Art thou bound unto a wife? – <\/B>Art thou already married? Marriage is often thus represented as a tie, a bond, etc.; see the note at Rom 7:2<\/span>.<\/P> Seek not to be loosed – <\/B>Seek not a dissolution (<\/SPAN><\/span> lusin) of the connection, either by divorce or by a separation from each other; see the notes on 1Co 7:10-17<\/span>.<\/P> Art thou loosed from a wife? – <\/B>Art thou unmarried? It should have been rendered free from a wife; or art thou single? It does not imply of necessity that the person had been married, though it may have that meaning, and signify those who had been separated from a wife by her death. There is no necessity of supposing that Paul refers to persons who had divorced their wives. So Grotius, Schleusner, Doddridge, etc.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 27. Art thou bound unto a wife?<\/B><\/I>] i e. Married<\/I>; for the marriage contract was considered in the light of a bond<\/I>.<\/P> <\/P> Seek not to be loosed.<\/B><\/I>] Neither regret your circumstances, notwithstanding the present distress, nor seek on this account for a dissolution of the marriage contract. But if thou art under no matrimonial engagements, do not for the present enter into any.<\/P><\/p>\n Art thou bound by marriage, or bound by contract, do not use any sinful ways to be loosed from that bond, either by divorce or by a voluntary departure: if the unbeliever will depart, he or she may, you are not obliged to court their stay, but do not you put him or her away. Are you free from a wife, either as yet unmarried, or by the hand of God separated, in case you can without sin, abstain. If your circumstances be such as they do not oblige you to marriage, do not seek a wife; the times are like to be full of trouble and difficulty. Our Master said, Woe unto them that are with child, and<\/I> to them that give suck in those days!<\/I> Mat 24:19<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 27.<\/B> Illustrating the meaning of”so to be,” 1Co 7:26<\/span>.Neither the married (those “bound to a wife”) nor theunmarried (those “loosed from a wife”) are to “seek”a change of state (compare 1Co 7:20<\/span>;1Co 7:24<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n Art thou bound unto a wife<\/strong>?…. Or to a woman; either by promise, or by espousal, or by consummate marriage; either of which is a tic, or obligation, a bond, and especially the latter; marriage is such a bond as cannot be dissolved, but by the death of one of the parties; see Ro 7:2<\/span> unless in case of adultery, or of wilful desertion: and it is a bond which mutually obliges; as the husband is bound by the law of marriage to live chastely and lovingly with his wife, and to take care of her, and provide for her; so the wife is bound by the same law to live in like manner with her husband, and to submit unto him, and obey him:<\/p>\n seek not to be loosed<\/strong>; do not depart from her, nor seek to be divorced, nor even desire to be loosed by death:<\/p>\n art thou loosed from a wife<\/strong>? being either never married, or else if having been married the wife is dead, or legally divorced for a just cause:<\/p>\n seek not a wife<\/strong>, or woman; make no inquiry after one; be content to live without one; enter not into a marriage state, nor take any step towards it; it is best to continue loosed, for the reason above given, that is, provided the person has the gift of continence, otherwise not; see 1Co 7:5<\/span>.<\/p>\n Art thou bound to a wife? <\/B> ( ;<\/SPAN><\/span>). Perfect passive indicative of <\/SPAN><\/span>, to bind, with dative case <\/SPAN><\/span>. Marriage bond as in Ro 7:2<\/span>.<\/P> Seek not to be loosed <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Present active imperative with negative <\/SPAN><\/span>, “Do not be seeking release” (<\/SPAN><\/span>) from the marriage bond, old word, here only in N.T.<\/P> Seek not a wife <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Same construction, Do not be seeking a wife. Bachelors as well as widowers are included in <\/SPAN><\/span> (loosed, perfect passive indicative of <\/SPAN><\/span>). This advice of Paul he only urges “because of the present necessity” (verse 26<\/span>). Whether he held on to this opinion later one does not know. Certainly he gives the noblest view of marriage in Eph 5:22-33<\/span>. Paul does not present it as his opinion for all men at all times. Men feel it their duty to seek a wife. