvin uses this verse as an argument against monasticism: temere faciunt qui in perpetuum renuntiant. To vow perpetual celibacy, without certainty of having received the necessary , is to court disaster. Forcing it on the clergy prevents good men from taking Orders and causes weak men to break their vow.

The after (or ) is omitted in B and bracketed by WH. Before , KL, Syrr. Goth. Thdrt. insert ; a manifest interpolation similar to in Mar 9:29, and in Act 10:30. In all three places ascetic ideas seem to have influenced copyists, but the evidence differs in the three cases. In Mar 9:29 the words in question are omitted in B K, a very strong combination. In Act 10:30 the words are wanting in A B C, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth., a much stronger combination. Here the evidence against . is overwhelming; A B C* D* E F G 17, Latt. Copt. Aeth. The case of Mat 17:21 is not parallel to these three. The whole verse is an interpolation from Mar 9:29 after that passage had already been corrupted by the addition of . The practice of fasting has sufficient sanction in the N.T. (Mat 4:2, 6:Mat 4:16-18, Mat 4:9:15; Mar 2:20; Luk 5:35; Act 13:2, Act 13:3, Act 13:14:23), without introducing it into places where it was not mentioned by the original writers, who, moreover, would not have placed it on the same level with prayer. Fasting is an occasional discipline, prayer an abiding necessity, in the spiritual life. Stanley attributes the readings (KL) for ( A B C D, etc,), and or (KLP) for ( A B C D, etc.) to ascetic influence: would refer to general habit, ordinary and not extraordinary prayer, and refers to what is usual, not exceptional. In commenting on these words, Origen makes a remark which is of no small liturgical interest. He quotes the case of Ahimelech, who was willing to let David have some of the shew-bread, (LXX of 1Sa 21:4). He assumes , and continues, , , , , . From this it is evident that invocation of the name of God and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit over the elements was regarded by Origen as the essential part of their consecration.

This passage is one of the few in N.T. which touch on the private devotions of Christians in the Apostolic age. See Bigg on 1Pe 3:7, 1Pe 4:7.

6. . It is not clear how much the covers; probably the whole of vv. 1-5. The least probable suggestion is that it refers solely to the resumption of married life, …

. Concession, or indulgence, or allowance.* The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. and is very rare in LXX.

. Not by way of command (2Co 8:8).

7. . This is in harmony with the from which he started. Surroundings so licentious as the Apostle had at Ephesus and Corinth might well inspire him with a longing for universal celibacy. For a similar wish about his own condition being that of others see Act 26:29 ( ): in both places we have the comparative use of , as again in v. 8 and 10:6.

. He admits that his own personal feeling is not decisive; indeed, is not in accordance with conditions of society which have their source in God. Here (see on 1:7) is used in the sense of a special gift of God, a special grace to an individual. Origen points out that if celibacy is a , so also is marriage, and those who forbid marriage forbid what has been given by God.

. One in this direction and one in that. The recognition that opposite courses may each of them be right for different individuals is more fully drawn out Rom 14:1-12: and see Rom 12:6; 1Pe 4:10. We have , Jdg 18:4; Jdg_2 Sam, 11:25, 17:15: it is not classical.

We perphaps understand the Apostles wish better if we assume that it refers, not so much to the fact of remaining unmarried, as to the possession of the gift of continence, without which it was disastrous to remain unmarried. God had given him this gift, and he wishes that all men had it: but it does not follow that every man who has this gift is bound to a life of celibacy. In the Apostles day (v. 26) the of continency was specially valuable. Cf. Mat 19:11.

We must read (* A C D* F G 17, Am. Copt., Orig.) rather than (B D2 K L P, Syrr. Arm. Aeth.). The marks a slight opposition to the concession just mentioned. That concession is not his own ideal; I rather wish that all men were as I myself also am. Failure to see this has caused the substitution of for .

K L, Arm. have before : is doubtless right: so also (* A B C D F P) rather than (3 K L).

7:8-40. Advice to Different Classes

To the unmarried or widowed, to the married where both parties are Christians, to the married where one of the two is a heathen, I would advise, as a rule, that you should remain as you are, or as you were when you became Christians. The same principle would apply to circumcision, and also to slavery; but an opportunity for emancipation may be accepted.

8 To the unmarried and to widows I affirm it to be an excellent thing for them, if they should continue to remain single, as I also remain. 9 If, however, they have not the special gift of self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to be on fire. 10 But to those who have married as Christians I give a charge-and it is really not my charge, but Christs-that a wife is not to seek divorce from her husband. 11 But if unhappily she does do this, she must remain single, or else be reconciled to her husband. In like manner a man is not to divorce his wife.

12 To those whose cases are not covered by these directions I have this to say; and I say it as my own advice, not as Christs command: if any member of the Church has a wife who is not a believer, and she consents to live with him, let him not divorce her; 13 and if a wife has a husband who is not a believer, and he consents to live with her, let her not divorce her husband. 14 And for this reason: the consecration of the believing partner is not cancelled by union with an unbeliever. On the contrary, the unbelieving partner is sanctified through union with a believer. If this were not so, the children would be left in heathen uncleanness; whereas in fact, as the offspring of a Christian parent, they are holy. 15 But if, on the other hand, the unbelieving partner insists on a separation, separation let there be. No servile bondage to a heathen yoke deprives a Christian man or woman of freedom in such cases. There need be no scruples, no prolonged conflict with the unbeliever who demands separation: it is in peace of mind that we have been placed by our calling as Christians. 16 For how can you tell, O wife, whether, by keeping your heathen husband against his wish, you will be able to convert him? Or how can you tell, O husband, whether you will be able to convert your reluctant wife?

17 Still, the general principle is this: In each case let people be content with the lot which God assigned them, and with the condition in which Gods call has come to them, and let them continue in that course so far as may be. This is the rule that I am laying down in all the Churches.

18 This principle holds good with regard to circumcision. Were you already circumcised at the time of your call? Do not attempt to efface the circumcision. Or have you been called in uncircumcision? Do not seek to be circumcised. 19 Neither the one nor the other is of any consequence. What really matters is keeping Gods commandments, and that is vital. 20 Each one of you, I say, should be content to remain in the condition in which God called him. 21 And this applies to slavery also. Were you a slave when you were called? Do not be distressed at it; yet, if you can become free, make use of the opportunity.

22 I say that you need not be distressed at being a slave when you became a Christian: every such slave is the Lords freed man. And the converse is true: he who was free when he was called is Christs slave. 23 You were bought with the price of His blood, and to Him, whether you are bond or free, you belong. Cease to regard yourselves as belonging to men in the sense in which you belong to Him. 24 I repeat, Brothers, the general rule. In that state in which each man was called, let him be content to remain, remembering Gods presence and His protecting care.

8. . This includes bachelors, widowers, and widows, but not unmarried girls, whose case is discussed later (25-38), and who would not have much voice in deciding the point in question. The conjecture of for is worth considering. A word not found elsewhere in N.T. might be changed to one that is common. Even as I is more in place, if men only are addressed. occurs vv. 11, 32, 34, and nowhere else in N.T.

. As in v. 1, this introduces the Apostles own ideal, as illustrated by his own life. As covers both single men and widowers, this passage does not tell us whether St Paul had ever been married. The very early interpretation of (Php 4:3) as meaning the Apostles wife (Clem. Alex. Strom. 3:6. p. 535, ed. Potter) may safely be set aside, for this passage shows that, if he ever had been married, his wife died before he wrote to the Philippians. And if he had been married then, would he not have written in addressing his wife. The argument that, as a member of the Sanhedrin (Act 26:10), he must have been a married man and a father, is not strong. This rule (Sanh. fo. 36 b), as a security for clemency, may be of later date, and may be a figurative expression for approving of the sentence. The probability is that St Paul was never married (Tertull. De Monogam .8; Ad Uxor. 2:1). In all his writings, as also in Acts, there is no trace of wife or child.* The in , as in (v. 7), is the comparative use of . He compares his own case with that of those whom he desires to keep unmarried, and emphasizes it. The aorist () suggests a life-long and final decision.

9. . But if they have not power over themselves (midd.). It is doubtful whether the negative coalesces with the verb so as to express only one idea. In N.T. we more often have for if not than , which means unless. Where a fact has sharply to be brought out and sharply to be negatived, there seems to be not only permissible, but logically correct (Ellicott). See Burton, Moods and Tenses, 242, 261, 469; and compare Rom 8:9; 2Th 3:10, 2Th 3:14, etc.

What is meant by this failure to have power over themselves is partly explained by (present tense in both verbs). A prolonged and painful struggle seems to be intended, a condition quite fatal to spiritual peace and growth: cf. 9:25; Gen 43:30; 1Sa 13:12. Elsewhere we have of burning with grief and indignation (2Co 11:29). The advice given here is similar to that given in v. 5, , and to the younger widows in 1Ti 5:11-15.

( B D E) is here the better reading, in 11:17, where see note. It is not easy to decide between (* A C* 17) and (3 B C2 D E F, etc.). Editors are divided. Perhaps was changed to to conform to . But the change of tense is intelligible; better to marry once for all than to go on being on fire. In this Epistle, as elsewhere in N.T., the later form of the aor. () is more common (vv. 33, 34) than the earlier (; in v. 28 both forms occur.

10. . He passes from those to whom it is still open to marry or not to marry. But to those who have already married (since they became Christians) I give command. To render, I pass on the order from Christ to you, is giving too much force to the preposition. Christ, does not pass on the order. The meaning is, I give the order; no, not I, Christ gives it. In class. Grk. is used of the military word of command: see 11:7; 1Th 4:11; often in 2 Thess., 1 Tim., Luke, and Acts. When the Apostle gives directions on his own authority (v. 12), he says speak, not command.

, . Christ Himself had decided against divorce (Mar 10:9; Luk 16:18), and His Apostle repeats His teaching: see also Mal 2:16. St Paul is distinguishing between his own inspired utterances (v. 40) and the express commands of Christ, not between his own private views and his inspired utterances. And there is no need to assume (as perhaps in 1Th 4:15) that he had received a direct revelation on the subject. Christs decision was well known. See Dobschtz, Probleme des Ap. Zeitalters, Leipzig, 1904, p. 109; Fletcher, The Conversion of St Paul, Bell, 1910, p. 57.

. The fact that he begins with the unusual case of a wife divorcing her husband indicates that such a thing had actually occurred or was mentioned in their letter as likely to occur. Women may have raised the question.

( B C K L P) is certainly to be preferred to (A D E F G): patristic evidence is divided.

11. . But if (in spite of Christs command) she even goes so far as to separate herself, she is not to marry any other man. The divorce is her act, not her husbands. Christianity had powerfully stirred the feminine mind at Corinth (11:5, 14:34). In some cases ascetic aversion caused the wish to separate (Findlay). With the compare in 4:7. Christ had forbidden marriage with a divorced with (Luk 16:18), and His Apostle here takes the same ground. If the wife who has separated from her husband finds that, after all, she cannot live a single life, the only course open to her is to be reconciled to the husband whom she has injured. For the construction (. c. dat.) see Rom 5:10. Like (v. 15) and (v. 21), this .. is a parenthesis to provide for an exceptional case. He then continues the Lords command, that a husband is not to put away ( = ) his wife.* St Paul, like our Lord, forbids divorce absolutely: in the wife is not mentioned here as creating an exception; and it is possible that this exception (Mat 5:32, Mat 5:19:9; see Allen and Plummer ad loc.) was unknown to the Apostle, because it had not been made by Christ.

12. . Having spoken of those converts who were still unmarried, and of those who had married since their conversion, he now treats of those who belonged to neither class. There were some who had married before their conversion and now had a heathen wife or a heathen husband. Were they to continue to live with their heathen partners? Yes, if the heathen partner consents to the arrangement. St Paul elsewhere uses of a remainder which is wholly or largely heathen (Eph 2:3; 1Th 4:13, 1Th 5:6).

, . This is the right order ( A B C P 17), not (D E F G). He means that he is not now repeating the teaching of Christ, who is not likely to have said anything on the subject. He does not mean that he is speaking now, not with Apostolic authority, but as a private individual. All his directions are given with the inspiration and power of an Apostle, and he speaks with confidence and sureness. He applies Christs ruling as far as it will reach in the case of a mixed union. The Christian party must certainly not dissolve the marriage, if the heathen party does not desire to do so.

. Here must mean has, not keeps, retains, and this shows the meaning of in v. 2. It is the case of a Christian with a heathen wife whom he married when he himself was an unbeliever.

. Agrees in being content. The compound verb (Rom 1:32) indicates mutual consent, implying that more than one person is satisfied (Act 22:20); often with a dative of the thing in which agreement is found (Luk 11:48; Act 8:1; Act_2 Mac. 11:24).

. AV. has let him not put her away here, and let her not leave him in v. 13: RV. has leave in both places. Perhaps put away would be better in both, as St Paul is speaking of divorce. As in v. 11, = , which in class. Grk. would be . Vulg. has dimittat throughout.

13. . The pronoun shows that , is the right accentuation in v. 12. Here some inferior texts read instead of , and instead of . The latter term has point, because it was a strong measure for a wife to try to divorce her husband. But the Apostle puts both sexes on a level by using , which is more commonly used of the husband, of both.

14. . This refers to the baptismal consecration (1:2, 6:11), in which the unbelieving husband shares through union with a Christian wife. The purity of the believing partner overpowers () the impurity of the unbelieving one (Chrys.), so that the union is pure and lawful; there is no profanation of matrimony. The principle holds good in mixed marriages (6:16), but not to the detriment of the believing partner; as an unlawful union desecrates, so a lawful union consecrates: pluris enim est pietas unius ad conjugium sanctificandum, quam alterius ad inquinandum (Calv.). But he goes beyond what is written when he adds, interea nihil prodest haec sanctificatio conjugi infideli.* Note the in both cases; the Christian partner is the sphere in which the sanctification takes place, and the heathen partner may be influenced by that sphere. There is no such intolerable difference of sphere as to necessitate dissolution of the marriage.

. Since it would then follow, i.e. if it was the impurity of the heathen partner which prevailed on the analogy of Hag 2:11-13; there it is uncleanness that is communicated, while consecration is not communicated. The Apostle argues back from the children to the parents. The child of a parent who is must ipso facto be : that he assumes as axiomatic. He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism. He argues from the fact that the Corinthians must admit that a Christians child is holy. Consequently, it was born in wedlock that is holy. Consequently, such wedlock need not be dissolved. But he is not approving such wedlock. Marriages with heathen are wrong (2Co 6:14). But, where they have come into existence through the conversion of one partner in a heathen marriage, the Christian partner is not to seek divorce.

D E F, Latt. add after , A B C K L P omit. (*A B C D* E F G P 17, Copt. RV.) is to be preferred to (3 D3 K L, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. AV.), an unintelligent gloss by one who did not see the point of and wanted to make the usual balance to the preceding Vulg., Iren. Tert. add to , making it equivalent to . For , D E F G have , which at the beginning of a clause is always in N.T. followed by .

With the argumentative use of , since, if that were so, cf. 15:29 and see not on Rom 3:6. In v. 10, 11, we have a similar followed by , as here. See Burton, Moods and Tenses, 229, 230.

15. . But if it is the unbeliever that is for separating. The emphasis is on , and the present tense indicates the heathen partners state of mind. What follows shows that , covers both sexes, and in such cases the Apostle has no injunction to give to the unbeliever. For what have I to do with judging them that are without? (5:12); so the responsibility rests with them, and they may do as they please, . If, therefore, the heathen partner seeks divorce, the Christian partner may consent. The Christian partner is under no slavish obligation to refuse to be set free. Just to this extent the law against divorce has its limits. Marriages between Jews ought not to be dissolved, and marriages between Christians ought not to be dissolved; but heathen marriages stand on a different basis. These ought to be respected as long as possible, even when one of the parties becomes a Christian. But if the one who remains a heathen demands divorce, the Christian is not bound to oppose divorce. In such matters the Christian , has not lost all freedom of action; independence still survives.

We cannot safely argue with Luther that implies that the Christian partner, when divorced by the heathen partner, may marry again. And Luther would have it that this implies that the Christian partner, when divorced by a false Christian, may marry again. Who is to decide whether the Christian is false or not? And the principle, which is far older than Luther, that reverence for the marriage-tie is not due to one who has no reverence for the Author of the marriage-tie will carry one to disastrous conclusions. Basil (letter to Amphilochius, Canonica Prima, Ep. clxxxviii. 9) does not write with precision. All that clearly means is that he or she need not feel so bound by Christs prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathen partner insists on separation.

. It is in an atmosphere of peace that God has called you. This is ambiguous. To what is the peace opposed? If to bondage, which seems natural, then the meaning will be that to feel bound to remain with a heathen partner, who objects to your remaining, would violate the peace in which you were called to be a Christian. If peace is opposed to separation, then the meaning will be that you ought to do your utmost to avoid divorce. The former is probably right: cf. Col 3:15. Heathen animus against Christianity would greatly increase the difficulty of insisting upon living with a heathen who was anxious for a divorce. In such a state of things Christian peace would be impossible. With compare , 1Th 4:7. The supplies the positive complement to the negative .

Editors are much divided as to whether (* A C K, Copt.) or (3 B D E F, Latt. Syrr. AV. RV.) is the better reading.

16. , . As in v. 15, the case of the heathen husband desiring to divorce his Christian wife is uppermost, although the other case is also considered. And this verse is as ambiguous as the concluding part of v. 15. Either, Do not contend against divorce on the ground that, if you remain, you may convert your heathen partner; for how do you know that you will do that? Or (going back to in 13, 14, and treating 15 as a rare exception to the almost universal rule), Avoid divorce, for it is possible-you never know-that you will convert your heathen partner. This latter interpretation involves the rendering, How knowest thou whether thou wilt not save? See the LXX of Est 4:14; Joe 2:14; Jon 3:9; 2Sa 12:22. On the ground that these four passages express a hope rather than a doubt, Lightfoot prefers the interpretation that the chance of saving the unbelieving partner is worth any temporal inconvenience. So also Findlay. But the other interpretation is probably right. The sequence of thought is then quite clear. If the unbeliever demands divorce, grant it: you are not bound to refuse. If you refuse, you will have no peace. The chance of converting your heathen spouse is too small a compensation for a strained and disturbed life, in which Christian serenity will be impossible. To call the latter temporal inconvenience is a serious understatement. See Stanley. For see Rom 11:14; 1Ti 4:16; and for the history of the idea, Hastings, DB. IV. pp. 360 f.; DCG. II. P. 556. The (v. 17) is almost decisive for this view.

17. This verse may be taken either as a summing up of what has just been stated, or as a fresh starting-point for what is to follow (18-24). It states the general principle which determines these questions about marriage, and this is afterwards illustrated by the cases of circumcision and slavery. Conversion to Christianity must make a radical change in the moral and spiritual life, but it need not make any radical change in our external life, and it is best to abide in the condition in which the call came to us. Therefore the Christian partner must not do anything to bring about a dissolution of marriage, any more than the Christian slave must claim emancipation. But if the heathen party insists on dissolution, or grants emancipation, then the Christian may accept freedom from such galling ties.*

, … Only as our Lord has appointed to each, as God has called each, so let him walk. In both clauses each is emphatic; and while the assignment of circumstances to each individual is attributed to Christ, the call to become a believer comes from the Father, as in Rom 8:28. The (introducing an exception or correction) defines and limits the somewhat vague is not under bondage in such cases. There remains some obligation, viz. not to seek a rupture. One is not in all cases free to depart, simply because one cannot be compelled to stay. But nothing is here said against the improvement of ones circumstances after embracing Christianity. What is laid down is that, unless ones external condition of life is a sinful one, no violent change in it should be made, simply because one has become a Christian. One should continue in the same course (), glorifying God by a good use of ones opportunities; status, in quo vocatio quemque offendit, instar vocationis est (Beng.). This general principle seems to the Apostle so important that he states that he has established it in all the Churches under his care, and then goes on to illustrate it by two frequent examples of its application. On and of daily conduct, see Hort on 1Pe 1:15 and Lukyn Williams on Gal 1:13. See on 3:3.

The verse reads better as a fresh starting-point (WH., Way, Weymouth, B. Weiss) than as a summary of what precedes (Alford, Ellicott). But even if the latter arrangement be adopted, there is no close connexion between vv. 16 and 17. Some join with , whether thou shalt save thy wife, whether not. But that would require , as in Mat 22:17. Others understand after , If he does not depart; others again understand , If thou shalt not save her. This makes very bad sense, and would almost certainly require . Theodoret runs the two verses into one sentence, How knowest thou except in so far as our Lord has apportioned to each? This is very awkward, and gives no good sense. Only or Save only is the best translation of . It introduces a caution with regard to what precedes, and this forms a preface to what follows. St Paul is opposing the restless spirit and desire for further change which the Gospel had excited in some converts.

. As in 11:34; Tit 1:5; Act 24:23, we have the middle; in 9:14, 16:1 he uses the active. This is evidently spoken with Apostolic authority, and it indicates that the restlessness and craving for change, against which he here contends, was common among Christians. He lets the Corinthians know that they receive no exceptional treatment, either in the way of regulations or privileges. This checks rebelliousness on the one hand and conceit on the other. Odiosum fuisset Corinthiis arctiore vinculo quam alios constringi (Calv.). Cf. 4:17.

ought we to read (* B) or (3 A C D, etc.)? Aor. might he changed to perf. to haxmonize with , and perf. (being less common) might be changed to aor. The perf. is preferable. Certainly ( A B C D E F) is to be preferred to (K L). Elsewhere it is God who calls (1Th 4:7; Rom 4:17, Rom 4:8:30; 2Ti 1:9), while the Lord distributes the gifts (12:5; Eph 4:11). D* F, Latt. substitute for .

18. . The sentence is probably interrogative (AV., RV.), not hypothetical (Tyndale). The sense is much the same. A man who was circumcised before conversion is not to efface the signs of his Judaism. Jews did this sometimes to avoid being known as Jews in gymnastic exercises in the palaestra (1 Macc. 1:15; Joseph. Ant. XII. V. I).* And an uncircumcised Gentile is not to seek circumcision; Gal 5:2, Gal 5:3; Act 15:1, Act 15:5, Act 15:19, Act 15:24, Act 15:28. St Paul, while proclaiming Gentile liberty, acts as a Jew to Jews (9:20). See Dobschtz, Probleme, p. 84.

( A B P), (D F G), (E K L). is doubtless right; the perf, may indicate that these cases were generally earlier, Jews converted before Gentiles.

19. , . The Apostle repeats this in two somewhat different forms in Gal 5:6 and 6:15; , , and , . Having previously proclaimed the folly of adopting circumcision, when the freedom of the Gospel was open to them, as he has just done here in simpler terms ( ), he points out that the difference between circumcision and uncircumcision is a matter of small moment. Those who have it need not be ashamed of it, and those who have it not certainly need not seek it. The peculiar excellence of the maxim is its declaration that those who maintain the absolute necessity of rejecting forms are as much opposed to the freedom of the Gospel as those who maintain the absolute necessity of retaining them (Stanley).

Photius, G. Syncellus, and others say that the maxim is a quotation from an Apocalypse of Moses. It is extremely unlikely that such a principle would be contained in any Jewish book earlier than St Paul. Such a book, however, might afterwards wards be interpolated by a Christian with these words of the Apostle. See Lightfoot on Gal 6:15; Weinel, St Paul, p. 56; and consider the Apostles action in circumcising Timothy and not circumcising Titus.

. . . But keeping of the commandments of God is everything. As in 3:7 and 10:24, the strongly adversative implies that the opposite of the previous negative is understood. In Gal 5:6 and 6:15 the introduces two different things (see above), both of them different from this. Of all three of them we may say, in his stat totus Christianismus (Beng).* occurs Ecclus. 32:23, . , Wisd. 6:18: , Mat 19:17; 1Ti 6:14; 1Jn 2:3, where see Westcott. On . see Deissmann, Light, p. 381.

20. Repetition of the principle laid down; In the secular surroundings of the calling in which he is called, in these let him, abide; and emphasizes the charge to make no change of condition. In N.T., is almost exclusively Pauline, and it means either the act of calling (Php 3:14) or the circumstances in which the calling took place (1:26 and here): it does not mean vocation. Lightfoot quotes Epictetus (i. 29 46), , and ( 49) [ ].

21. . Wast thou a slave when thou wast called? Do not mind that. A slave can be a good Christian (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; Tit 2:9). Thackeray quotes the iambic line in Philo, Quod omn. prob. Liber 7, ; . Here again, the clause might be either interrogative or hypothetical.

. But still, if thou canst also become free, rather make use of it than not. The affects , not : if thou art also able to become free as well as to remain a slave; if the one course is as possible as the other; then what? It is remarkable that the Apostles advice is interpreted in opposite ways. He says, Rather make use of it. Make use of what? Surely, , the possibility of becoming free. This was the last thing mentioned; and make use of suits a new condition better than the old condition of slavery. Still more decidedly does the aorist. (, not ) imply a new condition. The advice, thus interpreted; is thoroughly in keeping with the Apostles tenderness of heart and robustness of judgment. Do not be miserable because you are a slave; yet, if you can just as easily be set free, take advantage of it rather than not. He regarded marriage as a hindrance to the perfection of the Christian life (vv. 32-35). Was not slavery, with its hideous temptations, a far greater hindrance?*

Nevertheless, various commentators, ancient and modern, insist on going back to for the dat. to be supplied with and understand . Utere servitute quasi re bona et utili: servitus enim valet ad humililatem servandam et ad patientiam exercendam (Herv.) It is urged that in this way the Apostle remains consistent with his rule, Abide in the calling in which thou wast called. But is a parenthetic mitigation given in passing; like in v. 11, it mentions a possible exception. The meaning will then be, Slavery is not intolerable for a Christian, but an opportunity for emancipation need not be refused. The Christian slave is not to rebel against a heathen master, any more than a Christian wife against a heathen husband; but if the heathen is ready to grant freedom, the Christian slave, like the Christian wife, may take it without scruple. For this view, which is that of Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, and Beza, see Evans, Lightfoot, and Goudge; for the other, which is that of Bengel, Meyer, De Wette, and Edwards, see Alford, Ellicott and Schmiedel; but Schmiedel admits that , if is to be understood, hat allerdings etwas Seltsames.

22.. . For he who, while in slavery, was called to be in the Lord is the Lords freedman. Or we may take with , For the slave who was called in the Lord; but the next clause is against this. A slave called in the Lord is in relation to Christ a freedman: , like libertus, is a relative term, used c. gen. of the emancipator. Although in his secular condition he remains a slave, in his spiritual condition he has been set free: he is (1:1), and is free from the bondage of sin (Rom 6:6). There is no hint here that his master, if he were a Christian, would be sure to set him free; and even Phm 1:21 does not imply that. See Harnack, Mission and Expansion, 1. pp. 167 f.; Deissmann, Light, PP. 323, 326-333, 382, 392.

In like manner, he that was called being free is Christs slave; or, the free man by being called is Christs slave, he can no longer do as he likes to his own hurt; he is bound to obey his new spiritual Master and Lord. Such a bondservant of Christ was the Apostle himself, and he gloried in the fact (Rom 1:1; Php 1:1; Tit 1:1). Nowhere else in the Bible is found.

K L, Copt. Aeth. Arm. add after : D E F G add : A B P 17, Vulg. omit. or is usual after , and hence the insertion; but here neither is required.

23. . This recalls 6:20 and applies it to both classes. The social slave, who has been set free by Christ, and the social freeman, who has become enslaved to Christ, have alike been bought by God, and are now His property. In one sense Christs death was an act of emanicipation, it set free from the thraldom of sin; in another sense it was a change of ownership.* It is a mistake to suppose that the words are addressed only to those who are socially free, charging them not to lose their freedom. Such a charge would be superfluous. Moreover, the change from the singular to the plural intimates that both classes are now exhorted. See below.

In commenting on this verse, Origen lets us know that he was not the first to comment on this Epistle. He speaks of what say on the subject. See on 9:20.

. Do not become, do not show yourselves to be, bondservants of men. The words are obscure. It is very improbable that the prohibition is addressed to those who are free, and that it forbids them to sell themselves into slavery. Such a prohibition could not be needed. Moreover, the change from the and pers. sing. to the and pers. plur. shows that he is now addressing all his converts. Origen strangely interprets the slavery as meaning marriage, in which neither partner , and from which both partners should seek freedom . The bondage must mean some condition of life which is likely to violate Gods rights of ownership (Lev 25:42, Lev 25:55). The interpretation, Do not become enslaved to any party-leader, is remote from the context. More probably, Do not let social relations or public opinion or evil advisers interfere with the absolute service which is due to Him who bought you with His Sons blood.

24. The general principle is stated once more with the addition of . This may mean in the presence of God, or in Gods household, or on Gods side. The last agrees well with , and makes a good antithesis to : let your attachments be heavenwards, not earthwards. With that proviso, all secular conditions, whether of family life, or caste, or service, are capable of being made the expression of a Christian character. Deissmann, Light, p. 330.

7:25-40. Respecting unmarried women, the transitory and trying character of the present world is against a change of condition. The unmarried state leaves people more free for Gods service.

25 With regard to unmarried daughters, I have no charge from the Lord to pass on to you; but I offer my opinion as that of a man who through the Lords mercy is not unworthy of your confidence, and who perhaps knows Christs mind, although he cannot quote any words of His. 26 Well then, I think that owing to the distressful times that are upon us, it is an excellent thing for people to remain as they are. 27 Are you united to a wife? Do not seek to be freed from the tie. Are you at present free from this tie? Do not seek to be bound by it. But if you do marry, you have committed no sin; 28 and if a maiden marries, she has committed no sin. Yet people who make these ties are sure to have increased affliction in the affairs of this life. But I, as your adviser, would spare you this, if I could. 29 This, however, I do affirm, Brothers. The time allowed before the Advent is now very narrow. This means that henceforth those who have wives should serve as strictly as those who have none, 30 that those who weep should live as though no sorrow disturbed them, those who are enjoying life as not absorbed in their enjoyment, those who buy as not taking full possession, 31 and those who use this world as not eager to use it to the full: for transitory indeed is the outward fashion of this world. 32 Yet I want you to be free from the anxieties which the world produces. When a man is unmarried, he is anxious about our Lords interests, studying how he may please our Lord; 33 but when once he is married, he is anxious about worldly interests, studying how he may please his wife. 34 Parted also by a similar division of interests are the married and the unmarried woman (?). For the unmarried woman is anxious about our Lords interests, striving hard to be holy both in body and in spirit; but when once she is married, she is anxious about worldly interests, studying how she may please her husband. 35 Now I am saying all this simply for your own spiritual profit. I have no wish to throw a halter over you and check Christian liberty. On the contrary, I want you to choose what is seemly, and, like Mary, to wait upon our Lord without Marthas distractions.

36 That is my opinion; but there are limitations. If a father think that the way in which he is acting towards his unmarried daughter is not seemly, because she has long since reached a marriageable age and ought now to marry without delay, seeing that her nature seems to require it,-he must do as be thinks best. There is nothing sinful in it; let the marriage take place. 37 But when a father has settled convictions that a single life is best for his daughter, and has no need to surrender these, but has full right to carry out his own wishes, and has decided in his own mind to do so,-he will act rightly if he keeps his daughter free. 38 It comes to this, therefore, that both of them act rightly. The father who gives his child in marriage does well, and he who does not do so will be found to have done still better.

39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if he is dead, she is free to marry any one she pleases, provided it be in holy matrimony with a Christian. 40 But a widow is a happier woman if she abides as she is to the end, according to my judgment. And I believe that I, no less than others, can claim to have the guidance of Gods Spirit.

25. . It is clear from the use of in vv. 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, that the word here applies to women only; contrast Rev 14:4. On this subject no traditional teaching of Christ had reached the Apostle (v. 10); he could not frame a judgment partly based upon His teaching (v. 12); nor did he feel justified in giving an independent Apostolic decision (v. 17), for the responsibility of deciding must rest with the father. He is willing, however, to state his own opinion; and he intimates that his wonderful conversion and call are strong evidence that the opinion of one who has been so divinely favoured is worthy of trust. As in 1Pe 2:10 (see Hort), is used in reference to the signal mercy of the gift of the Gospel; and this in his case included the call to be an Apostle. We have a similar use of in 2Co 4:1, and of in 1Ti 1:13, 1Ti 1:16. Here , trustworthy, is used as in 4:2 and 1Ti 1:12; cf. (Psa 19:8); not as in 2Co 6:15 and 1Ti 4:10.

We have the same contrast between and in 2Co 8:8, 2Co 8:10. Here the Vulgate has Praeceptum and consilium to distinguish the words, which led to the later distinction between precepts and counsels of perfection (Stanley).

26. . I think therefore. He does not mean that he is not sure: what is stated in v. 25 shows that introduces a decided conviction; and perhaps the use of rather than shows that the conviction is of long standing. He holds that this is a sound axiom to start from; it is good in principle.

. These words are an important qualification. The Apostles opinion is determined by the present necessity, the straitness now upon us (Heb 9:9), owing to the disturbances and dangers which he saw; and also by the Advent which he believed to be very near (16:22), although not yet present (2Th 2:2). We cannot assume that his opinion would have been the same in a more peaceful period, and after experience had proved that the Advent might be long delayed. For of external distress see Luk 21:23, where the meaning is very similar to the meaning here; 2Co 6:4, 2Co 6:12:10; 1Th 3:7; Ps. Son 5:8; Testament of Joseph ii. 4. Thackeray (St Paul and Jewish Thought, pp. 105 f.) thinks that this passage may reflect Jewish beliefs in the Woes of the Messiah, the birth-pangs which were to precede His Advent (2 Esdr. 5:1-12, 6:18-24, 9:1-9; Jubilees xxiii. 11-25; Assump. of Moses x. 3-6; Apoc. of Baruch xxvii. 1 f., where see Charles, xlviii. 31-39, lxx. 3-10). Lightfoot (on Gal 1:4) contends that meanspresent rather than imminent, but the difference is not great. A trouble which is believed to be near and certain is already a present distress.

. That it is good, I say, for a person so to be. The construction of the verse is not regular, but quite intelligible: is that, not because, and the second picks up and continues the first. But doubt arises as to the meaning of . To be thus is vague, and thus may have three meanings: (1) as he is, i.e. he is to remain without change of condition; (2) as I am, or as are, i.e. unmarried; (3) as I now tell you, referring to what follows. The first is probably right; it is a repetition of the principle already given in v. 24, of which principle v. 27 is an illustration. The in v. 40 and Rom 9:20 is similar. There is not much difference in effect between (1) and (3) Origen prefers (2), and points out that this is the fourth time (vv. 1, 8, 26 bis) that the Apostle has used of, celibacy, whereas all that he says of marriage is that it is not sin.

27. ; Like vv. 18 and 21, this may be either interrogative or hypothetical. The perfect indicates the settled condition of the marriage-tie, and means wife, not woman: betrothal to an unmarried woman is not included. There could be no doubt about this case. The Lord had prohibited divorce; therefore , never at any time (pres. imperat.) seek freedom. The advice is permanent. No where else in N.T. does occur. In LXX it is used only of the solving of hard sayings (Ecc 8:1; Dan 12:8; Wisd. 8:8). See Milligan, Greek Papyri, p. 106.

. Here again the perfect means, Art thou in a state of freedom from matrimonial ties? It does not mean Hast thou been freed from a wife by death or divorce? The verb is chosen because of the preceding , and bachelors as well as widowers are addressed. Here it cannot be assumed that such men are not to marry, because they were unmarried when they were called to be Christians. The Lord had not said this. But in the existing circumstances His Apostle advises this. In neither clause need we translate Cease to seek, We do not know that any Corinthian Christians had been trying to be divorced from their wives, though probably some were trying to be married.

28. . He at once hastens to assure those who have already done what he now advises them not to do, that they have done nothing wrong: But if it be that thou do marry. The , as in v. 11, intensifies the verb; if it has already gone as far as that. See Evans on this aorist.

The and in but and if (AV., RV.) is not a translation of the , but an archaic reduplication of the if. Perhaps and if is a corruption of an if, for an = if, as in the saying If ifs and ans were pots and pans,

In this verse we have both the later () and the classical () form of the aorist. But some texts (KL, Chrys.) have altered to , while D E F G have , Vulg. acceperis uxorem. In 9:21, 22 we have both and .

. The thought goes on to the marriage as a fact; there was no sin in that. This sounds incongruous in English, and we must say thou hast not sinned. Origen remarks that Paul does not say , .

. If the article is genuine, it is generic: a reference to some particular case at Corinth is not likely.

. But affliction for the flesh will be the lot of those who act thus. Quum diceret, habituros tribulationem carnis, vel in carne, significat, sollicitudines et angustias, quibus conjuges implicantur, ex negotiis terrenis provenire. Caro igitur hic pro homine externo capitur (Calv.). This would be specially true in the persecutions which were to precede the Advent. As Bacon says, He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; and children sweeten labours, but they make misfortunes more bitter. Origen makes refer specially to the wife, quoting Gen 3:16. The dative may be locative; in the flesh (AV., RV.); tribulationem carnis (Vulg.); Pressuram carnis (Tert.); aflictionem in carne (Beza). Cf. , thorn for the flesh (2Co 12:7).

. But I for my part spare you: this is his aim as their spiritual adviser. The emphatic makes I wont pain you by saying more an improbable interpretation. In what way does he spare them? Nolo vos illam tribulationem sentire (Herv.). Ideo quia, secundum indulgentiam conjugia non omnino prohibeo (Primasius). Atto admits both reasons, but the former is probably right, and it almost excludes the latter. He aims at keeping them from affliction by persuading them not to marry. Cf. 2Co 1:23, 2Co 12:6, 2Co 13:2.

( B P [ A] 17) rather than (K L, Orig. Chrys.) to agree with the following or (D F, Latt. acceperis uxorem), Tert. duxeris uxorem. It is less easy to decide whether before should be inserted ( A D E K L P) or omitted (B F G). D* F insert before .

29. . But this I do declare. The change from (v. 6, 1:12, 6:5) to should be marked in translation, whether the change has significance or not; but even the RV. fails to do this. The change probably gives special seriousness to the assertion. But, though I counsel none to change their state, I do counsel all to change their attitude towards all earthly things. We have the same expression, introducing a solemn warning, 15:50; cf. 10:15, 19: nowhere else in N.T. or LXX does the 1st pers. sing. occur. The does not refer to what precedes; he is not repeating what he has just said. He is reminding them of a grave fact, which has to be considered in connexion with marriage, and indeed with the whole of life. He has been insisting on the already present: he now insists on the (supposed) shortness of the interval before the Advent. Both facts confirm the advice which he gives.

. The allotted time has become short, lit. has been drawn together so as to be small in amount. As in Rom 13:11, is used almost as a technical term for the period before the Advent (Westcott on Heb 9:9). Hort (on 1Pe 1:11) thinks that it was owing probably to its use in Daniel (9:27, etc.) that in our Lords time it was specially used with reference to national religious expectations. But St Paul by no means always uses it in this special eschatological sense, although he commonly uses it of a fixed and limited time or a fitting period, while is time generally, and is unlimited. That he still believed that the Second Coming was near is evident from 10:11, 15:51; but a little later his view seems to be changing (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 379; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 113). Calvin and others explain the words here of the shortness of human life; you are sure to die before long. This makes good sense, but probably not the right sense.

Some texts (D E F G) ins. before : the best omit. A more important point is the punctuation of what follows. Should a stop, comma, or colon be placed after , and be taken with …? Or should it be placed after , and be taken with what precedes? Editors are divided; but the former is better for two reasons. In the Pauline Epp. commonly leads (Php 3:1, Php 3:4:8; 2Th 3:1), as also does (2Co 13:11; 1Th 4:1; 2Ti 4:8). And is weak after . , is straitened as to its residue.

. . So that, henceforward those also who have wives may be as though they had none. St Paul rather frequently puts words in front of for emphasis; 2Co 2:4; Gal 2:10; Rom 7:13; Col 4:16. It is quite clear that, if the conditions of the time are such that those who have wives ought to be as if they had none, then it is foolish to marry; for as soon as one had taken a wife one would have to behave as if one had not got one, i.e. one would undertake a great responsibility, and then have the responsibility of trying to be free from it. Far better, in such circumstances, never to undertake it. In 2 Esdr. 16:40-48 there is a good deal that resembles this passage; but 2 Esdr. 15., 16. are an addition made by a Christian about a.d. 265, and the writer very likely had this passage in his mind when he wrote.

The force of the is not quite certain. He has been saying that in such times the unmarried state is best, and then goes on to say that not only the married, but also all bound in any earthly circumstances, should practise detachment; then the would mean both (AV., RV.). Even when three or four things are strung together in Greek, the first may have as well as the rest. In Acta Pauli et Theclae (p. 42, ed. Tisch.) we have , .

The meaning of the illustrations is fairly clear. Married men are apt to become absorbed in domestic cares, mourners in their sorrow, buyers in the preservation of what they have bought. A Christian, with dangers all round him and the Advent close at hand, ought not to be engrossed in any of his surroundings, knowing how temporary they are. He should learn how to sit loose to all earthly ties.

30. . As not entering upon full ownership, or keeping fast hold upon (11:2, 15:2; 2Co 6:10; 1Th 5:21, where see Milligan, p. 155). Earthly goods are a trust, not a possession.

31. . As not using it to the utmost; lit. using it down to the ground, and so, using it completely up. We are not to try to get all we can out of externals. The rendering abusing or misusing is not the right idea.* Here and in 9:18 only: in Ep. Jer_28 of the idolatrous priests using up for their own profit the sacrificial offerings. 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. Lightfoot quotes from Seneca (Ep. Mor. lxxiv. 18), Let us use them, let us not boast of them: and let us use them sparingly, as a loan deposited with us, which will soon depart.

. . . For transitory is the fashion of this world. There is no need to take the back to . Indeed, this does not make very good sense. The explains the reason for the preceding counsels, especially the last one. . . is not a mere periphrasis for : the phrase expresses the outward appearance, all that can be apprehended by the senses. This may change, and does change, season by season, although the world itself abides. Praeterit figura mundi, non natura, ut in aliam speciem mundus vertatur (Herv.). Cf. 2 Esdr. 4:26; and see Deissmann, Light, p. 281; Resch, Agrapha, p. 274.

Because commonly has the dative (2Co 1:17, 2Co 3:12) some texts have corrected (the reading of * A B D* F G 17) to . Even in class. Grk., often has the accusative: in 9:18 it has the dative.

32. . Free from anxieties, such as choke the word (Mar 4:19) and distract from the thought of that Day (Luk 21:34). Without carefulness (AV.) is not the meaning: cf. Mat 28:14; Wisd. 6:15, 7:23. Carefulness formerly meant anxiety (Psa 127:3). Bacon couples it with trouble of mind, and Latimer calls it wicked (Wright, Bible Word-Book, p. 111). In papyri the wish that a person ; is common. The Apostle goes on to give examples, and to show by his wording that there is a right kind of as well as a wrong.

. The thought of pleasing Christ and God is frequent in the Pauline Epp. (Rom 8:8; 1Th 2:15, 1Th 2:4:1; Col 1:10; 2Co 5:9). See on 10:33. Throughout vv. 32-34 ( A B D E F G) is certainly the right reading, not K L P). See Mat 6:24 and 2Ti 2:4.

33. . The aorist points to the time when the change of interest took place: once a man is married. Epictetus (Enchir. 18) holds that the care of external things ( ) is fatal to devotion to ones higher nature: a man is sure ( ) to neglect the one in caring for the other.

After there is much doubt as to punctuation and reading. Does belong to v. 33 or v. 34? The Vulg. takes it with v. 33, et divisus est, and he is a divided man, he is no longer single-hearted. This spoils the balance of . .. and . . Moreover, it is a weak addition to the latter. The arrangement in AV. and RV. seems better. Some texts (D3 E F G K L) omit the before , and with that omission must belong to what follows: but this is probably genuine ( A B D* P 17, Vulg. Surr. Arm. Aeth.). So also the after . ( A B D3 F G K L P, Vulg. Aeth.). The position of is uncertain. Should it be inserted after only (B P Vulg.), or after only (D E F G K L Syrr. Arm.), or in both places ( A F2 17, Aeth.)? This third reading cannot be right, and the evidence for after is thereby weakened. If, however, be read after only, then must be taken with v. 33. The alternative readings therefore are: , … (Lach. Treg. WH.) and: , , … (Tisch. Alf. Rev. Ell.). Lightfoot (writing before the appearance of WH.) says: I venture to prefer this latter reading, though supported chiefly by Western authorities, from internal evidence; for the sentences then become exactly parallel. There is just the same distinction between the married woman and the virgin as between the married and the unmarried man. The other view throws sense and parallelism into confusion, for is not wanted with v. 33, which is complete in itself. It also necessitates the awkward phrase . The reading illustrates the habitual practice of scribes to insert as much as possible, and may be neglected. Heinrici proposed a second : , . , … This is pure conjecture; but it restores the balance of clauses and accounts for the double . Findlay thinks it tempting. Bachmann tabulates the confusing evidence. See Resch., Agrapha, pp. 8, 183.

On the other hand, see Introd. Text. The question of reading must precede and determine that of punctuation. The MS. evidence for before is overwhelming; that for immediately after scarcely less so. The sense given to in AV. is ill attested and improbable (WH.) and would require a plural verb.

34. . Bengel remarks that here means more than it does in v. 14: what is set apart from the world for God ought to conform to the purity of God and not to the defilements of the world: Trench, Syn. lxxxviii.; Cremer, pp. 598 f. See 1Ti 5:5, and the art. Heiligung in Herzog (Hauck). Stanley quotes Queen Elizabeth, who said that England was her husband.

35. . His aim is not to glorify his ministry as Apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 11:13), but to keep them free from cares (v. 32). Cf. 10:33, the only other place in N.T. in which occurs. The reading is probably wrong, as in 10:33.

. Cast a snare upon you (AV., RV.) gives a wrong idea: is a halter or lasso, not a trap (here only, in N.T.). He has no wish to curtail their freedom, as one throws a rope over an animal that is loose, or a person that is to be arrested: accesserat lictor injiciebatque laqueum (Livy i. 26). Cf. Phm 1:14; Pro 6:5. Laqueo trahuntur inviti (Beng.).

… On the contrary, with a view to: what follows is an expansion of : cf. Rom 13:13.

. Cf. in 9:13, and Give me wisdom, that sitteth by Thy throne, (Wisd. 9:4). The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. Combined with it suggests the contrast between Mary sitting at the Lords feet and Martha distracted by much serving, (Luk 10:40). Cf. , that they might never be distracted from Thy goodness (Wisd. 16:11); and see Ecclus. 40:1, 2. The reading has hardly any authority.*

36. The verse indicates that the Corinthians had asked him about the duty of a father with a daughter of age to marry. The question is what he ought to do, not what she ought to do: his wishes, not hers, are paramount. This is in accordance with the ideas of that age, and the Apostle does not condemn them.

There is no need to place a comma after : her being of full age is what suggested to the father (who may have been warned also by friends) that he is not behaving becomingly towards his child in not furthering her marriage. Apparently , like in v. 26, is used, not of a hesitating opinion but of a settled conviction; and verbally looks back to in v. 35; but perhaps only verbally, because the spheres are so very different. Past the flower of her age is perhaps too strong for (Vulg. superadulta): Luther is right; weil sie eben wohl mannbar ist, and to Corinth there was danger that a girl, who was old enough to marry and anxious to marry, might go disastrously astray if marriage was refused. In Ecclus. 42:9 the father is anxious . Plato (Rep. 460 E) speaks of as being 20 for a woman and 30 for a man. occurs here and 13:5 in N.T., and nowhere else in the Bible.

. That he had better let her marry, not simply propter voluntatem puellae (Primasius), but because of the possible consequences of refusing. Let him do what he will does not mean that it is a matter of indifference whether he allows the marriage or not, and that he can please himself; it means that he is free to do what his conviction () has led him to wish. It is wholly improbable that , and (v. 37) refer to the suitor, the prospective bridegroom. The Corinthians would not have asked about him. It is the fathers or guardians duty that is the question. Still more improbable is the conjecture that the Apostle is referring to a kind of spiritual betrothal between unmarried persons. It is supposed that Christian spinsters with ascetic tendencies, in order to avoid ordinary marriage, each placed themselves formally under the protection of a man, who was in some sense responsible for the woman. She might or might not share the same house, but she was pledged to share his spiritual life. And the meaning of v. 36 would then be that the man who has formed a connexion of this kind may, without sin, turn it into an ordinary marriage. In this way the plural is free from all difficulty. But, quite independently of the improbability that St. Paul would sanction so perilous an arrangement, there is the obstacle of in v. 38, which everywhere in N.T. (Mat 22:30, Mat 22:24:38; Mar 12:25; Luk 17:27, Luk 20:35) means give in marriage (in LXX it does not occur). In spite of this, some make it mean marry; while others accept the absurdity that the man who has formed a special union with a woman may give her in marriage to another man. The is decisive: the Apostle is speaking of a father or guardian disposing of an unmarried daughter or ward.

. The plural is elliptic, but quite intelligible; Let the daughter and her suitor marry. Cf. , 1Ti 2:15.

To avoid the awkwardness, D* F G, Arm., Aug. read , while d e f Vulg., Ambrst. have non peccat si nubat, he sinneth not if she marry.

37. . It is assumed that a father would originally be of the Apostles opinion, that , it is better for a daughter to remain single; and the case is now stated of a father who is able to abide by that conviction, because his daughters circumstances do not compel him to change it. There is in her condition no , no to determine the father to act against his general principle. In N.T., is peculiar to Paul (15:58; Col 1:23); in LXX it does not occur, but is frequent in Symm. Cf. 1Ti 3:15.

. He can do as he likes about his personal wishes (, 6:12, 10:23), cum virgo non adversaretur sed assentiretur huic paternae voluntati (Herv.). The repetition of respecting his will and heart, and the change to respecting his daughter, seem to mark the predominance of the father in the matter. Similarly, in v. 2 we have , and in v. 4 . With compare in v. 3, and with the emphatic preparing for what is to follow, compare 1Th 4:3.

. To keep her as she is, guard her in a state of singleness, not to keep her for himself. On see v. 38.

comes last in its clause with emphasis ( A B D E P), not immediately after (K L): F G, d e Aeth. Arm. omit . K L omit before . After , . . ( A B P) is to be preferred to .. (D E F G K L). before (D E F G K L) should be omitted ( A B P 17, e d).

38. . This probably means Both he who does and he who does not: they both act well. Or, It is equally true that A. acts well, and that B. will act better. By a dexterous turn, which perhaps is also humorous, the Apostle gives the preference to the one who does not give his daughter in marriage. The change from to is also effective: the one does well, the other will be found to do better, for experience will confirm his decision. This and may be said to sum up the results of the whole chapter.

( A B D E 17) rather than (K L P). ( A P) is perhaps preferable to . . (B D E, Vulg. virginem suam): K L, AV. omit the words. ( A D E K L P, Vulg.) rather than . (B); and ( A B 17, Copt.) rather than . (D E F G K L P, Vulg.). Copyists thought that both verbs must be in the same tense; some changed to , and others to , as in AV.

39. A few words are added about the remarriage of widows. As their case is covered by vv. 8 and 34 we may suppose that the Corinthians had asked about the matter. In Rom 7:1-6 the principle stated here is used again metaphorically to illustrate the transition from law to grace: appears in both passages. Romans was written soon after 1 Corinthians. There we have : for see on 11:30.*

. Only as a member of Christ, which implies that she marries a Christian. To marry a heathen, especially in Corinth, would make loyalty to Christ very difficult: cf. v. 12, 9:1, 2, 11:11, 15:58, 16:19. For the ellipse of the verb after see Lightfoot on Gal 2:10 and 5:13.

Rom 7:2 has influenced the text here. 3 D2 E F G L P ins. after , but * A B D* 17, Am. Copt. Aeth. Arm. omit. For , A, Orig. Bas. have .

40. . In the same sense as , Act 20:35. She will have more real happiness if she does not marry again. There is no inconsistency between this and 1Ti 5:14. The younger widows come under the rule given in v. 9.

. In siatu quo, as in 2Pe 3:4, . Here the word refers to the condition which she entered when her husband died. This confirms the interpretation of in v. 26. In both cases the person had better make no change.

. The is emphatic, and implies that there are other opinions.

. Non dubietatem significat (Primasius) any more than (v. 26). And I also think, not I think that I also (RV.). Other people may believe that their views are inspired, but the Apostle ventures also to believe that he is guided in his judgment by Gods Spirit. It seems to be clear from this that some of those who differed from him appealed to their spiritual illumination. See Goudge, p. 68; Stanley, pp. 117 f.; Dobschtz, p. 64.

On the authority of B 17, Aeth. and some other witnesses, WH. read in preference to ( A D E F G K L P, Latt. Copt.), placing in the margin. A few texts have no conjunction.

F G and some Latin texts (habeo or habeam) have for .

Alford remarks on ch. 7, In hardly any portion of the Epistles has the hand of correctors and interpolators of the text been busier than here. The absence of all ascetic tendency from the Apostles advice, on the point where asceticism was busiest and most mischievous, was too strong a testimony against it to be left in its original clearness.

Saepe apostoli in epistolis de conjugio agunt: unus Paulus, semel, nec sua sponte, sed interrogatus, coelibatum suadet, idque lenissime (Beng.). These words are an excellent summary of the teaching in this chapter as to the comparative value of marriage and celibacy: the preference given to celibacy is tentative and exceptional, to meet exceptional conditions. No condemnation of marriage, no exclusion of the married from the highest blessings of the Christian life, finds a place in the N.T. (Swete on Rev 14:4, which he says must be taken metaphorically, as the symbolical character of the Book suggests.) See also Goudge, pp. 63-65.

* On Nietzsches attack on St Paul, as a man of vicious life, see Weinel, St Paul. pp. 85-93.

(Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T.

B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS.

C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 -9:6 : 13:8 -14:40 .

17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. 211, 212.

* Orthodox Jews were opposed to celibacy, regarding marriage as a duty; but there were some who agreed with St Paul. Why should I marry? asked Rabbi ben Asa: I am in love with the law. Let others see to the prolongation of the race (Renan, p. 397). The second half of Psa 120:7 gives the common view.

A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum.

D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 -22 is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422).

E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant

F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429).

G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1Co 3:8-16, 1Co 6:7-14 (F).

P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 -17 : 12:23 -13:5 -: 14:23 . A good type of text in St Pauls Epistles.

K K (Ninth century). Codex S. Synod. xcviii. Lacks 1:1-6:13 : 8:7 -8:11 .

L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome.

* is very rare in LXX (Psa 65:10), and is nowhere used in this sense; but in class. Grk. it is frequent in the sense of being disengaged for, or devoted to, a pursuit or a person. We find a similar idea Exo 19:15; 1Sa 21:5; 2Sa 11:4 Cf. Tibullus 1:3:25. See also 1Pe 3:7, 1Pe 4:7. occurs nowhere else in N.T.

* By permission (AV.) is ambiguous; it might mean, I am permitted by God to say as much as this. It was translated venia in some Old Latin texts, and this rendering, understood (by Augustine) as meaning pardon, led to far-reaching error. It means By way of concession: he is telling people that they may marry, not that they must do so: ex concessione non ex imperio (Beza). There is similer uncertainty as to the scope of the in 11:17, and the in 9:3. In 1Ti 1:1, is used in a different sense: in obedience to the command.

* See Max Krenkel, Beitrage zur Aufhellung der Geschichte und der Briefe des Apostels Paulus, pp. 26-46, a careful examination of the question, War Paulus jemals verheiratet? Baring Gould thinks that St Paul may have married Lydia (Act 16:14, Act 16:40), and that it was she who supplied him with money (Act 24:26, Act 28:30). This is not probable.

Eph 6:16, it is used of the flaming darts of the evil one; Rev 1:15, Rev 3:18, of what has been refined by fire. It is frequent in the latter sense in LXX, and in 2 Macc., with added, of anger. Some understand it here as meaning unsatisfied affection rather than . In 9:25 we have again, but nowhere else in N.T. See Hos 7:4 and Cheynes note.

* The change from of the wife to of the husband is intelligible. The home is his: she can leave it, but he sends her away from it. In LXX, is frequent of separation in place. In papyri it is used of divorce; : so also . Polybius (32:12:6) has . See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 247. In v. 13, is used of the wife, perhaps in order to make an exact parallel with v. 12.