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Art thou bound to a wife?<\/strong> seek not to be loosed. (dedesai gunaiki;) Hast thou been bound to a wife? This indicates that marital vows, of voluntary agreement, are binding. (me zetei lusin) Seek not release or to be legally divorced or put away. 1Co 7:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) Art thou loosed from a wife?<\/strong> seek not a wife. (lelusai apo gunaikos) hast thou been from a wife released (divorced), before salvation – (me zetei gunaika) Do not seek a wife. 2Co 7:7-8<\/span>.<\/p>\n 27. Art thou bound to a wife? Having stated what would be most advantageous, he adds at the same time, that we ought not to be so much influenced by the advantages of celibacy, that one that is bound by the tie of marriage should shake off the connection. It is therefore a restriction upon the preceding statement, lest any one, influenced by his commendation of celibacy, should turn his thoughts to it, and despise marriage, forgetful of his necessity or of his calling Now in these words he does not merely forbid the breaking up of the connection of marriage, but also represses the dislikes that are wont to creep in, that every one may continue to live with his wife willingly and cheerfully. <\/p>\n Art thou loosed from a wife? This second clause must be taken with a reservation, as is manifest from the entire context. He does not, then, allow to all the choice of perpetual celibacy, but only to those to whom it is given. Let no one, therefore, who is not constrained by any necessity, rashly ensnare himself, for liberty ought not to be lightly thrown away. (419) <\/p>\n (419) “ Car il ne faut pas quitter legerement sa liberte sans y bien penser;” — “For he ought not to abandon his liberty lightly, without thinking much as to it.” <\/p>\n (27) Art thou bound unto a wife?<\/strong>This is an explanation and re-assertion of the previous words so to be. Being loosed from a wife does not mean a separation after marriage, but simply unmarried.<\/p>\n 27<\/strong>. <\/strong> Loosed<\/strong> The word seems naturally to imply a previous marriage, and hence, in some periods of the Church, second marriages have been disfavoured. But the word loosed <\/strong> is adopted by Paul as merely an antithesis to bound<\/strong>, and means unbound. <\/em> See note on 1Ti 3:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1Co 7:27<\/span> . Lest the in 1Co 7:26<\/span> should be misinterpreted as favouring divorce, he now prefaces his further discussion of the subject with the rule, which is appropriate here only as a caveat: let not the married desire to be loosed<\/em> . The construction is as in 1Co 7:18<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] dativus communionis<\/em> , as in Rom 7:2<\/span> , and with Greek writers. It is plain, especially from 1Co 7:29<\/span> ; 1Co 7:34<\/span> , that . . does not mean betrothal<\/em> (Ewald and Hofmann), but that denotes a married wife<\/em> .<\/p>\n ] does not imply: art thou separated<\/em> from (Mosheim, Semler), but art thou free<\/em> from, unentangled with a wife, single<\/em> (“sive uxorem habueris, sive non,” Estius; comp so early an interpreter as Photius)? See 1Co 7:28<\/span> , and comp Xenophon, Cyr.<\/em> i. 1. 4, where is equivalent to .<\/p>\n 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 27. Art thou bound to a wife?<\/strong> ] A manifest metaphor from oxen. Hence we call them yoke fellows:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n ” Quam male inaequales veniunt ad aratra iuvenci;<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Tam premitur magno, &c.<\/em> ” (Ovid. Epist.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Dare not to yoke thyself with any untamed heifer that bears not Christ’s yoke. <\/p>\n 27<\/strong> .] restated<\/em> and illustrated<\/em> : neither the married nor the unmarried are to seek for a change<\/em> . The general recommendation here is referable alike to all<\/em> cases of marriage, and does not touch on the prohibition of 1Co 7:10<\/span> , only dissuading from a spirit of change, in consideration of the<\/em> <\/strong> . It seems better to take the verse thus, than with Meyer and De Wette, to regard it as inserted to guard against misunderstanding of the preceding of the Apostle.<\/p>\n <\/strong> does not imply previous marriage<\/em> , but as Phot [30] , , , , , and Estius, “intelligit liberum a conjugio, sive uxorem aliquando habuerit, sive non.”<\