* As Evans says, He stands upon the sacred threshold of the Church: his surroundings are hallowed. United to a saintly consort, he is in daily contact with saintly conduct: holy association may become holy assimilation, and the sanctity which ever environs may at last penetrate. But the mans conversion is not a condition necessary to the sanctity of the subsisting conjugal union. Origen compares such a union to a mixture of wine and water.

* There is no good reason for suspecting with Baljon that vv. 17-22 are an interpolation, or with Clemen that they come from some other Pauline Epistle. Beza proposed to place them after v. 40. Equally needlessly, Holsten suspects that v. 14 is an interpolation.

* St Pauls prohibition must be understood in a wider sense. A Jew, when he becomes a Christian, is not ostentatiously to drop all Jewish customs and modes of life. The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T.

* Stanley has an interesting, but rather fanciful note, connecting this passage with the Father, Gal 5:6 with the Son, and Gal 6:15 with the Holy Spirit.

Manufacturers of idols who became Christians claimed this principle as justifying their continuing to earn a living in this way. Cant you starve? says Tertullian; fides famen non timet (De Idol. 5.12).

* Bachmann admits that the Apostles recommending people to disregard an opportunity of being freed from slavery zweifellos etwas uberraschendas hat.

In ordinary language, would mean that he had been the Lords slave and that the Lord had manumitted him. He had been in slavery and the Lord had freed him from it, and this justifies the expression. The Lord was his .

* In the time of St Paul, Lord was throughout the whole Eastern world a universally understood religious conception. The Apostles confession of his Master as our Lord Jesus Christ, with the complementary idea that Christians were dearly bought slaves, was at once intelligible in all the fulness of its meaning to every one in the Greek Orient (Deissmann, New Light on the N. T., p. 79). See Lietzmann, Greek Papyri. p. 4.

* The Vulgate has tanquam non utantur, which seems to imply different Greek: Beza, ut non abutentes, which is right, for abuti often means to use up. Misusing would be . In Philo (De Josepho 24.) we have .

Excepting Php 2:8, occurs nowhere else in N. T., and, excepting Isa 3:17, nowhere in LXX. The destruction of the material universe is not a Pauline idea.

* See the remarkable parallel in Epictetus (Dis. iii. 22; Longs translation, Bell, 1903, 2. p. 87): But in the present state of things, which is like that of an army placed in battle order, is it not fit that the philosopher should without any distraction () be employed only on the ministration () of God, not tied down to the common duties of mankind, nor entangled in the ordinary relations of life?

* Hermas seems to have vv. 39, 40, and 28 in his mind in Mand. IV. iv. 1.

Harnack disputes this (Mission and Expansion, 1. p. 81). Tertullian (Ad Uxorem, ii. 1, 2) implies tht marriages between Christians and heathen did take place. See Cyprian (Test. iii. 62); matrimonium cum gentilibus non jungendum.

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

Marriage Bonds

1Co 7:1-14

The Apostle first addresses the unmarried, 1Co 7:1, etc. He speaks elsewhere reverently of marriage, Eph 5:23. Forbidding to marry is in his judgment a symptom of apostasy, 1Ti 4:1-3. His recommendations here were evidently due to the special circumstances of that difficult and perilous time. The loftiest conception of marriage is the wedding of two souls, each of which, has found its affinity; the Apostle is treating here the only conception of marriage entertained by these recent converts from paganism. He deals with them on their own level, with the determination of ultimately leading them to view marriage from Christs standpoint. It is often well to fast from lawful things, that we may surrender ourselves more absolutely to the Spirit of God.

In addressing the married, 1Co 7:10, etc., Paul is not dealing with the formation of marriage ties; they are settled by 2Co 6:14. He is deciding what course shall be followed, when either a husband or a wife has become a Christian, the other remaining unchanged. He decides that the Christian should not separate, so long as the unbelieving partner is willing to continue their life together.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

The New Testament Teaching On Marriage And Divorce

1Co 7:1-17

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. (vv. 1-17)

This seventh chapter deals with a subject that has caused a great deal of confusion down through the centuries. The marriage relationship occupies a large place in the Word of God, both in the Old Testament and in the New. The teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and the direct ministry of the Holy Spirit after our Lords ascension puts this whole matter on a very high plane, so that marriage for a Christian becomes Gods own wonderful picture of the mystic union, as we often say in the marriage ceremony, that subsists between Christ and the church. We can quite understand that in the early church there were a great many irregularities to be corrected in regard to this entire subject. There was a certain laxity permitted in Israel under the law which our Lord Jesus Christ forbade in the dispensation of grace. Then again in the heathen world around conditions were such that it was probably a difficult thing to find persons whose attitude in regard to marriage was at all like that of the New Testament church. Therefore, there was of necessity very plain speaking.

In the first part of this chapter the apostle is evidently dealing with questions that have been propounded to him and says, Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. People have drawn from this that the apostle was an advocate of celibacy, and the Roman church is very fond of pointing to this verse as though it taught that the unmarried monk or priest or the unwedded nun is a holier person just because of their state and condition in regard to this matter than the Christian husband or wife, father or mother. The apostle does not say that; but he speaks of serving the Lord without distraction particularly in a time of persecution, and this passage does refer to such a time. Farther on he says, It is good for the present distress. He wrote in a day when to become a Christian, to be publicly baptized as confessing Christ, meant to put ones very life in jeopardy. Under such conditions it might really be best that a man should not be married at all. Yet he recognized certain inherited tendencies of human nature which might make such a condition a very dangerous one and might work against purity, against the highest type of morality, instead of working for greater holiness, and so says, Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. He stresses the mutual relationship of each to the other. The husband is to render unto the wife due benevolence. As the apostle Peter very beautifully puts it, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel (1Pe 3:7), and the wife on her part is to see that she reverences her husband. They are to remember that having entered into this relationship neither is any longer his or her own master, but they have agreed to subject themselves one to another, and there can be no happy Christian home unless that is recognized.

The wife, he tells us, hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. And so they are to be sure that they pay due regard to one anothers conjugal rights. There may be circumstances when they might draw apart from each other, they might separate the one from the other for a limited time, but let them be careful not to do so, Except it be with consent [by mutual agreement] for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. All down through the Christian dispensation there have been sects and strange teachers who have advocated the celibate condition even for persons already entered into the marriage relationship, and have sought to inculcate the idea that in order to serve the Lord better husbands and wives should live entirely apart one from the other. The apostle says that to attempt such a life as that is only to place yourself in a position of great temptationther again, very good, but let them be careful that they do not run off into some strange inconsistency if they attempt this.

I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. Some people have pointed to this verse and said, You see, the apostle himself does not always claim to be inspired. In this portion he declares that he is speaking only by permission and not commandment, and therefore he was not inspired of God. Oh, no, he is just as truly inspired to give this permission as he is a little farther on to give a direct command. But what may be permitted in one family might throw another family into hopeless confusion. Here is a family with a number of little children, and the wife gets a high notion of the demands of personal holiness and comes to her husband and says, My dear, I want to be altogether for God, and so I am going to request that I separate entirely from you for a time. I am going to some spiritual retreat. You get along with the children as best you can! It would throw the entire family into confusion. She would glorify the Lord better by looking after the children than by spending the time on her knees in some retreat, just as many a Christian today would glorify God far better looking after the growing children at home than being at a meeting every night.

Let us not forget that God established the home before He created the church, and when people are married they have a tremendous responsibility resting upon them. No one feels that more keenly than one who, like myself, is separated to the gospel of God. I do not know how often I have felt like crying out with the bride in the Canticles, They made me the keeper of the vineyard, but mine own vineyard have I not kept. It is one of the difficult things for a servant of Christ called to travel through the world with the gospel message to give the time he should give in training his children in the fear of God, but where people do not have such a calling they should be especially concerned about their responsibility in the home. I think God must have some special place in heaven for preachers wives. They have had so much more to contend with than the average woman. If the children go wrong, folks wag their heads and say, Queer kind of a mother. Probably the trouble was that the father was not able to cooperate with her more, and the children may have stepped to one side. And yet how God honors preachers wives. Somebody said that preachers children are always the worst. I cannot boast of my own, though I do thank God for saving them all. But you will find that some of the greatest names on the pages of history are preachers children. In 2 Chronicles where the kings of Israel and Judah are given, when you read of a man being especially willful or especially good, you read, His mothers name was so and so. Sad indeed when a child has an evil mother! Then you can scarcely expect much good from him.

The household, you see, might be thrown into hopeless confusion if husband and wife were to separate one from the other, but in other households such times of retirement may be arranged. And so the apostle does not mean that he is not inspired when he says, I speak this by permission, and not of commandment, but he does mean that the Spirit of God allowed him to give them this permission but not to command them. It is nowhere commanded that husband and wife should for any time separate from each other.

And then Paul says, I would that all men were even as I myself. For the gospels sake he chose to remain unmarried, and in circumstances such as many were passing through, the single state was to be preferred, other things being equal.

Having once entered into the marriage relationship he says in verse 10: Unto the married I command [now we have not merely permission but commandment], yet not I, but the Lord. What does he mean by that? Simply this, he was just repeating something that the Lord has already said unto the married. He was reminding them of what the Lord has already said in Mat 5:31-32: It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Those are the solemn words of the Lord Jesus. In the nineteenth chapter of the same gospel, he gives just one change which permits the innocent party in a divorce to marry again according to Scripture. There we read: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Mat 19:5-6). I have heard people try to get around that by subterfuge and say, I dont believe the Lord joined us together; I think the Devil did it; and therefore, I think we are free to get a divorce and marry somebody else.

God pronounced the words in the garden of Eden, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (Gen 2:24). It is He who joins people together in the marriage relationship, and once joined in that relationship they should never break it.

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (Mat 19:7). In the law of Moses this was permitted. In a hard, rough age when men were often very uncouth and cruel, God commanded that instead of holding a wife who was disliked and hated as a kind of slave or chattel, she should be given a writing of divorce and permitted to go home to her people. But now under the dispensation of grace when men are born again and transformed by the Spirit of God, no such thing is tolerated. Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife [now observe], except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery (vv. 8-9). Notice, there is a sin which dissolves the marriage relationship and if one partner is guilty of that sin, he may be put away and the other party is free, and if married again, the new marriage is not called adultery. There are those who are so legal that they refuse to take note of that except, but the Son of God has put it there in order that the innocent party may not have the onus of immorality on him or her. There you have the New Testament standard given by the Lord Himself.

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband. But he immediately adds, But and if she depart. What is implied there? There may be circumstances where no self-respecting woman could continue in the marriage relationship with some man, there may be circumstances where a man is so absolutely brutal or so vile and filthy and perverted in his whole character, that no decent, good woman could live with him, and in that case it is evident from this that she is free to leave him but not to be divorced and remarried unless she has definite New Testament ground for it. If she depart, let her remain unmarried. Circumstances may make it necessary for her to leave, but if so, let her remain unmarried. And let not the husband put away his wife. If she is obliged thus to leave a brutal man, she can at least continue to remember him before God in prayer and it may be that through her prayers the day will come when he will be broken down by divine grace and saved. If that day comes, and he beseeches her now to return to him, she can go back to find him a new man, and make a home for him once more, but if she has already entered into another relationship, think of the pitiable condition she would be in.

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. Is he not speaking by inspiration? Keep in mind the whole argument. Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord. The Lord has already spoken in this matter. Then he says, To the rest speak I, not the Lord. The Lord has not already spoken, but Paul speaks now by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and he is laying down a divine principle in regard to a matter on which the Lord had not already legislated. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. This did not come up in the Lords time on earth for He came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Now Paul is speaking to Gentiles, and it was a common thing for one member of the family to be converted and the others not. Think of a case where a man in Corinth has been saved but his wife is a devotee of the heathen cults and is indignant that he no longer burns incense to these idols, and yet she is willing to live with him. Let him not put her away. He is not to assume self-righteous ground and say, I am a Christian and cannot acknowledge you as my wife any longer.

In Israel if a Jew were married to a pagan, he had to put her away, she was unclean in the sight of God. But under grace if a pagan wife is pleased to dwell with her Christian husband, let him show her all due kindness and consideration and seek to be a blessing to her. And if it is the case of a woman who has been converted, we read, And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. If you turn to the last chapter of Ezra, you will find that in Israel many Jews had entered into alliances with women from among the heathen, and there were many children speaking half in the language of Ashdod and the other half in the language of Israel. When the husband is a Christian and the wife is not, the children will generally speak half in the language of heaven and half in the language of earth. It is a difficult thing to bring them up for God in a mixed home like that. He said, You will have to put all these wives and children away as unclean. But notice the difference in grace. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. He may be hard, he may be wicked, he may hate the very name of Jesus, but he has been brought outwardly into a new relationship with God through the conversion of his wife. There is now somebody in that home to pray, somebody who loves the Word of God, somebody to live the Christian life, and let the others see what it means to be regenerated. I may be addressing wives who are breaking their hearts over unsaved husbands. Will you not take comfort from this, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife? Or I may be addressing husbands who are grieved because the wives that they love are still out of Christ. You too may be comforted, for the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Keep on praying, keep on bearing them up before God, believing that if He has saved you out of an unconverted family, it is because He wants the whole household for Himself. That is what is indicated when the pagan jailer cried, What must I do to be saved? and the answer came ringing and clear, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house (Act 16:31). In other words, God is saying, Jailer, I not only want you, I not only want to cleanse your heart, but I want to make your household a Christian one, a testimony to My grace right there in Philippi, and so it came to pass. So keep on praying. And your children are sanctified because they have a father or a mother, as the case may be, to take them to God in prayer and to teach them the Word of God, and you can count on Him to bless that ministry to them by bringing them eventually to Christ.

But, next, we may suppose a case where the unsaved one will not remain. Very well, If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. You cannot do anything about it. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But then, you see, you live your own life in widowhood to the glory of the Lord Jesus. Do not look around for another mate. If the unbelieving depart, then you devote yourself to Christ and His glory and keep on praying for the wandering one, for God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Even though he is gone, even though he has left the home, keep on praying for him, for how do you know when God may intervene and bring him back penitent and brokenhearted to try to make up for the willfulness of the past by living a kindly devoted life with you. Farther on we read, How knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? She has gone because you love Jesus and she does not. Do not be too hard in your thoughts, pray and ask yourself, Was there something in me that should have been different that turned her away? If I had a little more grace and Christlikeness, might she have remained? Bear her up before God, and if the day comes that she is ready to return, receive her as God receives His erring ones when they come back to Him.

But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. These are not just matters with which we may play fast and loose. If you are a Christian and a member of a Christian church, these are divine requirements concerning the marriage relationship ordained for all the churches.

Why is God so insistent about this? Because from the beginning it was His thought that the marriage relationship should set forth the union between Christ and His redeemed, and when people are married they take each other for life. Many of you remember when you stood before the minister and he said, Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife? Will you love, honor, and cherish her so long as you both shall live? and you said, I will. Have you lived up to it? And you remember when he said to the woman, Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband? Will you love, honor, and obey him so long as you both shall live? and you answered, I will. Does your conscience tell you that you have been true to that vow? You entered into a relationship that day that pictures the relationship between the soul and the Savior. Away back in the Old Testament when Rebecca had become the affianced wife of Isaac, they thought she should not leave her home immediately and so decided to call her and see what she had to say about it. They put the question, Wilt thou go with this man? and without a moments hesitation she answered, I will go, and she went across the desert to be united to Isaac.

Unsaved one, my blessed Lord has sent me to you with a message of His love and kindness. He wants you to enter into an eternal union with Himself. Wilt thou go with this Man, the Man Christ Jesus?

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

1Co 7:7

The Severe and Social Virtues (for St. Philip and St. James’s Day).

I. St. James, surnamed the Just, was remarkable for the severities of a mortified life, and a meek and austere sanctity, so that the violent death to which he was put by the Jews was looked upon even by their own countrymen as bringing down the Divine judgment on their nation. His Epistle is best understood when we bear this in mind. Hence its memorable precepts of the blessedness of patience, of wisdom sought from above, of faith and prayer; hence its sententious short proverbs of heavenly-minded wisdom, and the sayings of a man of God, interspersed with that sweetness which is ever found with self-sacrificing devotion. St. Philip, on the other hand, seems rather an example of social and brotherly charities, easy of access to all, seeking and sought for in Christian friendship; as when he goes to Nathanael, with St. Andrew, and when the Greeks, who would see Jesus at the last Passover, come to him. Great as is the blessing of such a temper both to itself and to others, yet its deficiency is apt to be in this, that it less realises those spiritual mysteries of God which are disclosed to the heart in secrecy and solitude of spirit. Hence that complaint in our Lord’s words in the Gospel for today, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip?”

II. Nevertheless it must be observed, that Christian grace so harmonises and fills the character, that such personal diversities are not to be pressed too far. St. James the Less was greatly beloved of all Christians for his singular meekness; and no doubt St. Philip, in the practices of mortification, came to understand the secrets of Divine wisdom; yet, nevertheless, under the same spirit some such diversities and differences of character do remain; and in the words of the text, “Every one hath his proper gift of God; one after this manner, and another after that.”

I. Williams, The Epistles and Gospels, vol. ii., p. 373.

References: 1Co 7:10.-R. S. Candlish, Scripture Characters and Miscellanies, p. 156. 1Co 7:10-24.-F. W. Robertson, Lectures on Corinthians, p. 103. 1Co 7:14.-Expositor, 1st series, vol. x., p. 321. 1Co 7:16.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ix., p. 173. 1Co 7:17.-J. Irons, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 53. 1Co 7:18-24.-F. W. Robertson, Sermons, 3rd series, p. 156.

1Co 7:19

(with Gal 5:6; Gal 6:15)

Forms versus Character..

Note:-

I. The emphatic proclamation of the nullity of outward rites.

II. Look at the threefold variety of the designation of the essentials. (1) The keeping of the commandments of God is everything (1Co 7:19). (2) “A new creature” (Gal 6:15). The one thing needful is keeping the commandments of God, and the only way by which we can keep the commandments of God, is that we should be formed again into the likeness of Him, of whom alone it is true that He always did the things that pleased God. (3) “Faith which worketh by love” (Gal 5:6). If we are to be made over again, we must have faith in Jesus Christ. We have got to the root now, so far as we are concerned. We must keep the commandments of God; if we are to keep the commandments we must be made over again, and if our hearts ask how can we receive that new creating power into our lives, the answer is, by “faith which worketh by love.”

A. Maclaren, Christ in the Heart, p. 229.

References: 1Co 7:19-24.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., p. 210. 1Co 7:22.-Parker, Hidden Springs, p. 366.

1Co 7:23

I. St. Paul’s words, “Be not ye the slaves of men,” have an important bearing upon the exercise of the understanding. “Bought with a price” by one who claims, not one part, but the whole of you, not more the conduct than the will, not more the energies than the affections, not more the soul than the reason, it cannot be safe, it cannot be right, it cannot be honest to resign into another’s keeping the exercise of the intellect upon matters of evidence or matters of doctrine; to make one man’s view, or one man’s thought, or one man’s faith, serve for ten or twenty or a hundred others; to attach yourself to a school, or a party, or a system, in such sense that you yourself shall be absolved from the task of proving all things as a necessary preliminary to the other duty of holding fast that which not others but you yourself have found to be good.

II. That which is true of the understanding is true also of the conscience. There is a sanctuary within each one of us into which no minister and no brother can enter without presumption and without profanation. It is the conscience of the man in the sight of God-it is that spirit of the man which no one knoweth but the man-it is the secret shrine of motive and will, of memory and responsibility, and of the life’s life. It may be instructed, it may be informed, it may be influenced, it may be moved; but in every aspect save one it is free-no dictation and no direction can intrude within its precincts, for One is its Master, even Christ, and all else, even the ministers of Jesus Christ, are here not lords, but brethren. To establish over the individual conscience a right of inspection, or a right of discipline-to lay down rules for its habitual or periodical self-disclosure-to say without this there is no safeguard for the life, and no security for the death,-this is to deny or to obscure the great characteristic of the gospel; this is to speak a word against the all-sufficiency of the Holy Ghost as the Light and the Guide, the Remembrancer and the Comforter, of Christ’s people.

III. At common times, under usual circumstances, the Church’s directory is the pulpit, and the Church’s confessional the congregation. There, where the bow is drawn of necessity at a venture, the arrow flies to its mark the more felt because unseen. There, where the prayer of the preacher and the prayer of the hearer have jointly invoked the guidance which is omniscient wisdom, the voice behind will be heard saying again and again in each emergency of the spiritual being, “This is the way, walk ye in it.” Independence of all save God is the prerogative of the conscience. Not in pride, but in deep self-knowledge of the difficulty of telling into any human ear the very thing itself-that is, knowledge of the perils of spiritual intimacy, alike on the one side and on the other-knowledge of the facility with which an indolent will may pass from seeking help to trusting in man-knowledge, finally, of the infinite strength which comes into us by being quite absolutely alone with God in our confidences and in our struggles-we shall feel, the weakest of us with the strongest, that on the whole, and with a view to the eternal future, we are best as we are, without confessor and without director save the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit, one God blessed for ever-we shall come back to the text, and think that it has a voice for us in this thing, “Ye were bought, each and all, with a price; be not ye servants of men.”

C. J. Vaughan, Oxford and Cambridge Journal, Oct. 18th, 1877

I. Look first at the assertion, “Ye are bought with a price.” This is one of the ways in which, in Scripture, the great effect of Christ’s death in the room of sinners is described. In the words of the text the Apostle seems to say, “Ye are not your own,” you belong, by right of His purchase, to Christ: your intellects are His to be instructed by Him; your consciences are His to be regulated by Him; your lives are His to be ruled by Him; absolutely and entirely you are His. Now at first sight that looks like a consignment of us to the most abject slavery; for no human oppression can thoroughly enchain the spirit. But here it must be remembered that what on the Lord’s side is a purchase, is on the believer’s side a voluntary consecration, and that the Master is not a man, but the God-man, with whom oppression is impossible. Thus it comes about, that the Divine ownership of us by Jesus is the charter of our deliverance from our fellow-men, and the paradox that the service of Christ is perfect freedom is made good.

II. Paul does not mean to say here that all manner of service of men is inconsistent with our ownership by Christ; we have only to read his exhortations to servants in his various Epistles to be convinced of that. What he desires to allege is that Christ’s property in us emancipates us from abject slavery to men in every form which is inconsistent with that property. No man can deprive us of that which already belongs to Christ; and it is through the assertion of that principle by Christians that all the victories of religious freedom have been won in the world. The most absolute devotion to Christ is the most complete declaration of individual independence, even as the defiant rejection of Christ on this score of liberty issues in the most degrading form of slavery. These things may seem to be contradictory, but they are true, and they have often been demonstrated to be so in the history alike of individuals and of the race. Therefore choose to be ransomed by Christ that you may be delivered from servitude to men.

W. M. Taylor, Contrary Winds, p. 65.

References: 1Co 7:23.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx., No. 1163; W. E. Collen, Christian World Pulpit, vol. viii., p. 20; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 118; H. Stowell Brown, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 208.

1Co 7:24

The Christian Life.

I. We are led from the words before us to the thought that our chief effort in life ought to be for union with God. “Abide with God,” which, being put into other words, means, I think, mainly two things-constant communion, the occupation of all our nature with Him, and consequently the recognition of His will in all circumstances. Let us believe that every single soul has a place in the heart, and is taken into account in the purposes of Him who moves the tempest and makes His sun to shine on the unthankful and on the good. Let us try to anchor and rest our own souls fast and firm in God all the day long, that, grasping His hand, we may look out upon all the confused dance of fleeting circumstances and say, “Thy will is done in earth,” if not yet “as it is done in heaven,” still done in the issues and events of all things, and done with my cheerful obedience and thankful acceptance of its commands and allotments in my own life.

II. The second idea which comes out of these words is this: Such union with God will lead to contented continuance in our place, whatever it be. Calmness and central peace are ours, a true appreciation of all outward good and a charm against the bitterest sting of outward evils are ours, a patient continuance in the place where He has set us is ours, when by fellowship with Him we have learned to look upon our work as primarily doing His will, and upon all our possessions and conditions primarily as means for making us like Himself.

III. Such contented continuance in our place is the dictate of the truest wisdom. (1) After all, though you may change about as much as you like, there is a pretty substantial equipoise and identity in the amount of pain and pleasure in all external conditions. What is the use of such eager desires to change our condition, when every condition has disadvantages attending its advantages, as certainly as a shadow? (2) While the portion of external pain and pleasure summed up comes pretty much to the same in everybody’s life, any condition may yield the fruit of devout fellowship with God. (3) Our text is a revolutionary one. But surely Christ is more than mammon, and a spirit nourished by calm desires and holy thoughts into growing virtues and increasing Christ-likeness is better than circumstances ordered to our will, in the whirl of which we have lost our God!

A. Maclaren, Sermons in Manchester, 3rd series, p. 1.

References: 1Co 7:24.-M. Nicholson, Redeeming the Time, p. 91; A. K. H. B., Graver Thoughts of a Country Parson, 3rd series, p. 293.

1Co 7:29

I. St. Paul tells us that the time is short. In one sense-not an unimportant one-time is very long. The great God who is working out His plan in the universe has no stint of time. What we see is but a point in an infinite line, of which we can see neither beginning nor end. It is thoughts like these which free us from besetting impatience, that strengthen faith. We may be in a hurry and restless, but God is in no hurry; the evolution of His purpose is certain, though to us it may seem slow. It is like the movement of the shadow on the sundial. But it is quite possible to dwell too much on this aspect of Him, and to let it paralyse our action and make us fatalists. And it is therefore the more necessary to think of St. Paul’s view-that time is short; to learn how to be earnest without being impatient, to know that our time is short, and that we have much to do, and yet to be willing when we have done our best to leave the result in God’s hands.

II. The time is very short for the work we have to do. There is: (1) the work of self-discipline, the discipline of the mind; (2) the opening of the mind in new directions; (3) the discipline of the flesh; (4) work for others and for God. God shows us His work to do in the world and bids us help, but our help must be genuinely our own; if we will not do our work, then it remains undone-undone for ever. Here lies the infinite pathos of wasted time; it is irrecoverably gone. If we do not do what we have to do, not we ourselves, nor any one else, not God Himself, can do the work. It is left undone. Do you remember a passage of George Eliot which ends “God cannot do Antonio Stradivari’s work without Antonio”? Some two or three centuries ago, in a town in North Italy, lived Antonio Stradivari, a maker of violins. They are now world-famous and almost priceless. Some one once sneeringly told him that if God wanted violins He could certainly make them for Himself, and Antonio said, No, that this was Antonio Stradivari’s work; not even God could do it without Antonio. This saying is daring, but true-true for him, and true for you and me. You and I have our work to do, our work for God and for one another, and God cannot do our work for us. We must do it ourselves, and our time is short

J. M. Wilson, Sermons in Clifton College Chapel, p. 79.

Suppose a man with more or less struggle, with what grace he can, has accepted the shortness of life as a conviction. What effect will that conviction have upon his life? What effect ought it to have? Evidently it ought to go deeper than his spirits. It ought to do something more than make him glad or sorry.

I. First of all, must it not make a man try to sift the things that offer themselves to him, and then to find out what his things are? The indiscriminateness of most men’s lives impresses us more and more. Many men’s souls are like omnibuses, stopping to take up every interest or taste that holds up its finger and beckons them from the side walk. Conscientiousness, self-knowledge, independence, and the toleration of other men’s freedom which always goes with the most serious and deep assertion of our own freedom, are closely connected with the sense that life is short.

II. The sense of the shortness of life brings a power of freedom in dealing with the things which we do take to be our own. He who knows he is in the world for a very little while, who knows it and feels it, is not like a man who is to live here for ever. He strikes for the centre of living. He cares for the principles and not for the forms of life. He is like a climber on a rocky pathway, who sets his foot upon each projecting point of stone, but who treads on each, not for its own sake, but for the. sake of the one above it.

III. In the shortness of life the great emotions and experiences by which the human character is ruled and shaped assume their largest power and act with their most ennobling influence.

IV. All men who have believed that there was another life have held in some way that this life was critical, and man is made so that some sense of criticalness is necessary to the most vigorous and best life always.

V. When your time of intercourse is short with any man, your relations with that man grow true and deep. Cannot the men and women whom we live with now be sacred to us by the knowledge of what wonderful mysterious ground it is that we are walking on together, here in this narrow human life, close on the borders of eternity?

Phillips Brooks, Sermons, p. 313.

References: 1Co 7:29.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vii., p. 338; J. S. Howson, Penny Pulpit, No. 3961.

1Co 7:29-31

I. Let us contrast the world’s treatment of sorrow with that of Christ. Here we use the word world in the widest sense-the world of which the Apostle John speaks-as including all that is not under the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which has no law but its own interest, or passion or caprice, no aims beyond those which begin and end in the present life, no understanding or care for things which are unseen but eternal. What has it to say to the crushed spirit in its hours of desolation? The contact with deep sorrow awakens real sympathy even in men of the world. From heaven surely come the instincts which teach us to take thought for those who are ever represented as being specially the objects of the Divine compassion-the widow and the fatherless, the orphaned and the lonely. The world, at least as we know it in Christian lands, extends to them its pity, is willing to minister to their material needs, recognises an obligation on society to care for these its helpless members. But beyond this the world does not and cannot go. It has no medicine which it can minister to a heart diseased. Troubles must come, but they are so painful, they interfere so sadly with the ordinary course of life, interrupting its duties and engagements, throwing their dark shadow over scenes of gladness and rejoicing, disturbing the current of thought by introducing into it elements which it is desirable to exclude, that the less men dwell upon them, and the sooner they can dismiss them, the better. The world would fain have the mourner weep as those who wept not, for the less they see and hear of his tears the better; but they say nothing as to how this self-conquest is to be effected. The strain which the world adopts is repeated, though in an entirely different strain and with quite other accompaniments by the gospel. It blesses the mourners, but it does not mean them to go on mourning for ever, and give up struggle and work, in order that they may have leisure to mourn, but it comforts them. It says, “Weep, as though ye wept not”-that is, it inculcates sobriety even in our sorrow, forbids the extravagant lamentation which would suggest that we had lost everything, inculcates not only self-restraint, but the exercise of the simple trust and heavenly wisdom by which our sorrow may be turned into joy. But in giving the exhortation it sets in action the influences which may help the soul to obey it.

II. Note the considerations which may enable sorrowing hearts to accept this view of the gospel, and to obey this exhortation. “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,” is a maxim which men might well accept, if there be not the hope which Christianity awakens in the heart. The eternal life and the hope which glows with its brightness, the everliving and unchanging Christ, the infallible words of His love-these are the portion in the possession of which the heart finds a consolation, and even a fulness of joy with which nothing can interfere. Every other fountain of comfort may be dried up, but this is ever fresh and abundant in its flow. Every other friend may fail, but here is One who remains the same yesterday, today, and for ever. All other joys may fade and die, but here are pleasures in which is the bloom and beauty of eternal youth.

J. Guinness Rogers, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 65.

The Waiting of the Visible Church.

Most men are just what they are in this life, and never rise above it or look out beyond it. No purpose of their heart is controlled and checked by the thought of the day of Christ. Who dares to tell us when that day shall not be? Uncertainty is the very condition of waiting and the spur of expectation. All we know is that Christ has not told us when He will come; but He has said, “Be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.” Let us then draw some rules by which to bring this truth to bear on our own conduct.

I. First, let us learn not to go out of our lot and character in life, but to live above it. What and where we are is God’s appointment. We have a work to do for Him, and it is just that work which lies before us in our daily life. To affect contempt for all natural states and actions of life, with the plea that we live for God, is mere affectation and contempt of God’s own ordinance; to live without habitual thought of God and of the day of Christ’s appearing, with the plea that we are controlled by the outward accidents of life, is mere self-deceit and abandonment of God Himself.

II. To check these two extremes, let us strive to live as we would desire to be found by Him at His coming. Who is there that would not dread to be found in that day with a buried talent and an unlit lamp, with a sleepy conscience and a double mind, with a shallow repentance or a half converted heart? By the discipline of self is the Christian man so prepared that the day of Christ can neither come too late nor too soon for him.

III. Surely, then, we have need to lose no time, for “the time is short.” To a man that looks for Christ’s coming, how utterly worthless are all things that can perish! how awful is that which is alone imperishable! Therefore let us make sure our standing in God’s sight, and all things shall fall into their place; all parts of a Christian’s life are in harmony-time with eternity, his own soul with God.

H. E. Manning, Sermons, vol. i., p. 349.

Only a Little While.

Nowhere does St. Paul or any other inspired writer use the fact of the shortness of life to encourage a sense of indifference to life’s duties. The teaching of Christ and of His apostles is clear and sharp, that life, however short, is a time of work, of duty, of ministry. If the world is not to be abused, it is none the less to be used. Short as the time is, it is long enough for much weeping and rejoicing; and because it is short, we are not to cultivate indifference to the joy and sorrow of our brethren, but rather to rejoice with them that rejoice and weep with them that weep. Note the details of the Apostle’s application of the text.

I. If our earthly homes crowd out the attractions of our heavenly home, if we use them to foster our worldliness, our pride and vanity and self-indulgence, we are misusing them, and we need the Apostle’s caution. His injunction is met when the home is treated as a means to holy and useful living here, and as a preparation for a better home hereafter.

II. Note the bearing of this fact on the joy and sorrow of this world-“the time is short.” There are people who have gone on brooding over the misery and inequality and cruelty of this life until they are literally filled with cursing. The world will not take them at their own value, therefore they hate the world. This is really the essence of this part of our text, They that weep; they that feel keenly the world’s cruelty and sorrow-as if they wept not-not acting as though all of life consisted in the world’s being just and kindly to them, as if to live were only not to weep, but on the contrary feeling that it is far more important to be right than to be thought right; far more important to be sweet and loving and tolerant, and cheerfully busy about God’s work, than that the world should give them their due. And so of our joys. Not that we are to pass this life in gloom and sullenness because it is short and another life is coming. But if there is grander, richer, more enduring joy in the life beyond this, it is not the part of wisdom to be too much absorbed in earthly joy. Does it not become us to hold this world lightly in view of these two truths-so little time left and eternity approaching?

M. R. Vincent, God and Bread, p. 363.

References: 1Co 7:29-31.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. viii., No. 481; Homilist, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 42; F. W. Robertson, Sermons, 3rd series, p. 169; Ibid., Lectures on Corinthians, p. 114. 1Co 7:29-32.-C. Short, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 344.

1Co 7:31

Note:-

I. The reason why we should not abuse this world: “For the fashion of this world passeth away.” Literally, the scene changes. The surface of the world is always shifting. The moral instability of the earth, in the history of its inhabitants, is like the physical instability of the water. That man is in a pitiable plight whose soul cleaves to the fashion of this world; for it is continually moving, and every movement rends him. The redeemed of the Lord, even in the present world, obtain a firmer footing and enjoy a brighter hope. If your heart be in heaven, and the weight of your hope habitually leaning there, the world cannot hurt you although it should slip from beneath your feet.

II. The abuse of this world which the text forbids. The “world” which should be used and not abused is this earth with all that the Creator has spread around it or stored within it for the benefit of man. When the gifts are turned aside from their wise and kind intent the Giver takes it ill. To consume more than we need or use, whether it be done by rich or poor, is to abuse the world which God has kindly framed and fitted for the use of men. In actual experience the abuse of the world runs down into the minutest transactions of individual life.

III. The use of this world which the text permits and enjoins. Christians both may and must use the world. (1) They may use it. Practical religion does not consist in denying ourselves the use of temporal good, or in tasting it with terror. Every creature of God is good, and should be received, not rejected. When we become new creatures in Christ we are not thereby debarred from the fulness of the earth and sea; then we possess them by a better title, and therefore enjoy them more. (2) They must use it. Do not permit the riches, for example, to lie so long still that they shall rust. The rust will hurt your flesh at the time, and witness against you in the judgment. Whatever God has given you of personal qualification, or social position, or material means, take the use of it yourself, and let your neighbour participate in the benefit.

W. Arnot, Roots and Fruits, p. 102.

The Use and Abuse of the World.

I. The use of the world. There is something very significant in the phrase “they that use the world.” On the lips of the Apostle Paul it implies that the world may be religiously employed; that we may properly avail ourselves of its advantages, and lay it under tribute for worthy ends. (1) The first thought suggested by the phrase “using the world” is this: we ourselves are more and greater than the world, as the workman is more and greater than his tools. Here is one principle to guide you in the use of the world-Be its master, not its slave; use it, be not used by it. (2) The true value of the world lies in the ends we make it serve. What should we think of a workman who used his tools simply for the sake of using them, or who turned out articles not worth the cost of the materials and the labour? He is a waster and not a user of the world who simply lives in it, leaving no achievements behind him. The world is for more than self-discipline. He only uses the world aright who accomplishes in it and by it something worth achieving. (3) The world is God’s. The Father who has placed us here for our own education, and for the exercise of a blessed human fellowship, comes in again and again to see what progress we are making; and the ability to recognise His presence and rejoice in it is a certain test as to the use we are making of His world.

II. The peril of abusing the world. The world has this danger just because of all that is valuable in it; its power to stir the deepest passion, to awaken high impulses, to lay its hand on large purposes, and attract strong and eager thought. A worthless world would only have dangers to the base; we are most in peril when worthy possibilites are within our reach. Since the master-passion of life is sure to become its solitary passion, see that yours is the passion for God. So will you use the world as not abusing it. And all things will be yours; in the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all will be yours, since ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

A. Mackennal, The Life of Christian Consecration, p. 115.

References: 1Co 7:31.-T. Binney, Christian World Pulpit, vol. v., p. 129; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 94; G. E. L. Cotton, Sermons and Addresses in Marlborough College, p. 438; T. De Witt Talmage, Old Wells dug Out, p. 169; Church of England Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 341; J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 9th series, p. 199; S. Martin, Sermons, p. 98; J. Irons, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 209.

1Co 7:32

I. If you look at the context of this passage, you will perceive that St. Paul’s words refer to a particular case, or take their rise from circumstances peculiar to the times. The times were those of persecution, when men who avouched the Christian faith exposed themselves to the loss of substance and of life. It was undesirable, in times such as these, that men should add to the causes of disquietude and anxiety; and therefore the Apostle advised their not contracting marriages, inasmuch as single men were less encumbered, and more at liberty to devote themselves without let or hindrance to the service of God. It is obvious that what the Apostle designates by carefulness is not prudent attention, but anxious care.

II. It is not so much the actual trial of today as the anticipated trial of tomorrow which generates that carefulness from which Christians should be free. Consider the expression “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof,” for it helps to show you, according to the whole drift of our discourse, where there ought to be carefulness and where there ought not. There is in some Christians a fear that exemption from trial proves deficiency in godliness. Such careful Christians should be told that “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” If they suffer not much evil, they may be sure, on the testimony of Christ, that they have enough. It is future good, and not future evil, on which we should have our hearts fixed-heaven with its magnificent abundance of good. Let the image of this crowd your tomorrow, and tomorrow cannot occupy too much of today.

H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 2201.

References: 1Co 7:32.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxviii., No. 1692. 1Cor 7-Expositor, 1st series, vol. i., p. 237. 1Co 8:1.-J. Irons, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 89; W. C. Magee, Three Hundred Outlines, p. 144; J. R. Gardner, Christian World Pulpit, vol. v., p. 393.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

4. Concerning the Relationship of Man and Woman

CHAPTER 7

1. The Single and the Married Life. (1Co 7:1-9).

2. Separation and Divorce. (1Co 7:10-16).

3. Abiding in the Different Callings. (1Co 7:17-24).

4. The Unmarried and Married in Contrast. (1Co 7:25-40).

It is evident from the first verse that the Corinthians had inquired of the Apostle about marriage and the relationship of man and woman. It was an important question in a city of the character of Corinth, so full of immorality. This chapter answers their question and gives instructions concerning the unmarried and those who are joined together in marriage. It is good for man not to touch a woman has been used as sanctioning celibacy and discrediting the marriage union. Such is not the case. The unmarried state has for the Christian, who is fully devoted to the Lord, certain spiritual advantages. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord ((1Co 7:32). Compare this also with the words of our Lord in Mat 19:4-12. The Apostle Paul was unmarried ((1Co 7:8) and denied himself the lawful privilege of having a wife (9:5) to be free in all things to serve the Lord. But there were great dangers, especially in heathen Corinth, where fornication was religiously sanctioned. Therefore the Apostle enjoins them that every man should have his own wife and every woman have her own husband. And in this relationship, fully approved by the Lord both must be true to its natural claims. As to the body, the husband belongs to the wife and the wife to the husband. They are not to defraud each other. However, by mutual consent they may be apart for a season to give themselves unto prayer. And this he wrote not as a command, but as a permission. The Apostle gives his thoughts and judgment as a spiritual man, his mind animated and guided by the Spirit, and contrasts it with inspiration and what the Lord said.

Then the question of separation and divorce is taken up. The indissolubleness of the marriage tie had been declared by the Lord and is here confirmed. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Mat 19:6; Mat 19:9). And so the Apostle writes that which is a command not coming from himself but from the Lord, that if a separation takes place between husband and wife, she is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled. The husband is not to put away his wife. How little heed is paid to all this among professing Christians in our days. The increase of unscriptural divorces is appalling.

Next the case of mixed marriages is considered. Most likely many such cases were in existence in Corinth. According to the law a man who had married a woman of the Gentiles (and was consequently profane or unclean) defiled himself, and was compelled to send her away; and their children had no right to Jewish privileges; they were rejected as unclean. (See Ezr 10:3). But under grace it was quite the contrary. The converted husband sanctified the wife, and vice versa, and their children were reckoned clean before God; they had part in the ecclesiastical rights of their parent. This is the sense of the word holy, in connection with the question of order and of outward relationship towards God, which was suggested by the obligation under the law to send away wife and children in a similar case. Thus the believer was not to send away his wife, nor to forsake an unbelieving husband. If the unbeliever forsook the believer definitively, the latter (man or woman) was free let him depart. The brother was no longer bound to consider the one who had forsaken him as his wife, nor the sister the man who had forsaken her as her husband. But they were called to peace, and not to seek this separation; for how did the believer know if he should not be the means of the unbelievers conversion? For we are under grace. (Synopsis of the Bible J.N.D.)

Of course the unbelieving husband by being united to a believing wife was not actually sanctified. This requires faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But the unbelieving husband of a Corinthian household, whose wife was a believer, was no longer in the darkness of heathendom; he was surrounded by the light of Christianity and had come through being linked with a believer under its blessed influence. And so the offspring of such a union. Grace sought both the unbelieving husband and the children. But mixed marriages are never to be encouraged. 2Co 6:14 forbids them.

(1Co 7:17-24 are parenthetical. And every man is to abide in the calling wherein he is called. Each is to abide with God ((1Co 7:24) in his own particular calling and thus glorify God in it. A believer is to be above all earthly circumstances. Yielding obedience to God is the one great thing. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

The final paragraph of this chapter ((1Co 7:25-40) gives the contrasts between those who marry and those who do not. Let us heed these blessed exhortations of such importance to Gods people. I say, brethren the time is short. If that was true then, how much more so is it in the significant days in which our lot is cast. With the ever increasing signs of the ending of the age and the coming of the Lord about us, we know that the time is short. In view of this fact those who have wives are to be as though they had none; they who weep, who pass through suffering, as though they wept not; they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use the world as not abusing it, for the fashion of this world passeth away. We are to be without carefulness and distraction, so that we can serve the Lord. Much here is the advice of the Apostle concerning yielding to nature, which is perfectly lawful, or not yielding to it as to marriage. It is not the commandment of the Lord. Nevertheless we must remember that if he gives his apostolic advice, it is inspired advice, the advice of the Holy Spirit.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

and in your

Some authorities end verse with “body.”

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

good: 1Co 7:8, 1Co 7:26, 1Co 7:27, 1Co 7:37, 1Co 7:38, Mat 19:10, Mat 19:11

touch: Gen 20:6, Rth 2:9, Pro 6:29

Reciprocal: Gen 3:3 – touch Exo 21:10 – her food 1Co 7:40 – she

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

FROM THE FIRST verse of chapter 7 we infer that Paul sat down to write this epistle in reply to a letter of enquiry, previously received from the

Corinthians. Only, when he did so there were graver and more urgent matters to be first disposed of, and these fill up chapters i. to vi. He now turns to deal with their enquiries; and we find the words, Now concerning, repeated at the beginning of 1Co 12:1-31 and 1Co 16:1-24. They had evidently written raising questions as to marriage, things offered to idols, spiritual gifts and collections.

Chapter 7 is almost entirely taken up with marriage, though in verses 1Co 7:17-24 instructions are given as to the secular callings that believers may be in, inasmuch as similar principles apply in both cases.

It looks as if the enquiries as to marriage had been occasioned by the fact that Paul, who was their spiritual father and example, had no wife himself. Most of them had been pagans, and hence their thoughts as to this great institution of God had been utterly astray and corrupted. The Apostle seized the opportunity to put things on the basis intended by God while maintaining that there might be a few who, like to himself, could live above the claims of nature and forego marriage, because so fully claimed by the Lord and His service.

Clearly then, for the believer the normal thing is that marriage should take place, and all its duties and responsibilities be observed. It is contemplated in verse 1Co 7:5 that husband and wife may separate for a season, in order more fully to be at the Lords disposal, but that is to be done mutually, and with prayer, lest the adversary should gain any advantage by it.

In verses 1Co 7:10-11 the Apostle enforces the instructions already laid down by the Lord. In verses 1Co 7:12-16 he gives further instructions in view of complications that often arise when the Gospel has reached one partner and the other is left unconverted, at least for the moment. If a Jew, male or female, contracted a matrimonial alliance with one of the surrounding nations there was nothing but defilement for both them and their children. This is made very plain in such chapters as Ezr 9:1-15, and Neh 13:1-31. With the Gospel this is reversed, as verse 1Co 7:14 shows us. The sanctification and holiness spoken of is not intrinsic of course, but relative. If there be but a believing wife, God acknowledges the household as set apart for Him. The unbelieving partner may so hate the light that has come into the home that he will not stay there. But if he will stay there, and the children who do stay there-they enjoy the privileges that the light confers, it is to be hoped to their ultimate salvation.

These instructions may appear to us to be of but little interest. That is because we live under the abnormal conditions which Christendom has created. Had the church maintained its proper character, as a circle of light and blessing, surrounded by the darkness of this world, yet separate from it, we should more easily see the point of it all. Those preaching the Gospel among the heathen and seeking sympathetically to help their converts in the problems that arise, find here the guidance that they need.

In the matter of ones earthly calling, as in marriage, the path for the believer is to accept the existing situation, only bringing into it a new power, to the glory of God. We are to abide in the calling in which we were called by the Gospel, only it must be with God. (ver. 24). If we cannot have God with us in it, then we must abandon it.

Having given these instructions to the married, Paul turns in verse 1Co 7:25 to virgins and the instructions concerning them continue to verse 38. Then the two verses that close the chapter give a brief word of guidance to widows.

It seems pretty clear that in this passage the word, virgin is used as covering the unmarried of either sex. The Apostles teaching may be summarized in this: that marriage is good, as is every divine institution; it is wholly right and permissible; yet that to remain in the unmarried state is better, if it is maintained in order to be more wholly at the Lords disposal for His interests. If such do not attend upon the Lord without distraction, their celibacy may only cast a snare upon them.

Now let it be noted that this is the point of view maintained all through the chapter. If the married couple separate it is to be as giving themselves to fasting and prayer. If in a mixed marriage the converted partner goes on peacefully and patiently with the unconverted, it is as seeking the Lords glory in his or her salvation. If the slave, being converted goes on humbly and contentedly with his menial occupations, it is because therein he abides with God. If the virgin remains unmarried, it is because he or she aims at being without worldly care, only caring for holiness and the service of the Lord. If the widow remarries, she does so in the Lord; which means, according to His will and direction.

See, then, how this chapter, which some might feel inclined to skip as being of no particular interest, not only contains instructions as to marriage, valuable in themselves, but also enforces the great point that for the Christian the claims of God and His service take precedence of all else. We are to recognize that, the time is short, or, straitened: the word used means contracted as to space, and is only used in one other place in the New Testament, viz., Act 5:6, in reference to Ananias being wound up for burial. Alas! how often we do not recognize that we are living in a straitened time, when the issue has been narrowed up by the death and resurrection of Christ, and hence we should hold all that we possess in the world with a light hand, ready to quit at a moments notice.

Before passing on to chapter 8, let us glance more particularly at verses 1Co 7:6, 1Co 7:10, 1Co 7:12, 1Co 7:17, 1Co 7:25, 1Co 7:40. Some of the expressions used in these verses have been seized upon by those who would deny, or at least weaken, the inspiration of Scripture.

The force of verse 1Co 7:6 is, I speak as permitting, not as commanding. Certain things in connection with marriage are commanded, others permitted. This is simple enough.

Verse 1Co 7:10 refers to some of these commands; only Paul recalls that there was nothing new about them, for the Lord Himself had so commanded, when here amongst men.

On the other hand, beginning with verse 1Co 7:12 the Apostle does give commands which had not previously been issued by the Lord. The time to issue them had not come until the problems that they meet had been created by the Gospel being widely preached. There is no difficulty in this, for what the Apostle commanded, and ordained in all assemblies, as stated in verse 1Co 7:17, was of full authority. There is no difference as to authority between commands coming from the lips of the Lord when on earth, and those coming from Him in heaven, through the lips or pens of His apostles.

In verse 1Co 7:25 Paul carefully guards the instructions that follow, lest they be used as absolute commands to the casting of a snare upon some (ver. 35). They are but his judgment, yet judgment of a very spiritual order, for, as the last words of the chapter significantly say, I think that I also have the Spirit of God. The application of these Spirit-given instructions all depended upon the spiritual state of those who heard them. Hence Paul was inspired to issue no command but to give his judgment.

These fine distinctions are very striking, and indicative of the wisdom of God, and of the reality and scope of divine inspiration. Instead of weakening it they confirm it.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

1Co 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.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 7:1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote:[1] It is good for a man not to touch a womani.e. to marry (an Old Testament phrase). Not as if he meant that marriage was wrong in itself, as the next verse and 1Co 7:28 sufficiently shew. Indeed, the present distress (1Co 7:26) seems to have been his main reason for recommending the single state; and forbidding to marry is given as one of the signs of the apostasy of the later times (1Ti 4:3). In Heb 13:4, also, marriage is declared to be honourable in all, or to be had in honour of all; and see Mar 10:6-9.

[1] The words to me of the received text, though implied, are an addition to the genuine text.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Section 4. (1Co 7:1-40.)

Nature: how far to be yielded to.

We now come to a question which, as already observed, is intimately connected with that of the flesh. Fallen nature is distinctly fleshly, as the Lord says: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh;” but that is the fallen condition. We are still to distinguish from that human nature as God has constituted it, and which remains therefore to be owned as such, without forgetting how the fall has affected everything now. The apostle takes up here, therefore, the question especially of marriage, but also, in connection with this, of the relationship of children to the Church of God. This is incidentally, however. He is replying to questions which have been put to him by the Corinthians, and which are of the most practical character. We find a setting forth of things very different from that which we have, for instance, in Ephesians, by the same apostle, where the higher character of marriage is shown us and God’s thought in its institution. Here we have nothing but the practical question answered; -as to the expediency of it, for instance, when sin has now come in so to dislocate that which is natural, and to pervert that which is best in nature making the strongest ties oftentimes to be the most significant of evil.

1. Here the principle, which is that which we are mainly concerned with, is a very simple one; the application of it, also, as the apostle gives it, so simple as to need little more. The principle is that the institution of God is to be maintained. Sin has not altered the rightness of that which God at the beginning ordained for man. The institution of God, therefore, has to be maintained, but on the one hand we are to consider the disturbance which sin has brought in, and how that affects the conduct of a believer with regard to such things, and we have also to consider that grace has brought in with it a power which is above nature and created new interests beyond those of the individual. Christians are free, but the apostle’s idea of freedom is liberty to serve. He has no thought of anything freer than the service of Christ. Thus if these higher interests are the motive, a man may walk above nature, walk of course in faith; and he must take heed that he has faith to walk in this way. If not, in the necessary testing which will come in, there will surely be a breakdown, and evil instead of good. The path must be that of faith, and it can only be, therefore, in the following the will of God that we can have faith for it. We can never have faith for paths of our own choice simply. Thus, if a man choose to walk free from all distraction to serve God, apart from all the natural ties which God has instituted, he may be proportionately free from the distraction of cares which would in measure take him off from the service that he covets. On the other hand, if he is not with God, he may place himself in circumstances where there shall be much more distraction. The apostle has no thought of asceticism in the smallest degree. Man may go outside the world, as he imagines, into a wilderness and solitude, only to find that there is an inner world from which he is not separated and cannot separate himself, and which claims him the more for the very isolation which he has chosen. The separate path is not to be sought, therefore, for its own sake. It is not to be taken as if it were in itself a higher elevation. The motive is that which governs all, and here, therefore, the will of God, which can alone give one a right motive. In general, as the apostle decides here, the rule is the natural one. He cannot perhaps exactly quote any more that it is not good for man to be alone, and that God hath made him a help meet for him. This always remains, of course, in measure true if we contemplate man as man, but ibis the first creation, not the new one; and, as already said, the interests of Christ and service to Him, in a scene which so calls for service as does the world in its fallen state, are motives which the original creation did not contemplate. The general rule, even for Christians, remains the natural one, and a path of special faith requires distinctly the special gift of God. If God brings one into circumstances of trial, He is competent for the circumstances. If we essay the trial apart from this, we shall only find the breakdown of a strength which is the strength of nature, and not spiritual strength.

On the other hand, for those who are married, the bond which God has ordained is, of course, recognized. There is no longer, in the same sense, freedom. The apostle could desire for all the very highest path, of course, but he has no commandment for any with regard to this. Wishing that all men were even as himself, he realizes, however, that every one has his own gift from God, one man after this manner and another after that. He is only expounding here what the Lord Himself more summarily declares in the nineteenth of Matthew. Thus far it is only the case of marriage among Christians themselves that he is speaking of.

2. He now takes up the question of separation and divorce; and here, as most naturally having to do with this, the case of a believer united to an unbeliever. In those days there must have been necessarily from such a cause oftentimes the greatest perplexity. He decides that in such a case the wife is not to separate herself of her own will from her husband, as in the case of Christians also be is wholly against separation; and if the wife has been separated she is to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband, the husband not to leave his wife. In the case of an unbeliever there is, of course, a difference. On the side of the Christian, if the unbelieving wife be content to dwell with him, he is not to leave her; so, on the other hand, if it be the husband that is the unbeliever and not the wife. The reason of this he gives as to be found in the sanctification of the unbelieving husband in the wife, or of the unbelieving wife in the Christian to whom she is married, and he adduces as the proof of this the known position of the children of the married in such a case. The children, he says, are holy. This, of course, as it is the basis of his argument, must have been an acknowledged fact for Christians. The working of Israelitish law was quite in the other direction. If a man had married outside of Israel, the children were unclean, and were disowned as belonging to the congregation of the Lord. The holiness of the children here is not a necessarily spiritual condition, but that of external relationship, as we may say, but which of course manifests the mind of God for blessing to those who are in such a relationship.

The baptism of the household is not intimated, but it is evident that this would naturally result from the position here. The token of discipleship could hardly be denied to those who as holy were to be brought up as disciples. They are thus addressed throughout the epistles, and they could not be so addressed if outside the Kingdom of that in which the claims of Christ as Lord were owned. It has sometimes been argued that the unbelieving wife or husband is, according to this, as much holy as are the children; but this is an oversight as to what is really expressed. The unbelieving husband or wife is only sanctified in the believing partner, not otherwise: sanctified, therefore, in that relationship in which he or she stood to the other, and not in himself, so as to be himself acknowledged in any relationship to the Church of God. The relationship was clean and owned of God, so that the believer could continue in it, and is urged to do so. But, on the other hand, if, on the side of the unbeliever, he departed, then, in such cases, the brother or the sister, says the apostle, is not bound. He or she is not obliged to recognize any more the relationship as existing. Yet the apostle does not mean by this anything equivalent to divorce, or that which would set absolutely free the one separated from. The Lord Himself has decided in the plainest possible way in the Gospels that there is but one ground for divorce, and we have no right from the apostle’s words here to suppose, as many do suppose now, that they declare another. Whatever trial there may be in such circumstances of separation, yet if there be no more, it is a trial to which God has called the person in question, and for which He must be counted upon; but to continue in the relationship as far as possible is that which he encourages. Christianity, with its all-embracing desire for the salvation of souls, would rather use such a relation for the salvation of the unbeliever than cast out one who might be thus rescued from his natural, lost condition.

3. The apostle here, in a parenthesis, goes aside to consider for a moment how far this principle of abiding in the position in which God’s call found its objects would stand good. The general rule was, and he ordains it in all churches, to abide wherever one could abide with God. There was to be no restless spirit of change, as if circumstances were the great consideration rather than God’s control of circumstances, which ought to be realized. Thus, if any one was called, being circumcised, he was not to become uncircumcised. He was not, as it were, to ape the Gentile. So, if one were called in uncircumcision, he was not to be circumcised. Circumcision and uncircumcision were alike now on the same footing; that is to say, there was nothing in them. The keeping of the commandments of God was the whole matter. If a man were called even being a bond-servant, -and we can hardly imagine, perhaps, the bitterness of such a position oftentimes in those old heathen days, and especially for a Christian in bond-service to a heathen, -yet the apostle bids such an one not to care about it. If he could become free, by all means he may do so; but on the other hand, if be were ever so much a bond-servant and called in the Lord, the Lord had set him free in such a way as no bondage on the part of man could possibly affect. He could serve Christ in that condition; and the more painful the circumstances might be, the more acceptable even, we may be sure, would be such a service. His spirit was free, nothing could touch that, and He who was his Master was Master also of all else, so that this, as all other things, should work for good to him. If he were free as to circumstances, he would still be Christ’s bond-servant. Christians are those bought with a price. They were not to be indeed the bond-servants of men. They were not to allow themselves to descend to a lower sphere of service. Christ was to be served, and His people, of course, in Him, but always, therefore, in the remembrance of that love which had at the same time bound him to Christ and set him free. The general rule, therefore, is, let each abide in the calling wherein he is called, if only he can abide there with God. If; of course, his position is such that he cannot abide in it thus, he is bound to leave it; but the restless spirit of change is not that which suits Christianity. It makes too much of the world and the circumstances, which are indeed nothing, but only a condition under which God can display Himself without possibility of hindrance.

4. The apostle returns now to the matter in hand. He answers the question, then, how far, in view of actual circumstances, marriage were good or not. He tells them this is a mere question of giving advice. He has no commandment of the Lord. He distinguishes that in the most absolute way from whatever judgment he may give as one faithful, as he was known to be, through the mercy of the Lord to him, and whose spiritual judgment might therefore be of the greatest value to those who used it aright. There was that which the apostle speaks of as a “present necessity.” It is to be supposed that he refers to the immense pressure of the world upon the infant Church. This would make the entanglement with unnecessary cares a thing not to be desired. Still he can do little more than reaffirm what he has already said. In view of it all, it was good for a man to remain as he was; but if he was already bound to a wife, he must not seek to be loosed. If he was loosed, then he would not have him seek a wife; but at the same time distinctly decides that there was no sin at all that was in question. He or she who married did not sin. There would be trouble naturally, as he foresees, but he is not going to make this too strong a point with them, for there might be that which more than compensated the trouble. In short, it was a matter for individual exercise and determination. No one could determine the course of another; but as to all, the time was shortened. The coming of the Lord was nigh, always nigh for the Christian; without regard to any exact knowledge, he was to be in the spirit of constant expectation. Those who had wives were to be as they who had none. If they wept, things were passing, so that it was not to be as it were in real sorrow. As to that in which they might rejoice (of course, he is speaking of circumstances, what might thus rejoice them here), still they were to be as those who rejoiced not. Whatever they acquired, they were to be as though they possessed it not, and while using the world, they were not to dispose of it as if it were their own. They had, so to speak, a certain interest in it, but the character of everything was necessarily determined by the condition of things. The world was passing away; and their possession of anything would pass away with it.

And there was another matter also to be considered; the great and important thing in his eyes was that people should live without care, -without that weight of anxiety which would disturb them in their walk with God. As a fact, he is not speaking of what should be or what need be, but what is so often found. The unmarried would be naturally careful for the things of the Lord, to please Him -he has no one else to please. If a man is married, he has, on the other hand, plainly, another to please, and thus he is tempted at least to care for the things of the world in order to please his wife. So with a woman, in the same way. The one who is free from everything of this sort can be careful for the things of the Lord alone. She that is married is apt to be careful for the things of the world, just with the desire, and a not unreasonable desire, to please her husband. He is not saying this, as he declares again, constantly guarding it, for anything but for their profit. He does not want to lay down rules, the observation of which might only be a snare to them, but he wants them to seek, whatever their course may be, to serve the Lord without distraction. There was no sin, as he insists again, there was no kind of sin in marriage; but if a man had no need of it, if he had authority over himself and had judged in his heart to remain so, he did well. So, on the other hand, he says, the one who marries does well, although if he does not, he may do better. Once in the bond of marriage the Lord’s will was already declared, wife or husband were bound unto death. if the husband were fallen asleep, the wife was still free to be married to whom she would; (thus the apostle declares positively as to the lawfulness of second marriages;) but he puts in the condition that it was to be only in the Lord, which does not mean simply that she was to be only married to a Christian, though that of course, but as seeking the Lord’s guidance about it and therefore in obedience to Him, as the whole Christian life should be. The happier course, according to his judgment, was for her to remain unmarried. He thinks that he could surely speak as one having the Spirit of God, but there he leaves it.

It is plain how, all through, the apostle insists upon the difference between advice, such as one Christian may give another, (such as he above all others was competent to give,) and the command of God. All, of course, that is given here is given by inspiration, the advice as well as the command; and if, as we see in a chapter beyond this, the apostle ordained anything, it was in fact the commandment of the Lord. The advice was inspired, but it was advice. The character of it in that respect was not affected by the inspiration. It is not the lowering of the thought of inspiration, to look at it as advice simply, what he himself characterizes as that.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

THE CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

It seems a strange inconsistency that a church puffed up over an incestuous person in their midst, should have scruples about the lawful marriage of a Christian, but such seems to have been the case. Paul yields the point on which some insisted, that it was desirable for a Christian man to remain single (1Co 7:1), at least at that period and in those circumstances, provided he could do so without sin. But as the temptation in that case would be strong, he advised marriage (1Co 7:2), and also that married persons should live together as becometh the conjugal relationship (1Co 7:3-4). Exceptions to this for religious reasons, should be but temporary, lest the same temptation should overtake them as the unmarried (1Co 7:5). By this however, he meant not to command them to marry, but to assure them as Christians of permission to do so (1Co 7:6). He himself was unmarried, but all men did not have the same gift of control in that particular as he (1Co 7:7), hence the advice following (1Co 7:8-9).

SEPARATION OR DIVORCE

From the general subject of marriage, he proceeds to that of separation or divorce as between two parties who are believers, which he forbids (1Co 7:10-11). As he quotes our Lord in this instance he doubtless has in mind Mat 5:32, which makes the one exception of adultery. He next touches the question where one is a believer and the other an unbeliever (1Co 7:12-16). Here he is himself speaking because the particular aspect of the subject is one on which our Lord had not expressed himself while in the flesh. This shows that he places his own words on the same level of authority as those of our Lord, thus making the strongest claim of inspiration for them. Two such persons, he teaches, were not to separate simply for religious reasons. If a pagan wife wished to remain with her husband who had become converted to Christianity, he was not to divorce her. And if a pagan husband wished to remain with his wife after she had become converted she was not to leave him. The unbelieving partner in either case would be sanctified by the other in the sense,that the other might continue in the relationship without impairing his or her sanctification (compare 1Ti 4:5). The clause, else were your children unclean is difficult, but may mean that such children were by the faith of the Christian parent brought into a nearer relationship to God than otherwise. Remember that this was when marriage was contracted before either husband or wife was converted. Christians are forbidden to contract such marriages. (Compare 1Co 7:39 with 2Co 6:14).

Continuing the theme, the apostle says, if the unbelieving partner departs let him or her depart: a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. His meaning is again doubtful. Not under bondage to renounce the Christian faith, or not under bondage to remain unmarried, which? Both views have advocates, but the latter is to be accepted with caution and with the understanding that human courts have rights in the case which Christians are bound to respect (compare Romans 14). The interpretation of 1Co 7:16 depends somewhat on the accent in reading it. If emphasis be laid on save, it is a plea to hold on to the unbelieving partner as long as possible in the hope that he or she may be saved. If it be laid on knowest, it is to relieve the mind of the Christian partner from an undue anxiety in the premises.

From the separation of married couples on religious grounds, the apostle digresses to speak of separation in other relationships for the same reason, apply it to Jews and Gentiles (1Co 7:18-19), and to bondmen and freemen (1Co 7:20-24). The idea is that Christianity interferes only indirectly with existing institutions. It makes men free in but not from the responsibilities of their present positions, where those positions are not in themselves sinful. It teaches us to be indifferent in a sense to our external relations.

CELIBACY

Celibacy is the theme of 1Co 7:25-35, which the apostle opens by saying he is giving his own a judgment or opinion, having received no commandment from the Lord. This means that the Holy Spirit has granted him no revelation or instruction on this particular point, which, while it qualifies the authority by which he speaks on it, does not qualify his inspiration. In other words, he is as truly inspired to say that he is simply giving his own opinion as he is inspired to say anything else. This has an important bearing on the whole question of inspiration, and is an assurance that where the apostle does not state to the contrary, he is always giving us the mind of the Holy Spirit. On general terms he would recommend celibacy because of the present distress, i.e., the persecution and affliction being experienced by the church (1Co 7:25-27). While to marry was not sin for either sex, yet he would spare them in the trouble just ahead, and which would bear harder upon the married than the unmarried (1Co 7:28). In this light the verses following are to be interpreted (1Co 7:29-35).

But as 1Co 7:36 he is referring to a Christian fathers responsibility as to the marriage of his virgin daughter. It was humiliation in a Greek household for such to pass the flower of her age unmarried, and if a father felt the need of doing so he might give her in marriage without incurring sin in so doing. Nevertheless, if he acts in the opposite way he is also doing well, or better (1Co 7:37-38).

The second marriage of widows is the last subject (1Co 7:39-40), where the important clause is added that they are to marry only in the Lord Christians are at liberty only to marry Christians. Pauls opponents in Corinth who held a different view of this matter, claimed to be acting by the Spirit of God, hence the irony of the closing remark, which is an irrefutable testimony to the authority with which he spake, I think that I also have the Spirit of God (RV).

To avoid misunderstanding, it should be said that we have not here the whole of the apostles views on marriage, much less the whole of the New Testament teaching about it, but only so much as connects itself with the questions put to him at this time.

QUESTIONS

1. What is here taught about marriage and the conjugal relation?

2. What strong claim of inspiration is here made?

3. What explanation of 1Co 7:14 is suggested?

4. What of 1Co 7:15?

5. How would you read 1Co 7:16?

6. What is here taught concerning the relations of Christianity to existing institutions?

7. Why does the apostle advise celibacy?

8. How would you explain 1Co 7:36?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

The first scruple or case of conscience which the Corinthians wrote to the apostle about was concerning marriage. Amongst many other wicked opinions, which the Gnostics, those ancient heretics, maintained, this was one, That marriage was from the devil.

Our apostle elsewhere, Heb 13:4, asserts marriage to be holy and honourable; here he determines first in general, that such as have the gift of continency, and can live chaste in a single state, do well; and in particular, that a single life at that time was most advisable, and most agreeable to the calamitous and afflicted state of the church; so that when the apostle says in this verse, It is good for a man not to touch a woman, his meaning is, it is more agreeable to the present necessity, more convenient in regard of the persecuted state of the church, as being a condition less disturbed with cares, and less troubled with distraction: for marriage plunges men into an excess of worldly cares, it multiplies their business, and usually their wants, and those wants are hardlier supplied than in a single life, and more difficultly borne; it is much easier to bear personal wants than family wants: with respect to all which, says the apostle, especially as the present state of the church stands, it is good for a man not to touch a woman: not that it is at any time simply unlawful, but at sometimes manifestly inexpedient.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Should A Single Christian Marry?

Paul turned from dealing with problems of which he had heard to questions the Corinthians had asked. The first question, as seen by McGarvey, was, “Is marriage to be desired or avoided by Christians?” Paul answered that it was better not to touch a woman. He was referring to sexual relations, which for the Christian would be confined to marriage (see Gen 20:6 ; Pro 6:29 ). Due to circumstances at the time (see 1Co 7:26 ), the apostle’s answer was an exception to God’s rule, or plan ( 1Co 7:1 ; Gen 2:18 ).

Yet, to avoid sin brought on by natural desires, some should marry. God gave the marriage bed as a special place of joy to fulfill man’s desire. Marriage was also given by God to provide a helper specially suited to man and a means of procreation ( 1Co 7:2 ; Gen 2:18 ; 1Ti 2:15 ). Paul said marriage partners should satisfy one another’s desires to help each other avoid great temptation. Neither one has the right to refuse the other the privileges of marriage ( 1Co 7:3-4 ).

He further instructed that they should not deprive one another, except upon agreement during a special time of prayer. After that time of denial, relations should be resumed lest one, or both, be tempted to sin. Paul was not commanding them to refrain from relations during special seasons of prayer. Those matters are to be decided by individuals at home ( 1Co 7:5-6 ).

Some have enough self-control in the area of sexual desires that would allow them to live without marriage ( Mat 19:11-12 ). Not everyone has the same gift, so all could not remain single as Paul did. Under the circumstances at the time of writing this letter, Paul said it would be better for those who had never married, or were single again because of death, to remain single. However, if one could not control his desires, it was better to marry than to burn with passion ( 1Co 7:7-9 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

1Co 7:1-2. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me The letter of the Corinthian believers to which the apostle alludes here, and in which it appears they put divers questions to him, hath long been lost; a circumstance to be much regretted; for had it been preserved, it would doubtless have illustrated many passages of the two epistles to the Corinthians, which are now obscure because we are ignorant of the matters to which the apostle alludes in these passages. It is good for a man Who is master of himself, and has his passions and appetites under due control; not to touch a woman That is, not to marry; so great and many are the advantages of a single life, especially in the present calamitous state of the church. Nevertheless Since the God of nature has, for certain wise reasons, implanted in the sexes a mutual inclination to each other; to avoid That is, in order to prevent; fornication And every other species of uncleanness and pollution; let every man Who finds it expedient in order to his living chastely; have his own wife His own, for Christianity allows no polygamy; and every woman her own husband Here the apostle speaks in the imperative mood, using the style in which superiors give their commands; but although he recommends a single life in certain circumstances, this and the injunction (1Co 7:5) given to all who cannot live chastely unmarried, is a direct prohibition of celibacy to the bulk of mankind. Further, as no person in early life can foresee what his future state of mind will be, or what temptations he may meet with, he cannot certainly know whether it will be in his power to live chastely unmarried. Wherefore, as that is the only case in which the apostle allows persons to live unmarried, vows of celibacy and virginity, taken in early life, must in both sexes be sinful. Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vers. 1-9.

Notwithstanding the intrinsic excellence of celibacy, marriage should be the rule in practice. Such is the general meaning of this first passage.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote [Hitherto Paul has written concerning things which he learned by common report; he now begins to reply to questions which they had asked him in their letter. As we come to the several answers we will state the probable form of the question, as an aid to interpretation. All of the apostle’s answers, however, have reference to then existing conditions, which were very stringent and threatening. His advice is therefore to be wisely and conscientiously applied by modern Christians after weighing differences between present conditions and those which then existed. First question: Is marriage to be desired or avoided by Christians? Paul answers]: It is good [advisable, proper] for a man not to touch [marry] a woman.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

1 Corinthians Chapter 7

The apostle proceeds by answering a question in connection with the subject he had been treating-the will of God with regard to the relationship between man and woman. They do well who remain outside this relationship in order to walk with the Lord according to the Spirit, and not to yield in anything to their nature. God had instituted marriage-woe to him who should speak ill of it! but sin has come in, and all that is of nature, of the creature, is marred. God has introduced a power altogether above and outside nature-that of the Spirit. To walk according to that power is the best thing; it is to walk outside the sphere in which sin acts. But it is rare; and positive sins are for the most part the effect of standing apart from that which God has ordained according to nature. In general then for this reason, every man should have his own wife: and the union once formed, he had no longer power over himself. As to the body, the husband belonged to his wife, the wife to her husband. If, by mutual consent, they separated for awhile that they might give themselves to prayer and to spiritual exercises, the bond was to be immediately acknowledged again, lest the heart, not governing itself, should give Satan occasion to come in and distress the soul, and destroy its confidence in God and in His love-lest he should tempt by distressing doubts (it is for,not by incontinency) a heart that aimed at too much, and failed in it.

This permission, however, and this direction which recommended Christians to marry, was not a commandment from the Lord, given by inspiration, but the fruit of the apostles experience-an experience to which the presence of the Holy Ghost was not wanting.[8] He would rather that every one were like himself; but every one had, in this respect, his gift from God. To the unmarried and the widows, it is good, he says, to abide as he himself was; but if they could not subdue their nature and remain in calm purity, it was better to marry. Unsubduedness of desire was more hurtful than the bond of marriage. But as to marriage itself, there was no longer room for the counsel of experience, the commandment of the Lord was positive. The woman was not to separate from the man, nor the man from the woman; and if they separated, the bond was not broken; they must remain unmarried or else be reconciled.

But there was a case more complicated, when the man was converted and the wife unconverted, or vice versa. According to the law a man who had married a woman of the Gentiles (and was consequently profane and unclean) defiled himself, and was compelled to send her away; and their children had no right to Jewish privileges; they were rejected as unclean (see Ezr 10:3). But under grace it was quite the contrary. The converted husband sanctified the wife, and vice versa, and their children were reckoned clean before God; they had part in the ecclesiastical rights of their parent. This is the sense of the word holy, in connection with the question of order and of outward relationship towards God, which was suggested by the obligation under the law to send away wife and children in a similar case. Thus the believer was not to send away his wife, nor to forsake an unbelieving husband. If the unbeliever forsook the believer definitively, the latter (man or woman) was free-let him depart. The brother was no longer bound to consider the one who had forsaken him as his wife, nor the sister the man who had forsook her as her husband. But they were called to peace, and not to seek this separation, for how did the believer know if he should not be the means of the unbelievers conversion? For we are under grace. Moreover every one was to walk as God had distributed to him.

As regarded occupations and positions in this world, the general rule was that every one should continue in the state wherein he was called; but it must be with God-doing nothing that would not be to His glory. If the state was in itself of a nature contrary to His will, it was sin; clearly he could not remain in it with God. But the general rule was to remain and glorify God in it.

The apostle had spoken of marriage, of the unmarried and of widows; he had been questioned also with respect to those who had never entered into any relationship with woman. On this point he had no commandment from the Lord. He could only give his judgment as one who had received mercy of the Lord to be faithful. It was good to remain in that condition, seeing what the world was and the difficulties of a Christian life. If they were bound to a wife, let them not seek to be loosed. If free, they would do well to remain so. Thus if they married, they did well; not marrying, they did better. He who had not known a woman did not sin if he married, but he should have trouble after the flesh in his life here below. (It will be observed, that it is not the daughter of a Christian that is here spoken of, but his own personal condition.) If he stood firm, and had power over his own will, it was the better way; if he married, he still did well; if he did not marry, it was better. It was the same with a woman; and if the apostle said that according to his judgment it was better, he had the Spirit of God. His experience-if he had no commandment-had not been gained without the Spirit, but it was that of a man who could say (if any one had a right to say it) that he had the Spirit of God.

Moreover the time was short: the married were to be as having no wives; buyers, as having no possession; they who used the world, not using it as though it were theirs. Only the apostle would have them without carefulness or distraction, that they might serve the Lord. If by reckoning themselves dead to nature this effect was not produced, they gained nothing, they lost by it. When married they were pre-occupied with things below, in order to please their wives and to provide for their children. But they enjoyed a repose of mind, in which nature did not claim her rights with a will that they had failed to silence, and holiness of walk and of heart was maintained. If the will of nature was subjugated and silenced, they served the Lord without distraction, they lived according to the Spirit and not according to nature, even in those things which God had ordained as good with respect to nature.

As to the slave, he might console himself as being the Lords free-man; but (seeing the difficulty of reconciling the will of a pagan or even an unspiritual master with the will of God) if he could be made free, he should embrace the opportunity.

Two things strike us here in passing: the holiness which all these directions breathe with regard to that which touches so closely the desires of the flesh. The institutions of God, formed for man when innocent, are maintained in all their integrity, in all their authority, a safeguard now against the sin to which man is incited by his flesh. The Spirit introduces a new energy above nature, which in no wise weakens the authority of the institution. If any one can live above nature in order to serve the Lord in freedom, it is a gift of God-a grace which he does well to profit by. A second very important principle flows from this chapter. The apostle distinguishes accurately between that which he has by inspiration, and his own spiritual experience-that which the Spirit gave him in connection with the exercises of his individual life-spiritual wisdom, however exalted it might be. On certain points he had no commandment from the Lord. He gave the conclusion at which he had arrived, through the help of the Spirit of God, in a life of remarkable faithfulness, and aided by the Spirit whom he but little grieved. But it was not a commandment of the Lord. On other points that which he did not except in this manner was to be received as the commandment of the Lord (compare 1Co 14:37). That is to say, he affirms the inspiration, properly so called, of his writings-they were to be received as emanating from the Lord Himself-distinguishing this inspiration from his own spiritual competency, a principle of all importance.

Footnotes for 1 Corinthians Chapter 7

8: Note here, we have formally distinguished, what infidels of the modern school have sought to confound, spiritual thoughts as a man, and inspiration. The apostle gives his thoughts and judgment as a spiritual man, his mind animated and guided by the Spirit, and contrasts it with inspiration and what the Lord said. How wonderfully the Lord has provided in scripture for everything! Compare1 Corinthians 7:25.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

CO-HABITATION SANCTIFIED BY MATRIMONY

1. But concerning those things about which you wrote to me, that it is good for a man not to receive a wife. They had written to Paul during his absence on the subject of matrimony and celibacy, which Paul encouraged, at least by his own example, spending his life unwedded for Christs sake. While he appreciates his own celibacy as a gift from God, he gives his verdict in favor of matrimony as a rule.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

It is evident from the tenor of this chapter that the Corinthians had written to the apostle for advice on the subject of marriage and its obligations, and that he is here resolving their various difficulties. Some of them, from observing the gross licentiousness of their native city, and affected it may be with the habits of the eastern ascetics, which afterwards prevailed, appeared to doubt of the lawfulness of marriage in any case: 1Co 7:1-9. Others who had unbelieving wives and husbands doubted whether it were expedient to continue the connection; and are told that they must not be put away for their unbelief, provided they were disposed to live in peace: 1Co 7:10-14. Another case of extreme difficulty seems to have been proposed, and that is, what should be done when the unbeliever is determined to depart, from an insuperable aversion to christianity, and thus to vacate the marriage contract: 1Co 7:15. To these and other questions the apostle replies, according to the wisdom given him from above.

1Co 7:3. Let the husband render to the wife due benevolence, in all the conjugal rights of marriage. Moses says, in Exo 21:10, , from the root nah, which is the Greek word but slightly varied If he take to him [his habitation] another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish. St. Pauls reference to the law would confer weight on his words.

1Co 7:8. It is good for them if they abide even as I. Paul was now, it would seem, a widower. Eusebius affirms that three of the apostles were married, and that Paul was one of these. St. Clement of Alexandria thinks his wife was dead. Vide Poli Synop. His special call to preach to the gentiles did not allow him to entangle himself in the affairs of this life; otherwise he had a right, as well as other apostles, to lead about a wife in all his labours and travels.

1Co 7:9. If they cannot contain, let them marry. : If they do not contain, let them marry. God has made no man under the necessity of committing mortal sins. The promise is full of power: My grace is sufficient for thee. Temperance and prayer are the divine resources of christian purity. In due time they may marry: but the birds build their nests before they lay their eggs. Prudence is requisite in marriage.

1Co 7:12. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not. When the jews returned from Babylon, Ezra the priest obliged them to dismiss their idolatrous wives, as polluters of their blood, and as dangerous to their religion. Ezr 9:10. This was difficult to do, and it occasioned great anguish of mind. But the jews could then marry other wives, instead of those they had dismissed; and what then could the converted gentiles do in such a case. One great part of the mystery of godliness was, that the gentiles should be fellow-heirs with the believing jews of the grace of life, and equally participate in all their privileges. But in the jewish case, as well as in the christian, marrying with unbelievers is forbidden by a permanent law of the church. The christian widow, as in 1Co 7:39, cannot marry, except in the Lord, or to one regenerate and born again. Rom 8:1; Rom 16:7.

1Co 7:14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, a phrase indicating that their marriage was without spot, sanctification being here restricted to conjugal purity. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. Those two words, unclean, and holy, refer to the gentiles and the jews, the former being accounted unclean, and the latter a holy nation. They do not imply, either in the jewish or the christian children, an exemption from original sin.

1Co 7:28. Such shall have trouble in the flesh. They may find it difficult to procure food and raiment in times of so much inquietude and persecution; and for a time the storm may drive many from their families.

1Co 7:40. She is happier if she so abide, and serve God as a matron in the church. There is a glory attendant on certain women, and certain ministers, who have lived single with a view to move in a particular sphere of usefulness.

REFLECTIONS.

We have here a happy chain of advice, admirably calculated to promote personal comfort and family peace. To enter adequately into the apostles arguments we should beware, that Corinth was a proverb of lawless love among the heathen writers. A thousand women were consecrated to Venus, whose sumptuous temple stood on the hill above the city. Hence St. Paul most justly levels a full stroke at fornication; hence also many holy persons, going from one excess to another, abstained from marriage, and extolled celibacy. But the apostle sets all right by recurring to the original foundation: let every man have his own wife. His arguments of a single life are merely founded on certain persons devoting themselves to Gods service, or because of the present distress or persecution: 1Co 7:26. And surely it is better in those times to forego marriage for a season than to risk apostasy, because a married man, tempted by the tears of his wife and children, was very liable to conform to idolatry, on the required occasion to save his life and his lands.

In regard to marriage, every man has his proper gift of God: and being a gift, whether it be virginal or matrimonial chastity, it is alike holy.

The believing wife is to save if possible the unbelieving husband. Treading in the path of duty, let her piety be sincere, her temper happy, and her obedience in all lawful things unlimited. But let her suffer for truth and righteousness rather than yield to sin. How shall a carnal husband be encouraged to venture on a religion which does not make his wife holy and happy? Hence, avoiding sinful compliances with his humour and menaces, she must strive to gain him by arguments and sweetness of disposition.

Though St. Paul advised abstinence from marriage because of the persecution, yet he speaks with deference to fathers. In such cases let the father do what he will, he sinneth not. If he thinks that he behaves unseemly to his virgin, who is already betrothed and promised to a young man, let them marry. Yet in such a case of persecution, the father that giveth not the daughter in marriage acts more prudently than he who marries his children under the inevitable aspects of trouble in the flesh.

The injunction to the widow to marry only in the Lord, applies with equal force to young people, and to all pious parents in the disposal of their children. Shall lands, or riches, or family connections be preferred to piety? What then must the church think of the religion of those who act against the commandment; and how are such marriages likely to operate on the children? Will not a carnal father train up his sons to all his own habits of life; and will not a carnal mother train up her daughters to all the vanities of the world? But where the parents are both of one mind, the children are dedicated to God in baptism, and trained up to the faith and worship of Christ.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1 Corinthians 7. Problems as to Marriage, Celibacy, and Divorce.At this point Paul takes up a letter sent by the Corinthian church inviting his judgment on various questions, apparently indicating their own views with some self-satisfaction. The reply probably follows the order of the letter, not only as to the subjects in general, but the different branches of them. This explains the somewhat haphazard development of the subject in this chapter. (On the questions discussed, see p. 650.) The view put forward in the letter was that celibacy should be practised in the church. Such a view was not unnatural in a city so foul as Corinth.

1Co 7:1-7. Paul begins by asserting his own personal preference for absolute continence. But he recognises that this is a counsel of perfection. Accordingly he recommends marriage so that unchastity may be prevented, and marriage, of course, in the form of monogamy (1Co 7:2). And this must be a real marriage, in which the physical obligations of each to the other are duly observed, for in this matter both belong not to themselves but to each other. So neither may withhold from the other the marriage due unless by mutual agreement if they feel that they will thus be more undistracted for prayer (cf. Testament of Naphtali, 88, And a season to abstain therefrom for his prayer); but such periods of abstinence should not be prolonged or Satan will tempt them to seek satisfaction elsewhere. He says this, however, by way of concession, not injunction. It is unfortunately not clear to what this refers. The term concession suggests that it is concession to weakness, and this is supported by 1Co 7:7. The point might then be, I should prefer that your abstinence should be permanent not temporary. This is very improbable; Paul regarded the danger of incontinence as too serious to run the risk such advice would imply. Besides, the language had been that of definite injunction. It is more probable that he is referring to his general advice on the subject. On the whole, however, it seems best to take it as referring to the abstinence; the concession is to the view urged in the church letter. He does not, in the interests of the religious life, ordain that such seasons should be observed, but he is willing to make the exception to the rule, provided it can be done without moral risk. He would, of course, prefer, he continues, that all men had his own gift of continence. But there is diversity of gifts, and that by Gods appointment, so that regulations must be governed not by personal preferences but by the hard facts of the situation.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Those things in Chapters 5 and 6, which were of such serious importance as demanding correction, had evidently not even been questions in the minds of the Corinthians. But Paul was required to raise these first, before he answered questions they had raised as to various practical problems that arise as regards the marriage relationship, problems occasioned by fallen human nature. We must not forget that as God instituted it, “Marriage is honorable in all” (Heb 13:4). And we must distinguish between the purity of God’s creation and the fleshly, fallen nature which has brought corruption into this creation.

It may seem strange that the apostle, after affirming that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, yet fully approves every man and woman having a spouse. His first statement in verse I could not have been written when creation began, for it would have been bad for Adam to have refused the wife God gave to him. But in Christ now raised from the dead, God has introduced the new creation, and Paul himself is an example of the fact that the power of Christ, now known and enjoyed, is such as to be able to lift one above the perfectly normal and legitimate needs of the first creation. In no way are these things themselves sinful, though they have often been corrupted by man’s sin. So that, while it is good for one to remain unmarried, in view of thorough devotedness to the Lord; yet if this would in any way involve the danger of fornication, it was much better to marry.

Verses 3 to 5 would insist that, when married, both wife and husband are responsible to show full consideration of each other according to the proper character of the marriage bond. They are one flesh, and neither the husband alone, nor the wife alone, has power in reference to his own or her own body, to bear fruit. They are united, and must not ignore this sacred relationship. By consent they could be apart for a time, to give themselves to fasting and prayer, and no doubt this could be greatly used of God in blessing; but it was generally not to be too long protracted, for Satan is ever ready to take advantage of such things. Proper consideration of each other is the important matter, and no defrauding of one another of his or her proper rights in the marriage relationship.

But Paul makes it clear in verse 6 that this is not the direct commandment of God, but his own advice, which God permitted him to give. In this chapter these two things are carefully distinguished, and interestingly so. This does not in any way violate the fact that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God; but it does illustrate the fact that all Scripture is not revelation. But God inspired Paul in this case to give, in response to the questions of the Corinthians, his own spiritual judgment in these matters. And let us remember, as we read it, that here is a man who is willing to forego what is lawful himself, to do what is most becoming in order to joyfully please the Lord. It would hardly seem wise to belittle the advice of such a man. Could we ourselves give better?

His own desire was that all men (believers of course) were as himself, unmarried. Certainly this was impossible of fulfillment, for everyone had his proper gift from God. If God had not himself fitted one for this, it would be a mistake for him to refuse to marry a wife God had brought to him. Paul’s viewpoint certainly was a blessed one, but it is not the

normal, usual path, and however we might admire it, this is not itself the power to follow it. We can fully agree that it is good to remain unmarried; yet even Paul himself advises that if the natural instinct and desire for marriage were strong within one, it is better to marry. “Forbidding to marry,” he assures us elsewhere, is diabolical teaching (1Ti 4:1-3).

But verses 9 and 10 are not simply Paul’s advice, but the Lord’s commandment. The wife is told positively not to depart from her husband. Of course, if he were unfaithful to her, this would be a different matter. If circumstances were such however, that a wife did leave her husband, she is told to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband. If of course in the meantime her husband had remarried, this would change things completely. She could then never be rightly re-united to him, even if his second wife died (Deu 24:3-4).

Verse 12 again is Paul’s advice. So long as an unbelieving spouse was willing to remain with a believing husband or wife, then his unbelief was not sufficient reason for his spouse to leave him, or her, as the case may be. “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband.” The faith of the one sets the other apart in a very real way, for he is a member of a household where Christ is recognized as Lord. He is set apart in spite of himself, and however ungodly his character may be. And the children are “holy,” a stronger word than sanctified: it is of course the position they are privileged to occupy because of the faith of one parent: the parent is not expected to leave his children in “Egypt,” exposed to the unclean world, just because the other parent is an unbeliever.

Under law, when Israelites had taken strange wives, they were required to put away their wives (Ezr 10:3; Ezr 10:19); but grace is far different. It will not hold the unbelieving against his will, for if he desires to depart, the believer is told to “let him depart.” When the unbeliever takes the initiative, then the believer is not under bondage in such cases. How much wiser for him to leave the matter with God, with no contention. But the faith and the gracious attitude of the believer may be the means of winning the unbeliever to the Lord: therefore, he is to take no harsh action against the other. Under law a Moabite could not be changed into an Israelite, but under grace an unbeliever may be changed into a believer. This certainly gives no permission for a believer to marry an unbeliever, for this is expressly forbidden in 2Co 6:14; but if one partner has been converted after marriage, he is encouraged to use the grace and faith of Christianity now in his marriage relationship, in patient testimony, for it may be the means of the other’s conversion.

In verses 17 to 24 is laid down the principle that generally speaking one who was converted was to remain in the same relationships as before. Of course, if in these there was moral evil, this must be put away; but the context does not consider this. God had distributed to every man: none of us is in our particular circumstances merely by chance. In all assemblies this was to be recognized. Those who were married, let them remain this way, and bring Christ into their marriage. If one were Jewish and circumcised, he was not to renounce this to become a Gentile, for the knowledge of Christ lifts one above the mere questions of circumcision or uncircumcision: neither was now of any spiritual importance, but keeping the commandments of God; not the ten commandments, but those of the New Testament. For in new creation there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

This too is applied to a person’s occupation. Even if he were a slave to an ungodly master, let him be submissive in this. If the opportunity were given him however to be made free, then he is told to take advantage of this. If God has given one any certain employment, let him be thankful for this, and faithful in service. If there is reason to desire something different, and the opportunity presents itself, then so long as God is honored, there is nothing to prohibit this. Of course, one is always to wisely consider all the circumstances. It should be manifest to all, certainly, that any employment that requires questionable or dishonest practices is to be utterly refused by the believer.

But if one feels the burden of being a slave, let him remember that he is really the Lord’s freeman: this will give calmness and dignity to rise above his circumstances. On the other hand, if one is free, let him remember that he is the Lord’s servant, and thereby keep himself from an independent attitude. For all saints are bought with a great price: none are to be mere servants of men: if they serve, it is to be “with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men” (Eph 6:7). Paul made himself servant to all, but he was the servant of God (1Co 9:19).

In whatever relationships therefore one were called, let him abide in this, “with God.” If he can there enjoy the presence and approval of God, let him be at peace in this.

Verse 25 to the end considers now the case of the unmarried, as to whether or not to marry. As to this again Paul has no direct commandment of the Lord, but the Lord inspires him to give his own judgment, because he had obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. Let no one lightly despise this statement.

In view oft hen present circumstances that were evidently of some trying character, he considered it wise for one to remain unmarried; though if already married, not to try to change this. A spirit of contentment is that which he seeks to encourage. If one were “loosed from a wife,” by her death, or by her leaving to marry another, his advice is to “seek not a wife.”

Yet, so long as he had been honorably loosed from a former wife, the fact of his marrying again would not be sin. And the fact of marrying for the first time is not sin. Of course, if marrying an unbeliever, this would be disobedience to the Word of God, and therefore sin (2Co 6:14). And it is possible for one to marry while in a bad state of soul (1Ti 5:11-12), and reap sad results. In any case, one should certainly seek the clear guidance of God in a matter so serious, and not rush into something for which he is not prepared. Marriage itself, as Paul says, will bring with it “trouble in the flesh”: the married man will be faced with many problems that never occur to one unmarried. Let all who contemplate marriage be fully prepared for this. But Paul adds, “I spare you.” He would not press this point too far. For it is evident that God will provide grace for whatever path He may lead His own to take.

But the time was (and is) short. All those things that are of temporary duration, whether marriage, weeping, rejoicing as to present circumstances, buying, or using the world, were not matters that should overmuch engage the time and attention. If they are things given of God for our present comfort, they must not be allowed to enslave us in any way, or to so occupy our interest that eternal realities are clouded, and not given the prominent place that is becoming. For all that is present is passing.

Paul’s own concern was to have the Corinthians without carefulness, not held back by the cares of this life. From his own point of view, one who was unmarried cared for the things of the Lord, and as to how he could please the Lord. If this is the wholehearted exercise of one unmarried, it is well indeed. Of course it does not follow that this is always the case. A believer may be unmarried for other reasons, and not really making the Lord the supreme object of his life. But he does not have the care of a wife to occupy his time and attention, and therefore should have more time for the Lord. If one is married, he is responsible to properly care for his wife, and some of his time at least must be spent in pleasing her. Of course we know that, in spite of this, many men who have wives have been greatly used and blessed of God, more than many others who have remained unmarried. On the other hand, some have remained unmarried with the sole intention of devotedness to the Lord, and it is this that the apostle recommends, for he himself was an honest example of such devotion.

But Paul knows this is a delicate subject, and insists that he speaks for their profit, not as suggesting rules for them, nor as expecting anyone to follow his advice merely from a sense of duty, which may prove only a snare to the individual; but to encourage each saint to give attention to the things of the Lord without distraction.

Verse 36 is more correctly given in Mr. Darby’s New Translation; “But if anyone think that he behaves himself unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin: let them marry.” When the fleeting beauty of youth is passed, and one is old enough to know what he is doing, if he thinks it more comely or becoming in reference to himself

that he should be married, then to marry is certainly not sin. In any case, whether man or woman, let the matter be well considered, and faith be acted upon. This does not touch upon the subject of the choosing of a wife or husband, but supposes that the choice is a proper one.

But one might stand with firmness of faith, having no necessity for marriage, having control over his own will, and purposing that he will maintain his virginity. This is the case of one making himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (Mat 19:12). If it is not too common, yet it is blessedly commendable.

Again, in verse 38, a more proper translation is: “So then he that marrieth doeth well; but he that marrieth not doeth better.” This supposes in each case that the will of the Lord is followed. Merely marrying, if not “in the Lord,” could mean dreadful disaster; or refusing to marry because of selfish, evil motives, is certainly not better than marrying, if the Lord were leading one to marry. Joseph had no alternative but to marry when the Lord told him, “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife” (Mat 1:20). But if the Lord should lead one to a single path of devotion to Himself, this is better than the married state.

Again, in verse 39 the New Translation is more correct: “A wife is bound for whatever time her husband lives; but if the husband be fallen asleep, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord.” Rom 7:1-2 rightly gives the legal aspect of this matter; but Corinthians rather speaks of what is morally binding as before God, so that “by the law” is not to be included here. It is clear that only death rightly does away with the marriage bond: any other dissolving of the bond is abnormal, yet it could be allowed to one if the other partner were guilty of virtually breaking the bond by fornication (Mat 19:9).

But as our verse indicates, if one spouse has died, the other is perfectly free to be married again, but “only in the Lord.” This does not merely mean, to a Christian, but as in subjection to the authority of the Lord: it is His will that is to be paramount. But Paul’s opinion is that to remain unmarried would be happier. And in such a conclusion he thinks he is not without the influence of the Spirit of God.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 1

The apostle now proceeds to consider the subjects on which the Corinthian church had asked his instructions in their letter to him. The first is the question of marriage. In very early times, a disposition manifested itself in the church to make a virtue of celibacy.–It is good; it is in itself very well. This seems to have been said in concession to those who argued for celibacy, as in what follows he enjoins the married state on all. (1 Corinthians 7:2.)

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

DIVISION III ABOUT MARRIAGE CHAPTERS 7

SECTION 11 COUNSELS, CHIEFLY TO THE MARRIED CH. 7:1-17

About the things of which you wrote. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, because of the fornications, let each one have his own wife, and let each one have her own husband. To the wife let the husband pay that which is due; and in like manner also the wife to the husband. The wife has not authority over her own body, but the husband and in like manner also the husband has not authority over his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one another; except perhaps it be by agreement for a season that you may have leisure for prayer, and again may come together, lest Satan tempt you because of your want of self-control. But this I say by way of making allowance, not by way of command. But I wish all men to be like myself. But each one has a gift of grace of his own from God, one in this way and one in that way.

But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they remain as I also am. But if they have not self-control, let them marry: for better it is to marry than to burn.

But to those who are married, I give charge, not I but the Lord, that a woman do not separate from her husband, (but, if she do separate, let her remain unmarried, or let her be reconciled to her husband;) and that a man do not send away his wife. But to the rest say I, not the Lord, if any brother has a wife an unbeliever, and this woman agrees to live with him, let him not send her away: and any woman who has an unbelieving husband, and this man agrees to live with her, let her not send the husband away. For sanctified is the unbelieving husband in the wife, and sanctified is the unbelieving wife in the brother. Else we should infer that your children are unclean. but now are they holy. But, if the unbeliever separates himself let him separate himself. Held in no bondage is the brother or the sister in such cases. Moreover, in peace has God called us. (For what dost thou know, Wife, whether thou wilt save thy husband? Or, what dost thou know, Husband, whether thou wilt save thy wife?) Except that as to each one the Lord has allotted, as God has called each one, so let him walk. And in this way in all the churches I ordain.

1Co 7:1. You wrote; implies a letter from the Corinthian Christians to Paul, asking advice on sundry matters. To these he now comes, after dealing with the more pressing matters of 1 Corinthians 1-6. Only imperfectly, from Paul’s own words in this Epistle, can we infer what these questions were. One of them referred to marriage. And to this question the solemn teaching of 10 forms a suitable transition.

1Co 7:1 b. Not to touch a woman: to be unmarried. For it is contrasted with have his own wife, which refers evidently to marriage: and in 1Co 7:3 ff Paul advises married people not to separate. In 1Co 7:1 Paul admits and asserts a general principle; but points out in 1Co 7:2 a practical obstacle to it. He reasserts it in 1Co 7:8 with the limitation of 1Co 7:9. Since here and in 1Co 7:8 the principle is asserted without explanation or proof, but is fully discussed and proved in 1Co 7:25-38, the words because of the present necessity, placed conspicuously in front of this full discussion, must be taken as applying to, and limiting, the cursory statement of the principle here and in 1Co 7:8.

The fornications: the actual and ever recurring cases of this sin, for which Corinth was infamous. These exposed the Christians to so great temptation that to them the principle of 1Co 7:1 was impracticable.

Each one; not quite so absolute as every one.

Have: as in 1Co 7:1.

Wife: same word as woman in 1Co 7:1. The Greeks had no common distinctive word for wife or husband. The emphatic words his own make the meaning clear. The reason given, because of etc., shows that this verse is not mere permission but real advice; i.e. that the general principle, not to touch a woman, though good in itself, was, to speak generally, impracticable at Corinth.

Each each: for the good of each sex equally, marriage is desirable.

The foregoing recommendation of marriage introduces suitably advice to married people, 1Co 7:3-7; and, after a word (1Co 7:8 f) to the unmarried suggested by Paul’s reference to himself, further advice to the married, chiefly about divorce, 1Co 7:10-17.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

1 Corinthians 7.

(Vv. 1, 2). Having exhorted the saints to maintain holiness in the assembly (1 Cor. 5) and individual holiness (1 Cor. 6), the apostle now instructs us to maintain holiness in the natural relationships of life. Christianity by no means sets aside the order of nature, though it will correct the abuses by which fallen man may have corrupted these relationships. Every man is at liberty to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband, and indeed this is a legitimate way to avoid the temptation to unholiness. The spurious pretension to higher spirituality by insisting upon asceticism is thus entirely condemned.

(Vv. 3-5). The apostle gives his advice to those in the married state. The relationship is to be taken up with due consideration for each other as being mutually dependent upon each other.

(Vv. 6-9). In having said, Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband, he is careful to explain that he is not giving a command, but he speaks as consenting to the married state. His own wish is that all should be as he himself, free from these relationships. But he recognises that it is not given of God for all to remain unmarried, and where not given it is better to marry.

(Vv. 10, 11). To the married he gives, not simply his counsel, but the direct ruling of the Lord. The wife is not to depart from the husband. If she shall have been separated, she is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. Let not the husband put away his wife.

(Vv. 12-17). The apostle then takes up the difficult position of a brother with an unbelieving wife, or the woman with an unbelieving husband. Here he gives his advice. This does not con-template for a moment the case of a believer marrying an unbeliever, which is clearly contrary to the mind of the Lord (2Co 6:14). Here it is the case of mixed marriages, where one of the parties has been converted after the marriage. In this case the believer is not defiled by union with the unbeliever. On the contrary the unbeliever is sanctified and the children holy. Here the sanctification and the holiness do not signify a spiritual condition that puts them in relationship with God, but rather that through the believer the relationship is clean and owned of God, so that the believer can continue in it. If, however, the unbeliever departs, the believer is released from the bondage of being tied to an unbeliever and is not to raise any dispute with the one that has departed, for we are called to peace. This does not give the believer any licence to break the tie by departing from the unbeliever, nor does it grant the abandoned believer permission to remarry. So far from the believer separating from the unbeliever, the brother or sister is to remain at all cost in the relationship, counting upon God for the salvation of the unbeliever. There will thus be submission to what the Lord has allowed, and a walk in accord with His will. This, too, we are reminded, is the order for all the assemblies; thus ecclesiastical independency is shut out. The assemblies are not independent companies, each left free to adopt its own practices. The word of God is still our only guide, and assemblies walking in the light of the word will be united in submitting to its instructions.

(Vv. 18, 19). The apostle has spoken of the call of God having come to a believer when linked with an unbeliever. He now speaks of the call coming to a believer when circumcised or uncircumcised. We know that Jewish training led some to set great value on the rite of circumcision, even going so far as to say that apart from circumcision Gentile believers could not be saved (Act 15:1). Here the apostle states that, for the Christian, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value. Obedience to the word of God is of value in His sight, not mere religious distinctions in the flesh.

(Vv. 20-24). Then the apostle passes on to speak of the call of God coming to believers in different social positions. Again we learn that, as circumcision or uncircumcision has nothing to do with our call as Christians, so the social position as a slave or a freeman has nothing to say to the Christian call. As a general rule, therefore, let every man abide in the position in which he is called. He need not be concerned as to being a bondman. If, however, he can become free, so much the better. In any case let the Christian bondman remember that he is the Lord’s freeman, and the freeman that he is Christ’s bondman. Both have been bought with a price, and the One Who has bought us with the price of His precious blood has the first claim upon us. Thus, while we are exhorted to abide in our calling, either as bondmen or freemen, it is to be with God. This surely indicates that, though it may be right to remain a slave, it would not be right to continue in some dishonest trade in which it would be impossible to be with God.

(Vv. 25-34). The apostle has spoken to those called in the marriage relationship; now he gives his advice to the unmarried. On account of the present condition of the world in all its distresses and necessities, and that the time is short, and its weeping and rejoicing will soon be over – for the fashion of this world is passing – he judges that it is good for a Christian to be free from earthly ties. This, however, does not mean that if a man is bound to a wife he is to seek to be free, but if free it is better to remain so. Nevertheless, Christians who enter upon the married state do no wrong, but they will have trouble in the flesh and add to their cares. The apostle would, as far as possible, have us without care, so that we might undistractedly serve the Lord. Naturally, and so far rightly, the married seek to please each other, whereas the unmarried are more free to serve the Lord undistractedly in spirit and in body.

(Vv. 35-40). In thus speaking the apostle has our profit in view. He has no wish to cast a snare before us that may lead us into the delusion of being monks or nuns, which has led to so much corruption in a large part of professing Christendom. He leaves all free to marry, and adds a word as to the widow, about whom a question may arise, that she is free to marry – only let it be in the Lord. But he judges that he has the mind of the Lord in thinking she would be happier to remain free.

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

CHAPTER 7

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

In this chapter he answers five questions of the Corinthians about the laws of matrimony, and about the counsel of virginity and celibacy-

i. The first question is whether matrimony and its use are lawful for a Christian, as being born again and sanctified. The answer is that they are lawful, and that, moreover, when either party demands his due, it ought to be given, and that therefore it is better to marry than to burn.

ii. The second is (ver. 10) concerning divorce, whether it is lawful, and S. Paul answers that it is not.

iii. The third is (ver. 12), If a believer have an unbelieving partner, can they continue to live together? He answers that they both can and ought, if the unbeliever consents to live in peace with the believer.

iv. The fourth is (ver.17) whether a man’s state is to be changed because of his faith; whether, e.g., a married person who was a slave when a heathen becomes free when a Christian, whether a Gentile becomes a Jew. He answers in the negative, and says that each should remain in his station.

v. The fifth is (ver. 25) whether at all events those who are converted to Christ as virgins ought to remain so. He replies that virginity is not enjoined on any as a precept, but that it is on all as a counsel, as being better than matrimony for six reasons:-

(a) Because of the present necessity, inasmuch as only a short time is given us for obtaining, not temporal but eternal gain: she that is a virgin is wholly intent in these things (ver. 26).

(b) Because he that is married is, as it were, bound to his wife with the wedding-bond, but the unmarried is free and unconstrained (ver.27).

(d) Because a virgin thinks only of what is pleasing to God, but one that is married has a heart divided between God and his wife (ver.32).

(e) Because a virgin is holy in body and in soul, but the married not in body, and often not in soul (ver.34).

(f) Because he that is unmarried gives his virgin an opportunity to serve God without interruption, whereas the married have a thousand hindrances to piety and devotion (ver.35).

Ver. 1.-Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me. In answer to the questions you have put to me about the rights, use, and end of matrimony and the single life, I answer that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Notice here from S. Anselm and Ambrose that certain false Apostles, in order to seem more holy, taught that marriage was to be despised, because of the words of Christ (S. Mat 10:12), “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” which they interpreted as applying to all Christians, especially since the act of fornication, which had been so severely condemned by the Apostle in the preceding chapter, is physically the same as conjugal copulation. The Corinthians, therefore, asked S. Paul by letter whether Christians ought to be so chaste, and ought to be so much free for prayer, godliness, and purity as to be bound, even though married, to abstain altogether from intercourse with their wives.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. It is beautiful, exemplary, and excellent. The Greek here is . So Theophylact. Good is not here the same as useful or expedient, as Erasmus turns it, but denotes that moral and spiritual good which of itself conduces to victory over passion, to piety, and salvation (cf. vers. 32, 34, 35). To touch a woman or to know is with the Hebrews a modest form of speech, denoting the act of conjugal copulation.

S. Jerome (lib.i. contra Jovin.) adds that the Apostle says touch, “because the very touching of a woman is dangerous, and to be avoided by every man.” These are his words: “The Apostle does not say it is good not to have a wife, but ‘it is good not to touch a woman,’ as though there were danger in the touch, not to be escaped from by any one who should so touch her: being one who steals away the precious souls of men, and makes the hearts of youths to fly out of their control. Shall any one nurse a fire in his bosom and not be burnt? or walk upon hot coals and not suffer harm? In the same way, therefore, that he who touches fire is burnt, so when man and woman touch they feel its effect and perceive the difference between the sexes. The fables of the heathen relate that Mithras and Ericthonius, either on stone or in the earth, were generated by the mere heat of lust. Hence too Joseph fled from the Egyptian woman, because she wished to touch him; and as though he and been bitten by a mad dog and feared lest the poison should eat its way, he cast off the cloak that she had touched,” Let men and youths take note of these words.

Cardinal Vitriaco, a wise and learned man, relates of S. Mary d’Oignies that she had so weakened and dried up her body by fastings that for several years she felt not even the first motions of lust, and that when a certain holy man clasped her hand in pure spiritual affection, and thus caused the motions of the flesh to arise, she, being ignorant of this, heard a voice from heaven which said, “Do not touch me,” She did not understand it, but told it to another who did, and thenceforward she abstained from all such contact.

S. Gregory (Dial. lib. iv. c. 11) relates how S. Ursinus, a presbyter, had lived in chastity separated from his wife, and when he was on his death-bed, drawing has last breath, his wife came near and put her ear to his mouth, to hear if he still breathed. He, still having a few minutes to live, on perceiving this, said with as much strength as he could summon, “Depart from me, woman-a spark still lingers in the embers; do not fan it into a flame.” Well sung the poet:-

“Regulus by a glance, the Siren of Achelous with a song,

The Thessalian sage with gentle rubbing slays:

So with eyes, with hands, with song does woman burn,

And wield the three-forked light of angry Jove,”

S. Jerome rightly infers from this (lib. i. contra Jovin.) that it is an evil for a man to touch a woman. He does not say it is sinful, as Jovinian and others falsely alleged against him, but evil. For this touching is an act of concupiscence, and of the depraved pleasure of the flesh; but it is nevertheless excused by the good of wedlock, but is wholly removed by the good of the single life.

It may be urged from Gen, ii. 18, where it is said that it is not good for a man to be alone, that it is therefore good to touch a woman. I answer that in Genesis, God is speaking of the good of the species, Paul of the individual; God in the time when the world was uninhabited, Paul when it is full; God of temporal good, Paul of the good of the eternal life of the Spirit. In this it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Ver. 2.-Nevertheless to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife. Lest being unmarried, and unwilling to live a chaste life, he fall into fornication. Every man, say Melancthon and Bucer, must include the priest and the monk. I reply that every man means every man that is free, not bound by vow, disease, or old age: for such are incapable if matrimony. Laws and documents must be interpreted according to their subject-matter: they only apply to those capable of receiving them, not to those who are not. To him then who is free, and unbound, and can fulfil the requirements of matrimony, the apostle gives to precept, but advice and permission, that if he fears to fall into fornication he should marry a wife, or keep to her that he has already married, rather than fall into any danger of committing such a sin. So the Fathers whom I will quote at ver. 9 all agree in saying. This must be the Apostle’s meaning, for otherwise he would contradict himself, for throughout the whole chapter he urges the life of chastity.

Moreover, the apostle is speaking primarily to the married alone, and not to the unmarried. To these latter he begins to speak in ver. 8, Now I say to the unmarried and widows, where the adversative now marks the change. He says too here let every man have, not let every man marry, because he is speaking to those who already had wives. So S. Jerome (lib. i. contra Jovin.) says, “Let every man that is married have his own wife,” i.e., continue to have her, not dismiss or repudiate her, but rather use her lawfully and chastely. The word have signifies not an inchoate but a continuous action. So 2Ti 1:13: “Hold fast the form of sound words,” where the same word is used. So in S. Luk 19:26: Unto every one that hath (that uses his talent) shall be given; and from him that hath not (does not use), even that he hath shall be taken away from him; otherwise there cannot well be taken from a man what he has not. That this is the true meaning is evident from that follows in ver. 3.

Ver. 3.-Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence. A modest paraphrase for the conjugal debt.

Ver. 4.-The wife hath not power of her own body but the husband, She has not power, that is, over those members which distinguish woman from man, in so far as they serve for the conjugal act. Power she has not over them so as to contain at her own will or to have intercourse with another. That power belongs to the husband alone, and that for himself only, not for another. Cf. S. Augustine (contra Julian, lib. v.). The Greek is literally, has no right over her body, whether to contain or to hand it over to another.

Likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Hence it is clear that, though in the government of the family the wife should be subject and obedient to her husband, yet in the right of exacting and returning the marriage debt she is equal with her husband, has the same right over his body that he has over hers, and this from the marriage contract, in which each has given to the other the same power over the body, and received the same power over the other’s body. The husband, therefore, is as much bound to render his wife, as the wife her husband, faithfulness and the marriage debt. This is taught at length in their expositions of this passage by Chrysostom. Theophylact, cumenius, Primasius, Anselm, and by S. Jerome (Cit. 32, qu. 2, cap. Apostolus), who says that husband and wife are declared to be equal in rights and duties. “When, therefore,” says S. Chrysostom (Hom. 19), “a harlot comes and tempts you, say that your body is not your own but your wife’s. Similarly, let the wife say to any one who proposes to rob her of her chastity, ‘My body is not mine but my husband’s.'”

Ver. 5.-Defraud ye not one the other. By denying the marriage debt. The words and to fasting, though in the Greek, are wanting in the Latin. Hence Nicholas I., in his answers to the questions if the Bulgarians (c. 50), writes to them that, throughout the forty days of Lent, they should not come at their wives. But this is a matter of counsel.

And come together again. From this Peter Martyr and the Magdeburgians conclude that it is not lawful for married persons to vow perpetual continence by mutual consent. But the answer to this is that the Apostle is not prescribing but permitting the marriage act.

Ver. 6.-But I speak this by permission and not of commandment.

1. I permit the act of copulation by way of indulgence: I do not prescribe it. Nay, S. Augustine (Enchirid. c. 78) takes it: “I say this by way of pardon.” The Greek word denotes forgiveness, and hence S. Augustine gathers that it is a venial sin to have sexual connection, not for the sake of children but for carnal pleasure, and to avoid the temptations of Satan; for pardon is given to what is sinful. So too indulgence is given in what concerns sin, or at all events a lesser good, as S. Thomas has rightly observed.

2. That there is no precept given here is also evident, because the Apostle permits married people to contain for a time, that they may give themselves to fasting and to prayer; therefore, if they agree to devote their whole life to fasting and to prayer, he permits them to contain themselves for life.

3. He says come together, and gives the reason, “that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency;” i.e., that there may be no danger of your falling into adultery, or other acts of impurity, because of your incontinency. Therefore, when the cause does not exist, viz., the danger of incontinency, as it does not exist in those who have sufficient high-mindedness to curb it and tame it, he permits them to be continent for life.

4. He says in ver. 7, “I would that all men were even as I myself,” i.e., not chaste in some way or other, but altogether continent, unmarried, nay, virgin souls, even as I, who am unmarried. So Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, Chrysostom, cumenius and Epiphanius (Hres.78), S. Jerome (Ep. 22 ad Eustoch.)

5. In the early days of the Church many married persons, in obedience to this admonition of S. Paul, observed by mutual consent perpetual chastity, as Tertullian tells us (ad Uxor. lib. i. c. vi., and de Resurr. Carn. c. 8, and de Orland. Virg. c. 13). The same is said by the author of commentaries de Sing. Cleric., given by S. Cyprian.

Here are some examples of married persons, not merely of low estate, but people illustrious both for their birth and holiness and renown, who preserved their continency and chastity unimpaired in wedlock.

(1.) There are the Blessed Virgin and Joseph, who have raised the banner of chastity not only before virgins, but also before they married. (2.) We have the illustrious martyrs Cecilia and Valerian, who were of such merit that the body of S. Cecilia has been found by Clement VIII. in this age, after the lapse of so many centuries, undecayed and uninjured. (3.) There are SS. Julian and Basilissa, whose illustrious life is narrated by Surius. (4.) S. Pulcheria Augusta, sister of the Emperor Theodosius, made a vow to God of perpetual chastity, and on the death of Theodosius, married Marcian, stipulating that she should keep her vow, and raised him to the Imperial throne; and this vow was faithfully kept unbroken by both, as Cedrenus and others testify. (5.) We have the Emperor Henry II. and Cunegund, the latter of whom walked over hot iron to prove her chastity. (6.) There is the example of Boleslaus V., King of the Poles, who was called the Maid, and Cunegund, daughter of Belas, King if the Hungarians. (7.) King Conrad, son of the Emperor Henry IV., with Matilda his wife. (8.) Alphonse II. King of the Asturians, who by keeping himself from his wife gained the name of “the Chaste.” (9.) Queen Richardis, who, though married to King Charles the Fat, retained her virginity. (10.) Pharaildis, niece of S. Amelberga and Pepin, was ever-virgin though married. (11.) Edward III. and Egitha were virgin spouses. (12.) Ethelreda, Queen of the East Angles, though twice married, remained a virgin. (13.) We have two married people of Arvernum, spoken of by Gregory of Tours (de Gloria Conf. c. xxxii.): “When the wife was dead, the husband raised his hands towards heaven, saying: ‘I thank Thee, Maker of all things, that as Thou didst vouchsafe to intrust her to me, so I restore her to Thee undefiled by any conjugal delight.’ But she smilingly said: ‘Peace, peace, O man of God; it is snot necessary to publish our secret.’ Shortly afterwards the husband died and was buried in another place; and, lo! in the morning the two tombs were found together, as is today: and therefore natives there are wont to speak of them as the Two Lovers, and to pay them the highest honour.” Nowadays two examples of the same thing nay be found.

Ver. 7.-For I would that all men were even as I myself. That is so far as the single life and continency is concerned. The Apostle means that he wishes it if it could well be. I would, therefore, denotes as inchoate and imperfect act of the will. This is evident too from his subjoining,

But every man hath his proper gift of God. The word all again means each one, or all taken one by one, not collectively. For if all men in a body were to abstain, there would be no matrimony, and the human race and the world would come to an end together. In the same way we are said to be able to avoid all venial sins: that is, all taken singly, not collectively, or in other words, each one. Others take all collectively, inasmuch as if God were to inspire all men with this resolution of continency, it would be a sign that the number of the elect was completed, and that God wished to put an end to the world. But Paul was well aware that God at that time was willing the contrary, in order that the Church might increase and be multiplied through matrimony. The first explanation therefore is the sounder.

But everyman hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner and another after that, That is, he has his own gift of his own will, says the treatise de Castitate, falsely assigned to Pope Sixtus III., which is preserved in the Biblioth. SS. Patrum, vol. v. It is, however, the work of some Pelagian; for the tenor of the whole treatise is to show that chastity is the work of free-will, and of a man’s own volition, and not of the grace of God. (Cf. Bellarmine, de Monach. lib. ii. c. 31, and de Clericis, lib.i. c. 21, ad. 4.) But this is the error of Pelagius; for if you take away the grace of God from a man’s will it can no longer be called “his proper gift of God.” For the will if a man is nothing else but the free choice of his own will. For God has given to all an equal and similar gift of free-will; wherefore that one chooses chastity, another matrimony, cannot be said to e the gift of God if you take away His grace; but it would have to be attributed to the free choice of each man, and that choice therefore in diverse things is unlike and unequal.

Proper gift then denotes the gift of conjugal, virginal, or widowed chastity. But heretics say that priests therefore, and monks, if they have not the gift of chastity, may lawfully enter on matrimony. But by parity of reason, it might be said ghat therefore married people, if they have not the gift of conjugal chastity, as many adulterers have not, may lawfully commit adultery, or enter upon a second marriage with one that is an adulterer. Or again that if a wife is absent, is unwilling, or is ill, the husband may go to another woman, if he alleges that he has not the gift of widowed chastity. And although the passion of Luther may admit this excuse as valid, yet all shrink from it; and the Romans and other heathen, by the instinct of nature, regarded all such tenets as monstrous.

I reply, then, with Chrysostom and the Fathers cited, that the Apostle is here giving consolation and indulgence to the weak, and to those that are married, for having embraced the gift and state of conjugal chastity, then before they might have remained virgins. For of others that are not married he adds, It is good for them if they abide even as I; that is, it is good for them, if they will, to remain virgins; but this I do not command, nay, I am consoling the married, and I permit them the due use of wedlock, in order that they may avoid all scruple, by the reflection that each one has his own gift from God, and that they have the gift of wedlock, i.e., conjugal chastity; for matrimony itself is a gift of God, and was instituted by Him. God wills, in order to replenish the earth, in a general and indeterminate way, that some should be married; and yet this gift of wedlock is less than the gift of virginity.

It may be said that not only is matrimony a gift from God, but that one is a virgin and another married is also a gift from God. I answer that this is true enough, as when God inspires one with a purpose to lead a single life, and another a married life; as, e.g., in the case of a queen who may bear an honest offspring to the good of the realm and the Church; but still God does not always do this, but leaves it wholly to the decision of many whether they will choose the married or unmarried life.

It will be retorted, “How, then, is it that the Apostle says that each one has his proper gift of God?” I answer that this word gift is of two-fold meaning: (1.) It denotes the state itself of matrimony, or celibacy, or religion; (2.) The grace that is necessary and peculiar to this or that state. If you take the first, then each man’s own gift is from God, but only materially, inasmuch as that gift which each one has chosen for himself and made his own is also from God. For God instituted, either directly or by His Church, matrimony and celibacy and other states, and gave this or that state to each one according as he wished for it; and in this sense each one has his own gift, partly from God and partly from himself and his own will. But properly and formally, that this gift or that is proper to this or that man, is often a matter of free-will. Yet it may be said to be so far from God as the whole direction of secondary causes, and all good providence generally is from God. For God in His providence directs each one through his parents, companions, confessors, teachers, and through other secondary causes, by which it comes to pass that one devoted himself, though freely, to matrimony, another to the priesthood. For all this direction does not place him under compulsion, but leaves him free.

Here notice 1. that the Apostle might have said, “Every man hath his proper state of himself, having chosen it by an exercise of his free-will;” but he chose rather to say that “every man hath his proper gift of God,” because he wished to console the married. Lest any one, therefore, who was of scrupulous conscience and penitent should torture himself and say, “Paul wishes us to be like him, single and virgins; why ever did I then, miserable man that I am, enter into matrimony? It is my own fault that I did not embrace the better state of virginity, that I have deprived myself of so great a good, that I have plunged myself into the cares and distractions of marriage”-for this is how weak-minded, troubled, and melancholy people often look at things, and especially when they find difficulties in their state; and therefore they seek after higher and more perfect things, and torture themselves by attributing to their own imprudence the loss of some good, and the miseries that they have incurred-Paul, then, to obviate this, says that the gift, in the sense explained above, is not of man but of God. And therefore each one ought to be content with his state and calling, as being the gift of God-ought to be happy, perfect himself, and give thanks to God.

2. Gift may be the grace befitting each state. The married require one kind of grace to maintain conjugal fidelity, virgins another to live in virginity; and this grace peculiar to each is formally from God, because, it being given that you have chosen a certain state, whether of matrimony, or celibacy, or any other, God will give you the grace that is proper to that state to enable you, if you will, to live rightly in it. For this belongs to the rightly ordered providence of God, that since He has not seen fit to prescribe to each of us his state, but has left the choice of it, as well as mist other things, to our own free-will, He will not forsake a man when he has made his choice, but will give him the grace necessary for living honestly in that state. Consequently He will supply to all the means necessary to salvation, by which, if thy are willing, they will be enabled to live holily and be saved. For else it would be impossible for many to be saved, as, e.g., for religious and others who have taken a vow of chastity, for one married who has bound himself to a person that is hard to please, infirm, or detestable. To meet and overcome such difficulties they need to receive from God proper and sufficient grace. For neither the married can be loosed from matrimony, nor the religious from their vow, to adopt some other state more fitting for them.

In this the sense of this passage is: Choose whatever state you like, and God will give you grace to live in it holily. So Ambrose. And that this is the strict meaning if the Apostle is evident from the words, “For I would,” which import: I have said that I allow, but do not command, the state of wedlock; for I would that all would abstain from it, and cultivate chastity, and live a single life; but still each one has his own gift-let him be content with that, kat him exercise that. Let the single man who has received virginal or widowed chastity, i.e., the grace by which he can contain himself, look upon it as the gift of God; let the married, who has received conjugal chastity, i.e., the grace of using wedlock chastely, look upon it as the gift of God, be content with it, and use it as such.

Hence it follows (1.) that God gives to minks, even though they be apostates, the gift of sufficient grace to enable them, if they will, to live chastely; that is to say, if they pray to God, give themselves to fasting, to holy reading, to manual labour, to constant occupation. Otherwise they would be bound to an impossibility, and God would be wanting to them in things necessary, and they would not have the gift proper to their state, although the Apostle here asserts that each one, whether unmarried, or virgin, or married, has the gift of chastity proper to his state.

It follows (2.) that if any one changed his state for the better, God also changes and gives him a greater gift, and a greater measure of grace befitting that state, for this is necessary to a more perfect state. So the Council of Trent (Sess. xxiv. can. 9) lays down: “If any one says that clerks who have been placed in Holy Orders, or regulars who have solemnly professed chastity, and who do not think that they have the gift of chastity, can lawfully enter into matrimony, let him be anathema, since God does not deny it to them that seek for it, nor suffer us to be tempted above that we are able.”

Hath his gift of God. The gifts of God are twofold. 1. Some are wholly from God. So the gifts of Nature, which is but another name for god, inasmuch as He is the Author and Maker of Nature, are talent, judgment, memory, and a good disposition. The gifts of grace again are faith, hope, charity, and all the virtues infused by God, as the Author of grace.

2. Other gifts are from God indeed, but require for their due effect out co-operation. For example, all prevenient grace and good inspirations are gifts of God; so all good works, and the acts of all virtues, are gifts of God, says S. Augustine, because he gives (a) prevenient grace to excite us to these works and these actions, and (b) co-operating grace, by which He works with men to produce such things. Yet this grace so acts that man is left free, and has it in his power to act or not, to use this grace or not. In this sense all good works are gifts of God: yet they are free to man, and subject to his will and power. Of this second class the Apostle is here speaking in connection with the gift of chastity. The gift of chastity is, strictly speaking, an infused habit, or an acquired habit in those who already have it infused. But for those who have not yet the habit, there is sufficient help of grace, both internal and external, prepared for each one by God, so that by freely co-operating with it, each one may live in chastity, if he is willing to use that help. And this is evident from what is said in vers. 25, 35, 38, about the single life being counselled by God and Christ, who puts it before all men, and advises them to adopt it. But God does not advise a man to anything which is not in his power; but the single life is not in the power of each man, unless his will is helped by the grace of God. Therefore Christ has prepared, and is prepared to give to each one, this grace that is necessary to a single life and to virginity. If he is ready to give to each one virginal chastity, much more conjugal. Whoever, therefore, has his proper gift, that if his proper grace, in its beginning, will have it also in its perfect ending, if he will only pray to God earnestly and constantly to give him the grace prepared for him, and then co-operate vigorously with the grace that he has received.

Ver. 8.-I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. I am unmarried: let them remain the same. Hence it is most evident that S. Paul has no wife, but was single.

Ver. 9.-But if they cannot contain, let then marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. This may be a reference to Rth 1:13. It is better to marry than to burn, unless, that is, you are already wedded to Christ by a vow. Cf. S. Ambrose (ad Virg. Laps.c. v.). for to those who are bound by a vow of chastity, and are professed, as well as for husbands, it is better to burn and commit fornication than to marry a second time. For such marriage would be a permanent sacrilege or adultery, which is worse than fornication, or some momentary sacrilege; just as it is better to sin than to be in a constant state of sin, and to sin from obstinacy and contempt. But it is best of all neither to marry, nor to burn, but to contain, as Ambrose says; and this can be done by all tho have professed chastity, as was said in the last note, no matter how grievously they may be tempted. The Apostle going it so in his sore temptation, as many other saints have done, and especially he to whom the devils exclaimed, when they were overcome by him and put to confusion through the resistance he made to their temptation: “Thou hast conquered, hast conquered, for thou hast been in the fire and not been burnt.”

Burn here does not denote to be on fire, or to be tempted by the heat of lust, but to be injured and overcome by it, to yield and consent to it. For it is not he that feels the heat of the fire that is sain to be burnt by it, but he that is injured and scorched by it. So Virgil sings of Dido, who had been overcome by love for neas (n. 4. 68): “The ill-starred Dido burns and wanders frantically about the city.” Cf. also Ecclus. 23:22. The Apostle is giving the reason why he wishes the incontinent and weak to marry, viz., lest they should burn, i.e., commit fornication; others, who are combatants of great soul, he wishes to contain. In other words, let those who do not contain marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. So Theodoret, Ambrose, Anselm, S. Thomas, Augustine (de Sancta Virgen, c. 74), Jerome (Apolog. pro Lib. contra Jovin.). “It is better,” says S. Jerome, “to marry a husband than to commit fornication.” And S. Ambrose says: “To burn is to be at the mercy of the desires; for when the will consents to the heat of the flesh it burns. To suffer the desires and not be overcome by them is the part of an illustrious and perfect man.”

It may be objected that S. Cyprian (Ep. 11 ad. Pompon. lib. i.) says of virgins who have consecrated themselves to Christ, that “if they cannot or will not persevere, it is better for them to marry than to burn.” But Pamelius, following Turrianus and Hosius, well replies that S. Cyprian is not speaking of virgins already consecrated but of those about to be. These he advises not to dedicate and vow themselves to Christ if they do not intend to persevere; and in the same epistle he points out that that would be adulterous towards Christ if, after a vow of chastity, they should be wedded to men. Like the apostle here, he is speaking, therefore, not of those who are already bound, but of those who are free. Erasmus therefore is wrong and impudent, as usual, in making a note in the margin of this passage of S. Cyprian’s, “Cyprian allows sacred virgins to marry.”

It may be objected secondly that S. Augustine says (de Sancta Virgin. c. 34) that those vowed virgins who commit fornication would do better to marry than to burn, i.e., than to be consumed by the flame of lust.

I answer (1.) that this is a mere passing remark of S. Augustine’s, meaning that for such it would be better, i.e., a less evil to marry than to commit fornication. He does not deny that they sin by marrying, but he only asserts that they sin less by marrying than by committing fornication. In the same way we might say to a robber, “It is better to rob a man than to kill him,” i.e., it is a less evil. (2.) For such it is even absolutely better to marry than to burn, if only they enter into wedlock lawfully, that is to say, with the consent of the Church and a dispensation of their vow of continency from the Pope. (3.) Possibly, and not improbably. S. Augustine’s meaning was that even for those who have no such dispensation it is better to marry than to commit fornication persistently, i.e., to live in a state of fornication and concubinage. And the reason is that such a one, if she marries, sins indeed grievously against her vow by marrying; yet still, after her marriage she may keep her vow of chastity and be free from sin, viz., by not exacting, but only paying the marriage debt, as the women commonly do of whom S. Augustine is here speaking. If, however, such a one is constantly breaking her vow, and she consequently sins more grievously than she would by marrying. For those acts of fornication constantly repeated seem to be a far worse evil and more grievously sinful than the single act of entering into a contract of marriage against a vow of continency. For though this one act virtually includes many, viz., the seeing and paying of the marriage debt as oft as it shall please either, yet this is only remotely and implicitly. But one who commits fornication constantly sins directly and explicitly, and daily repeats such actions; therefore he sins more grievously. For it is worse to sin explicitly and in many acts than by one tacit and implicit action.

Observe also that at the time of S. Augustine these maidens who had vowed and professes chastity, though they might sin by marrying, yet might contract a lawful marriage. For the Church, as S. Augustine gives us plainly enough to understand, had not at that rime made the solemn vow an absolute barrier to matrimony. Moreover, it is evident from his next words that S. Augustine is of opinion that such ought simply and absolutely to keep their vow of chastity; for he adds: “Those virgins who repent them of their profession and are wearied of confession, unless they direct their heart aright, and again overcome their lust by the fear of God, must be reckoned among the dead.”

Lastly, that the Apostle is here speaking to those who are free, and not to those who are bound by a vow, is proved at length by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, cumenius, by Epiphanius (Hres.61), Ambrose (ad Virgin. Lapsam c. 5), Augustine (de adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. 15), Jerome (contra Jovin, lib. i.). S. Ephrem, 1300 years ago, being asked to whom this verse applies, wrote a most exhaustive treatise about it, in which he abundantly proves that it has to do, not with religious or the clergy, and those who have taken a vow of chastity, but with seculars who are free.

Vers. 10, 11.-And unto the married I command, &c. The Apostle now passes from the question of marriage to that of divorce; for, as this verse indicated, the Corinthians had put to Paul a second question, one relating to divorce. Granted that in matrimony its use was lawful, nay obligatory, as S. Paul has said, at all events may not one that is faithful to his marriage vow dissolve it and have a divorce? And again, when a divorce has taken place, may not the wife or the husband marry again? This verse and ver. 11 give the answer to the question.

He says let her remain unmarried. Hence it follows that divorce, even supposing it to be just and lawful, does not loose the marriage knot, but only dispenses with the marriage debt; so that if the wife os an adulteress it is not lawful for the innocent husband to enter into another marriage. And the same holds good for the wife if the husband is an adulterer.

We should take notice of this against the heretics Erasmus, Cajetan, and Catherinus, who say that this cannot be proved from Scripture, but only from the Canons. But they mistake, as is evident from this passage of S. Paul’s. For the Apostle is here speaking evidently of a just separation made by the wife when she is innocent, and injured by her husband committing adultery, for he permits her to remain separated, or to be reconciled to her husband. For if he were speaking if an unjust separation, such as when a wife flies from her husband without any fault on his side, he would have had not to permit of separation but altogether to order a reconciliation.

It may be said that the word reconciled points to some offence and injury done by the wife who caused the separation, and that therefore S. Paul is speaking if an unjust separation. I reply by denying the premiss. For reconcile merely signifies a return to mutual good-will; and the offending party in spoken of as being reconciled to the offended just as much as the offended to the offending. For instance, in 2 Macc. i. 5, it is said “that God may hear your prayers and be reconciled to you.” The Councils and Fathers explain this passage in this way, and lay down from it that fornication dissolves the marriage bond so far as bed and board are concerned, but not so that it is lawful to marry another. Cf. Concil. Milevit. c. 17; Concil. Elibert. c. 9; Concil. Florent. (Instruct. Armen. de Matrim.); Concil. Trident Sess. xx. can. 7); Pope Evaristus (Ep. 2); S. Augustine de Adulter. Conjug. (lib. ii. c. 4); S. Jerome (Ep. ad Amand.); Theodoret, cumenius, Haymo, Anselm and others.

It may be said that Ambrose, commenting on this verse, says that the Apostle speaks of the wife only, because it is never lawful for her to marry another after she is divorced; but that it is lawful for the husband, after putting away an adulterous wife, to marry another, because he is the head of the woman. I answer that from this and similar passages it is evident that this commentary on S. Paul’s Epistles is not the work of S. Ambrose, or at all events that these passages are interpolations. For in matrimony and divorce the same law governs the wife which governs the husband, as the true Ambrose lays down (in Lucam viii. and de Abraham, lib. i. c. 4). What then the Apostle says of the wife applies equally to the husband; for he is speaking to all that are married, as he says himself; and moreover, in ver. 5, he declared that the marriage rights of husband and wife are equal, and that each has equal power over the other’s body.

Let not the husband put away his wife. I.e., without grave and just cause; for it is allowed to put her away because of fornication and other just causes.

Ver. 12.-But to the rest speak I . . . let him not put her away.

The rest are those that are married and belong to different religions; and to them I say, that if a brother, i.e., one of the faithful, have a wife that is an unbeliever, &c. In other words, I have thus far spoken to married people when both are of the number of the faithful, as I implied in ver. 5, when I said “that ye may give yourselves to prayer.” Now, however, I am addressing those of whim one is a believer, the other an unbeliever. This is the explanation given by many together with S. Augustine, who will be quoted directly.

But if this is so it is certainly strange that the Apostle did not express himself more clearly, for by the addition of a single word he might have said more simply: “To the faithful who are married it is not I that speak but the Lord; but to the rest, viz., to those married couples of whom one is an unbeliever, I speak, not the Lord.” But by saying not to the faithful, but unto the married, he seems to speak in general terms of all that are married, whether believers or unbelievers. Nor is it to be objected to this that in ver.5 he speaks casually to the faithful, for there he is excepting from the general law which governs the marriage debt those of the faithful who are married, when by mutual consent they give themselves to prayer. But this exception is not to be made to cover all the marriage laws, which the Apostle in this chapter us laying down for all who are married. Moreover, the Apostle so far has not said a single word about the unbeliever, or about a difference of religion.

Hence we may say secondly and better, that the rest are those who are not joined in matrimony. For by the words but and the rest this verse is opposed to ver. 10, as will appear more clearly directly.

Speak I, not the Lord. “I command,” says Theodoret. But S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. 13 et seq.), Anselm, and S. Thomas interpret it: I give the following advice, viz., that the believing husband is not to put away an unbelieving wife who lives at peace with him, and vice vers.

There is a third interpretation, and the best of all, given us from the Roman, Plantinian, and other Bibles, which put a full stop after the words, But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, this separating them from what follows and joining them to what precedes. We have then the meaning as follows: To the rest, viz., the unmarried, the Lord gives no command (supply command from ver, 10), but I say, and I advise what I said and advised before in ver. 8, viz., that it is good for them to remain as they are, unmarried.

This interpretation too is supported by the antithesis between the rest and the married, by which it is clear that the rest must be the unmarried, not married people of different faiths. Moreover, he explains himself in this way in ver. 25, where he says, “Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment,” which is identical with what he says here, “To the rest speak I, not the Lord.”

If any brother hath a wife that believeth not. This is the third question put to Paul by the Corinthians: Can one of the faithful that is married live with an unbelieving partner? S. Augustine and others, as I have said, connect these words with the preceding, which then give as the meaning: Although Christ permitted a believer to put away his wife that believeth not, yet I give as my advice that he do not put her away; for to put her away is neither expedient for her salvation nor for that of the children, if she is willing to live with a believer without casting reproach on her Creator and on the faith. Hence many doctors, cited by Henriquez (de Matrim. lib. xi. c. 8), gather indirectly by analogy that, since Paul forbids what Christ permits, one of the faithful that is married may, by Christ’s permission, put away an unbelieving partner that refuses to be converted, and contract another marriage. On the contrary, when both are believers, neither is allowed this, as has been said. But if we separate these words, as the Roman Bible does, from the preceding, by a full stop, nothing if the kind can be proved. Nay, Thomas Sanchez (de Matrim. vol. ii. disp. 73, no. 7), who does not read any full stop, as S. Augustine does not, and so refers these words to what follows, thinks that all that is exactly to be gathered from this is that Christ permits to a married believer separation a toro, but not dissolution of a marriage entered into with one that believes not. In the third place, this passage might be explained to mean that Christ laid down no law on this matter, but left it to be settled by His Apostles and His Church, according to needs of different ages, as, e.g., the Church afterwards declared the marriage of a believer with as unbeliever null and void, if one was a believer at the time of the marriage. According to S. Augustine’s reading, this rendering is obtained with difficulty; according to the Roman, not at all. For all that the Apostle means is that the believer is not to put away an unbeliever, if the latter is willing to live with the former. Cf. note to ver. 15.

Infidelity in S. Paul’s time was no impediment that destroyed a marriage contracted with a believer, nor did it prevent it from being contracted, if the believer ran no risk of apostatising, and if the unbeliever would consent to live in peace with the believer, retaining his faith, as S. Paul here lays down. But now by long custom it has become the law of the Church that not heresy but infidelity not only impedes, but also destroys a marriage which any one who was a believer at the time might wish to contract with an unbeliever.

Ver. 14.-For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. Such union by marriage is holy. The believer, therefore, is not, as you so scrupulously fear, defiled by contact with an unbeliever, but rather the unbeliever, as Anselm says, is sanctified by a kind of moral naming and sprinkling of holiness, both because he is the husband of a holy, that is a believing, wife, and also because by not hindering his wife in her faith, and by living happily with her, he as it were paves the way for himself to be converted by the prayers, merits, words, and example of his believing wife, and so to become holy. So did S. Cecilia convert her husband Valerian; Theodora, Sisinnius; Clotilda, Clodvus. So say Anselm, Theophylact, Chrysostom.

S. Natalia, the wife of S. Adrian, is illustrious for having not only incited her husband to adopt the faith, but also most gloriously to undergo martyrdom for it. For when she had heard that women were forbidden to serve the martyrs, and that the prison-doors would not be opened to them, she shaved off her hair, and having donned man’s dress, she entered the prison and strengthened the hearts of the martyrs by her good offices. Other matrons followed her example. At length the tyrant Maximianus discovered the fraud, and ordered an anvil to be brought into the prison, and the arms and legs of the martyrs to be placed on it and smashed with a crow-bar. The lictors did as they had been ordered; and when the Blessed Natalia saw it, she went to meet them and asked them to begin with Adrian. The executioners did so, and when the leg of Adrian was placed on the anvil, Natalia caught hold of his foot and held it in position. Then the executioners aimed a blow with all their might, and cut off his feet and smashed his legs. Forthwith Natalia said to Adrian, “I pray thee, my lord, servant of Christ, while your spirit remains in you, stretch forth your hand that they may also cut that off, and that you may be made like the martyrs in all things: for greater sufferings have they endured than these.” Then Adrian stretched out his hand, and gave it to Natalia, who placed it on the anvil, and then the executioners cut it off. Then they took the anvil away, and soon after his spirit fled. Cf. his life, September 8th.

It is worth our notice what Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, writes, in his exposition of the Council of Florence (Sess. v.) of Theophilus, a heretic and not a heathen emperor, son of Michael the Stammerer, who was saved by the prayers of his wife Augusta. He had made an onslaught on images, and his mouth was in consequence so violently pulled open that men might see down his throat. This brought him to his senses, and he kissed the holy image. Shortly afterwards he was taken away to appear before the tribunal of God, and through the prayers offered for him by his wife and by holy men he received the pardon; for the queen in her sleep saw a vision of Theophilus bound and being dragged by a vast multitude, going before and following. Before him were borne different instruments of torture, and she saw those following who were being led to punishment until they came into the presence of the terrible Judge, and before Him Theophilus was placed. Then Augusta threw herself at the feet of the Dread Judge, and with many tears besought Him earnestly for her husband. The terrible Judge said to her: “O woman, great is thy faith; for thy sake, and because of the prayers of thy priests, I pardon thy husband.” Then He said to His servants: “Loose him, and deliver him to his wife.” It is also said that the Patriarch Methodius, having collected and written down the names of all kinds of heretics, including Theophilus, placed the roll under the holy table. Then in the same night on which the queen saw the vision, he too saw a holy angel entering the great temple, and saying, “O Bishop, thy prayers are heard, and Theophilus has found pardon.” On awaking from sleep he went to the holy table, and lo! the unsearchable judgment of god, he found the name of Theophilus blotted out. Cf. also Baronuis (Annal. vol. ix., A.D. 842).

Else were your children unclean. If you were to put away a wife that believed not, your children would be looked upon as having been born in unlawful wedlock, and as therefore illegitimate. But, as it is, they are holy, i.e., clean-conceived and born in honourable and lawful wedlock. So Ambrose, Anselm, Augustine (de Peccat. Meritis. lib.ii. c. 26). In the second place they would be strictly unclean, because they would be enticed into infidelity, and educated in it by the unbelieving parent, who had sought for the divorce through hatred of his partner; and especially if it is the father that is the unbeliever, for in such cases the children for the most part follow the father. But if the believer remain in wedlock with the unbeliever, the children are holy, because, with the tacit permission of the unbeliever, they can easily be sanctified, baptized, and Christianly educated through the faith, the diligence, and care of the believer. So S. Augustine (de Peccat. Meritis. lib. iii. c. 12), and after Tertullian, S. Jerome (ad Paulin. Ep. 153). It is from this passage that Calvin and Beza have gathered their doctrine f imputed righteousness, teaching that the children of believers are strictly holy, and can be saved without baptism. They say that by the very fact that they are children of believers they are regarded as being born in the Church, according to the Divine covenant in Gen. xvii. “I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.” Similarly, in the Civil Law, when one parent is free the children are born free.

But these teachers err, For (1.) the Apostle says equally that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife. But it is not precisely correct to say that such a man is sanctified through his wife; neither, therefore, is it strictly true of the child. (2.) The Church is not a civil but a supernatural republic, and in it no one is born a Christian; but by baptism, which has taken the place of circumcision, every one is spiritually born again and is made holy, not civilly but really, by faith, hope, and charity infused into his soul. This is the mind of the Fathers and the whole Church. (3.) It is said absolutely in S. Joh 3:5, that “except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” It is therefore untrue that any one not born of water, but merely of believing parents, can enter into the kingdom of God.

Ver. 15.-But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. If the unbeliever seek for a dissolution of the marriage, or will not live with his partner without doing injury to God, by endeavouring to draw her way to unbelief or to some wickedness, or by uttering blasphemy against God, or Christ, or the faith, then, as Sanchez lays down from the common consent of the Doctors of the Church (vol. ii. disp. 74), he by so acting is rightly regarded to wish for a separation; then let the unbeliever depart from the unbelieving, because it is better, says S. Chrysostom, to be divorced from one’s husband than from God.

Observe that the Apostle in this case allows a separation, not only a toro but also a vinculo; and therefore the believer may contract another marriage, this being a concession made by Christ in favour of the faith; otherwise a Christian man or woman would be subject to slavery. For it is a grievous slavery to be bound in matrimony to an unbeliever, so as not to be able to marry another, and to be bound to live a life of celibacy, even if the unbeliever depart. So S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. 13), S. Thomas, and S. Ambrose, who says: “The marriage obedience is not owing to him who scoffs at the Author of marriage, but in such case remarriage is lawful.”

Further, many doctors, cited by Henriquez (de Matrim. lib. xi. c. 8), amongst whom is S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. xix.), gather from this verse and from verse12 that the believer whose unbelieving partner is not willing to be converted, even though he may be willing to live with her without injury to God, has by this very fact a right to enter upon a new marriage. But S. Paul and the Canonical decrees (cap. quanto, cap. Gaudemus, tit, de Divort, and cap. Si Infidelis 28, qu. 2) only deal with the case where the unbeliever wishes to depart, or where he is a blasphemer against the faith. And, therefore, other doctors, cited by Henriquez, think that in this case it is lawful for the believer to marry again. And this opinion is the more sound not only for the reason given above, but also because the Fathers who support the first opinion rely on glosses on the various capitula, which are merely glosses of Orleans, and if anything darken the text.

Moreover, no gloss by itself can be the foundation of a right, or of a new law. Since, therefore, it is agreed that the marriage of unbelievers is true marriage, and that it is not dissolved by the conversion of either party, because there is no law of God or of the Church to dissolve it, it follows that they must hold to their contract, which by its very nature is indissoluble. This is strengthened by the consideration that each party possesses good faith; therefore it cannot set aside, unless it is agreed that either or both have no right to this marriage, or that one loses his right through the conversion of the other. This, however, is not agreed on, but is highly doubtful. In matters of doubt the position of the possessor is the stronger, and he ought not to be ousted from it because of any doubt that may arise.

Nevertheless, Sanchez adds (disp. 74, num. 9) that it is lawful for the believer to marry again, because it is now forbidden by the Church to live with an unbeliever who will not be converted, because of the danger of perversion which exists nearly always. The unbeliever is then looked upon as having departed, because he refuses to live with the believer in a lawful and proper manner. But Sanchez means that the Church now forbids in general a believer to continue to live with an unbeliever. But this is denied by Navarrus and others; for though the Fourth Council of Toledo forbids a believer to live with an unbeliever if he is a Jew, this was done merely because of the obstinate tenacity of the Jews to their creed. Neither here nor elsewhere is marriage with a heathen forbidden.

Moreover, the Council of Toledo was merely local, and this same canon has been differently interpreted by different authors, as Sanchez says (disp. 73, num. 6). And in truth it would be hard and a just cause of offence if, in India, China, and Japan, when the faith is first preached, Christians should be compelled to put away the wives that they had married when unbelievers, or if wives should be compelled to leave their husbands who were unwilling to be converted to Christianity, especially when they were in high position; for occasion would be taken from thence to exterminate Christians and their faith. The case is different in Spain and amongst Christians, where the Church might, without causing scandal, enact this, either by a general law (which as a matter of fact does not exist, as I have said), or by use and custom, by forbidding individuals in particular to remain in marriage with one that was not a believer, because of the danger of perversion. Such a precept it would be the duty of the believer to obey, and therefore it would not be he that was in fault, but the unbeliever, who, by refusing to live in marriage, according to the law binding on the believing partner and the precept of the Church, becomes the cause of the separation. By so acting, the unbeliever will be reckoned to wish for separation, and consequently it would be lawful for the believer to contract another marriage, as Sanchez learnedly argues. For example, Queen Csar, wife of the King of the Persians in the time of the Emperor Mauritius, fled secretly to Constantinople, and was there converted and baptized. When her husband requested her to return, she refused to do so unless he became a Christian. He when went to Constantinople and was there baptized, and assisted out of the font by Augustus, and having received his wife again, he returned joyfully to his home. This happened about the year 593, as Baronius related on the authority of Paul the Deacon and Gregory of Tours. All that has been said must be clearly understood to refer to matrimony contracted when both partied are unbelievers, followed by the conversion of one and the refusal of the other to be converted; for matrimony contracted by an unbeliever with a believer has been declared null and void by the Church since the time of S. Paul and thence it is that difference of faith is a barrier to matrimony. This was the reason why Theresa, sister of Adelphonsus, King of Lige, refused to marry Abdallah, King of the Arabs, unless he adopted the Christian faith. This he promised, but falsely. Therefore on the arrival of Theresa he forced her, in spite of her struggles; but being smitten by God with a sore disease, he was unable to be cured without sending back Theresa to her brother. This is told by Roderic, Vazus, and Baronius (A. D. 983).

S. Eurosia too, daughter of the King of Bohemia, having been taken prisoner by the King of the Moors, chose death rather than marriage with him; and while she was patiently awaiting the sword of the executioner, she heard an angel saying, “Come, my elect, the spouse of Christ, receive the crown which the Lord hath prepared for you, and the gift that your prayers shall be heard as often as the faithful call upon you for help against rain or any storm whatsoever.” Having heard these words, her arms and legs having been lopped off, she gave up the ghost, being renowned for her miracles, as Lucius Marinus Siculus related (de Rebus Hispan, lib. v.).

But God hath called us unto peace. Peace of conscience with God, and of agreement with men. Therefore, on our part, let us not depart from unbelieving husbands, but live with them as peacefully as we can. Secondly, and more fitly, peace here stands for that rest and tranquil life to which the Apostle is urging the married believer. Such a life in separation and solitude is to be preferred to marriage with an unbeliever who wishes to depart, and who is perpetually provoking the believer to quarrel, and disturbing his peace. This better agrees with the mention of departure which has gone just before these words, and of which I shall have more to say.

Ver. 16.-For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? If we take the first meaning of “peace” given above, the sense will be: Live in peace as far as you can, O believer, with your unbelieving partner, for you know not the good that he may derive thence: perhaps by living with him you will convert him and save him. So Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm, Theophylact, and others, If we take the second meaning of peace, the sense will be still better. Peace is the gift of Christ; to this have we been called by Christ, not to unhappy and quarrelsome slavery. If, therefore, the unbeliever seeks by quarrels, abuse, by threats against the faith and against his faithful partner, to drive her away, let her depart and live peacefully, and give up all hope of his conversion. For what ground of hope is there of one that is a heathen, blasphemous, and quarrelsome? Therefore, what do you know, or whence do you hope to save him?

Ver. 17.- But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. I have said this much about the marriage of an unbeliever with a believer, and about separation and divorce, if the unbeliever seek for it, and about living together in peace; but I do not wish to be understood to mean that a divorce is to be sought for, or that peace is to be broken, merely through lust and a desire to change one’s state, as, e.g., that a believer, because he is a believer and called to Christian liberty, may desire and find an excuse for changing his servile condition into one of freedom, his position as a Gentile into that if a Jew. I ordain, therefore, that each one of the faithful, whether he be a Jew or a Gentile, bond or free, maintain the state and condition which the Lord has given him, and which he had before he became a believer. Let each one walk in his own line; let him be content with that, and live as becometh a Christian; let him not grow restless to change his state because of his Christianity, and so cause the Gentiles to stumble.

This seems to be the answer to a fourth question put to Paul by the Corinthian

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

7:1 Now {1} concerning the things {a} whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] {b} good for a man not to touch a woman.

(1) He teaches concerning marriage that although a single life has its advantages, which he will declare afterwards, yet that marriage is necessary for the avoiding of fornication. But so that neither one man may have many wives, nor any wife many husbands.

(a) Concerning those matters about which you wrote to me.

(b) Commodious, and (as we say) expedient. For marriage brings many griefs with it, and that by reason of the corruption of our first estate.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

1. Advice to the married or formerly married 7:1-16

Paul proceeded to give guidelines to the married or formerly married. The statement "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1Co 7:1) may well have been a Corinthian slogan. [Note: Ibid., p. 270.] This hypothesis, which seems valid to me in light of Paul’s argumentation, results in a different interpretation of the text than has been traditional. The traditional view takes the entire section as explaining Paul’s position on marriage in general in response to the Corinthians’ question about its advisability. [Note: Advocates of the traditional interpretation include Godet, Lightfoot, Grosheide, Morris, Mare, and Wiersbe.] I believe Paul responded to the Corinthians’ false view, as expressed in this slogan, in all that follows in this section.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

III. QUESTIONS ASKED OF PAUL 7:1-16:12

The remainder of the body of this epistle deals with questions the Corinthians had put to Paul in a letter. Paul introduced each of these with the phrase peri de ("now concerning," 1Co 7:1; 1Co 7:25; 1Co 8:1; 1Co 12:1; 1Co 16:1; 1Co 16:12), a phrase commonly used in antiquity. [Note: Keener, p. 62.]

"Rather than a friendly exchange, in which the new believers in Corinth are asking spiritual advice of their mentor in the Lord, their letter was probably a response to Paul’s Previous Letter mentioned in 1Co 5:9, in which they were taking exception to his position on point after point. In light of their own theology of spirit, with heavy emphasis on ’wisdom’ and ’knowledge,’ they have answered Paul with a kind of ’Why can’t we?’ attitude, in which they are looking for his response." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., pp. 266-67.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The importance of sexual relations in marriage 7:1-7

Paul advised married people not to abstain from normal sexual relations.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Again Paul began what he had to say by citing a general truth. Then he proceeded to qualify it (cf. 1Co 6:12-13). The use of the Greek word anthropos (man generically, people) rather than aner (man as distinguished from woman) indicates that the statement pertains to human beings generally. To "touch a woman" (NASB) was a common ancient euphemism for sexual intercourse. [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 275; Lowery, p. 517; Keener, p. 62.] It was probably another Corinthian slogan (cf. 1Co 6:12-13; 1Co 6:18). Evidently the Corinthians’ question was something like this. Isn’t it preferable for a Christian man to abstain from sexual relations with any woman? This would reflect the "spiritual" viewpoint of the Corinthians that held a negative attitude toward the material world and the body (cf. 1Co 6:13; 1Co 15:12).

"Some difficulty is alleviated if these words [the slogan] are regarded as a quotation from the Corinthian letter, and this is a hypothesis that may very probably be accepted [cf. 1Co 6:12-13] . . ." [Note: Barrett, p. 154.]

Another view is that "touch a woman" was a euphemism for marrying. [Note: Morris, p. 105.] However this meaning is difficult to prove, and I do not prefer it. If this is what he meant, Paul’s advice was to abstain from marrying. Paul wrote later that because of the present distress his readers would do well to remain in their present marital state (1Co 7:26). Furthermore throughout the passage Paul viewed marriage as God-ordained and perfectly proper for Christians. He also wrote that a single life is not wrong but good (Gr. kalon), though not necessarily better than a married life.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 11

MARRIAGE

THERE are two preliminary considerations which throw some light on this much-contested passage. First, Paul had to speak about marriage as he found it, as it existed among those to whom he wished to be of service. Hence he makes no allusion to that which among ourselves is the main argument for, or at least the one only justifying motive to marriage, viz., love. Marriage is treated here from a lower point of view than it would have been had this letter been originally written for Englishmen. The Church to which it was addressed was composite. Jews, Greeks, and Romans, in what proportions it is not easy to say, brought their peculiar and national usages into it. In the marriages of the Jews and Greeks, love had, as a rule, little to do. The marriage was arranged by the parents of the contracting parties.

“Faces strange and tongues unknown

Make us by a bid their own,”

is the remonstrance of the Greek maiden against the unnatural custom which prevailed of allowing no intimacy, and scarcely any real acquaintance, prior to marriage. The lack of warmth and personal interest which characterises the Greek plays arises mainly from the circumstance that among the Greeks there was absolutely no such thing as that love prior to marriage on which even our best works of fiction uniformly depend for their interest. Among the Romans there was none of this Eastern seclusion of women, and but for other causes marriage among this section of the Corinthian population might have served as an example to the rest.

Secondly, it is to be considered that not only had Paul to speak of marriage as he found it, but also that he was here only giving answers to some special questions, and not discussing the whole subject in all its bearings. There might be other points which to his mind seemed equally important; but his advice not having been asked about these, he passes them by. He introduces the subject in a manner fitted to remind us that he has no intention of propounding his views on marriage in a complete and systematic form: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me.” There had arisen in the Corinthian Church certain scruples about marriage; and as the Church was composed of persons who would naturally take very different views on the subject, these scruples might not be easily removed. Among the Jews it was believed that marriage was a duty, “so much so that he who at the age of twenty had not married was considered to have sinned.” Among the Gentiles the tendency to celibacy was so strong that it was considered necessary to counteract it by legal enactment. In a community previously disposed to take such opposite views of marriage difficulties were sure to arise. Those who were predisposed to disparage the married state would throw contempt upon it as a mere concession to the flesh; they apparently even urged that, Christians being new creatures, their whole previous relationships were dissolved. To Paul therefore appeal is made.

The questions referred to Paul resolve themselves into two: whether the unmarried are to marry, and whether the married are to continue to live together.

In reply to the former question, whether the unmarried are to marry, he first states the duty of unmarried persons themselves (in 1Co 7:2; 1Co 7:7-9); and afterwards (in 1Co 7:25-39) he explains the duty of parents to their unmarried daughters.

I. First then we have Pauls counsel to the unmarried. This is summed up in the words, “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I”; that is to say, if they remain unmarried, Paul being probably the only unmarried Apostle. But if any mans temperament be such that he cannot settle undistractedly to his work without marrying; if he is restless and ill at ease, and full of natural cravings which make him think much of marriage, and make him feel sure he would be less distracted in married life-then, says Paul, let such a one by all means marry. But do not misunderstand me, he says; this is permission I am giving you, not commandment. I do not say you must or ought to marry; I say you may, and in certain circumstances ought. Those among you who say a man sins if he do not marry, talk nonsense. Those among you who feel a quiet superiority because you are married, and think of unmarried people as undergraduates who have not attained a degree equal to yours, are much mistaken if you suppose that I am of your mind. When I say, “Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband,” I do not mean that every man who wishes to come as near perfection as possible must go and marry, but what I speak I speak by way of permission; I permit every man to marry who deliberately believes he will be the better of marrying. So far from thinking that every man ought to marry, or that married men have somehow the advantage over single men, I think the very opposite, and would that all men were even as I myself, only I know that to many men it is not so easy as it is to me to live unmarried; and therefore I do not advise them to a single life.

But this advice of Pauls proceeds, not from any ascetic tendency, but from the practical bias of his mind. He had no idea that marriage was a morally inferior condition; on the contrary, he saw in it the most perfect symbol of the union of Christ and the Church. But he thought that unmarried men were likely to be most available for the work of Christ; and therefore he could not but wish it possible, though he knew it was not possible, that all unmarried men should remain unmarried.

His reason for thinking that unmarried men would be more efficient in the service of Christ is given in the thirty-second and thirty-third verses: “He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife, (1Co 7:32-33)” an opinion quite similar to that which Lord Bacon pronounced when he said, “Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men, who both in affections and means have married and endowed the public.” Given two men with equal desire to serve Christ, but the one married and the other unmarried, it is obvious that the unmarried man has more means and opportunities of service than he who has a large family to support. No doubt a good wife may stimulate a man to liberality, and may greatly increase his tenderness towards deserving objects of charity; but the fact remains that he who has seven or ten mouths to fill cannot have so much to give away as if he had but himself to support. Then, again, however alike in sentiment husband and wife may be, there are sacrifices which a married man may not make. With the unmarried man there need be no other consideration than this: How can I best serve Christ? With the married man there must always be other considerations. He cannot ignore or forswear the ties with which he has bound himself; he cannot act as if he had only himself to consider. The unmarried man has life and the world before him, and may choose the most ideal and perfect style of life he pleases. He may seek to realise, as many in recent times have realised, the exact apostolic idea of how it is best to spend a human life. He may choose to devote himself to the elevation of some one class of the community, or he is free to go to the ends of the earth to preach the Gospel. He has no one thing to consider but how he may please the Lord. But the married man has limited his range of choice, and has cut himself off from some at least of the most influential ways of doing good in the world. It is therefore to the unmarried that the State looks for the manning of the army and navy; it is to the unmarried that society looks for the nursing of the sick and for the filling of posts of danger; and it is on the unmarried that the Church depends for a large part of her work, from teaching in Sunday schools to occupying unhealthy and precarious outposts in the mission field.

But while Paul makes no scruple of saying that for many purposes the unmarried man is the more available, he says also, Beware how you individually think yourself a hero, and able to forego marriage. Beware lest, by choosing a part which you are not fit for, you give Satan an advantage over you, and expose yourself to constant temptation, and pass through life distracted by needless deprivation. “Far be it from me,” says Paul, “to cast a snare upon you,” to invite or encourage you into a position against which your nature would unceasingly rebel, to prompt you to attempt that for which you are constitutionally unfit, and thereby to make your life a chronic temptation. “Every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, another after that.” And if any man fancies that, because there are advantages in being unmarried, therefore that is the best state for him, or if, on the other hand, any man fancies that, because most men seem to find great happiness in marriage, he also needs marriage to complete his happiness, both of these men leave out of account that which is chiefly to be taken into account, viz., the special temperament, calling, and opportunities of each.

The common sense and wise counsel of this chapter are sometimes half jestingly put aside by the idle remark that Paul, being himself unmarried, takes a biased view of the subject. But the chief merit of the whole passage is that Paul positively and expressly declines to judge others by himself, or himself by others. What is good for one man in this respect is not good, he says, for another; every man must ascertain for himself what is best for him. And this is precisely what is lacking in popular feeling and talk about marriage. People start in life, and are encouraged to start in life, on the understanding that their happiness cannot be complete till they are married; that they are in some sense incomplete and unsatisfactory members of society until they marry. Now, on the contrary, people should be taught not to follow one another like sheep, nor to suppose that they will infallibly find happiness where others have found it. They should be taught to consider their own make and bent, and not to take for granted that the cravings they feel for an indefinite addition to their happiness will be satisfied by marriage. They should be taught that marriage is but one out of many paths to happiness, that it is possible celibacy may be the straightest path to happiness for them, and that many persons are so constituted that they are likely to be much more useful unmarried than married. They should, above all, be taught that human life is very wide and multifarious, and that, to effect His ends, God needs persons of all kinds and conditions, so that to prejudge the direction in which our usefulness and happiness are to run is to shut God out of our life. There can be no doubt that the opposite way of speaking of marriage as the great settlement in life has introduced much misery and uselessness into the lives of thousands.

It is this then which not only signally illustrates the judicial balance of the Apostles mind, but at the same time gives us the key to the whole chapter. The capacity for celibacy is a gift of God to him who possesses it, a gift which may be of eminent service, but to which no moral value can be attached. There are many such diversities of gifts among men, gifts of immense value, but which may belong to bad as well as to good men. For example, two men travel together; the one can go without food for twelve hours, the other cannot, but if you repair his strength every five hours, he can go through as much fatigue as the other. This power of abstinence is a valuable gift, and has frequently enabled men in certain circumstances to save life or perform other important service. But no one would dream of arguing that because a man possessed this gift, he was therefore a better man than his less enduring friend. Unfortunately, so simple a distinction has not been kept in view. In the most powerful Church in the world celibacy is regarded as a virtue in itself, so that men with no natural gift for it have been encouraged to aim at it, with what results we need not say.

But while there is no virtue in remaining unmarried, there is virtue in remaining unmarried for the sake of serving Christ better. Some persons are kept single by mere selfishness; having been accustomed to orderly and quiet ways, they shrink from having their personal peace broken in upon by the claims of children. Some shrink from being tied down to any definite settlement in life; they like to feel unencumbered, and free to shift their tent at short notice. Some dread responsibility and the little and great anxieties of family life. A few have the feeling of the miser, and prefer the possibility of many conceivable marriages to the actuality of one. For such persons to make a virtue of their celibacy is absurd. But all honour to those who recognise that they are called to some duty they could not discharge if married! All honour to that eldest son of an orphaned family who sees that it is not for him to please himself, but to work for those who have none to look to but him! There are here and there persons who from the highest motives decline marriage: persons conscious of some hereditary weakness, physical or mental; persons who, on a deliberate survey of human life, have seemed to themselves to recognise that they are called to a kind of service with which marriage is incompatible. We may be thankful that in our own country and time there are men and women of sufficiently heroic mould to exemplify the wisdom of the Apostles counsel. Such devotion is not for everyone. There are persons of a soft and domestic temperament who need the supports and comforts of home life, and nothing can be more cruel and ill-advised than to encourage such persons to turn their life into a channel in which it was never intended to run. But it is equally to be lamented that, where there are women quite capable of a life of self-devotion to some noble work, they should be discouraged from such a life by the false and foolish, and petty notions of society; and should be taught to believe that the only way in which they can serve their Lord is by caring for the affairs of a single household. No calling is nobler or more worthy of a Christian woman than marriage; but it is not the only calling. There are other callings as noble, and there are callings in which many women will find a much wider field for doing good.

II. St. Pauls counsel to the married. Some of the Corinthians seem to have thought that, because they were new creatures in Christ, their old relations should be abandoned; and they put to Paul the question whether a believing man who had an unbelieving wife ought not to forsake her. Paul had shrewdness enough to see that if a Christian might separate from an unbelieving wife on the sole ground that he was a Christian, this easy mode of divorce might lead to a large and most unwelcome influx of pretended Christians into the Church. He therefore lays down the law that the power of separation is to rest with the unbelieving and not with the believing, partner. If the unbelieving wife wishes to separate from her Christian husband, let her do so; but the change from heathenism to Christianity was no reason for sundering the marriage union. It frequently happened in the early ages of the Church that when a man was converted to the Christian faith in middle life, and judged he could serve God better without the encumbrance of a family, he forsook his wife and children and betook himself to a monastery. This directly contravened the law here laid down to abide in the vocation wherein Gods call had found him.

The principle, “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called,” is of wide application. The slave who heard Gods call to him to become His child was not to think he must resent being a slave and assert his Christian liberty by requiring emancipation from earthly servitude. On the contrary, he must be content with the inward possession of the freedom Christ had given him, and must show his liberty by the willingness and spontaneity of his submission to all his outward conditions. It is not externals that make a Christian: and if Gods grace has found, a man in unlikely circumstances, that is the best evidence he can have that he will find opportunity of serving God in those circumstances, if there be no sin in them. It throws great light on the relation which we as Christians hold to the institutions of our country, and generally to outward things, when we understand that Christianity does not begin by making external changes, but begins within and gradually finds its way outwards, modifying and rectifying all it meets.

But the principle to which Paul chiefly trusts, he enounces in the twenty-ninth verse: “This I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth that both they that have wives be as though they had none, and they that weep as though they wept not; for the fashion of this world passeth away.” The forms in which human life is now moulded, the kind of business we are now engaged in, the pleasures we enjoy, even the relationships we hold to one another, pass away. There are no doubt relationships which time cannot dissolve, marriages so fit and uniting spirits so essentially kindred that no change can dissolve them, affections so pure and clinging that if the future does not renew them, it loses a large part of its charm for us. But whatever is temporary in our relation to the present world it is foolish so to set our heart on, that death may seem to end all our joy and all our usefulness. We may resent being asked to be moderate and self-restrained in our devotedness to this or that pursuit, but the fact is that the time is short and that the fashion of this world passeth away; and it is surely the part of wisdom to accommodate oneself to fact. In this life we now lead, and underneath all its activities, and forms, and relationships, we have opportunity of laying hold on what is permanent; and if, instead of penetrating through the outward things to the eternal significance and relations they bear, we give ourselves wholly to them, we abuse the world, and pervert it to an end for which it was not intended. The man who is sent abroad for five years would consider it folly to accumulate a large collection of the luxuries of life, furniture, and paintings, and encumbrances; how many times five years do we expect to live, that we should be much concerned to amass goods which we cannot remove to another world? This world is a means, and not an end; and those use it best who use it in relation to what is to be. They use it not less vigorously, but more wisely, not despising the mould which fashions them to their eternal form, but ever bearing in mind that the mould is to be broken and that what is fashioned by it alone remains. It is the thought of our great future which alone gives us sufficient courage and wisdom to deal with present things intensely and in earnest. For, as a heathen long ago saw and said, “if God make so much of creatures in whom there is nothing permanent, He is like women who sow the seeds of plants within the soil enclosed in an oyster shell.” The very intensity of our interests and affections reminds us that we cannot root ourselves in this present life, but need a larger room..

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles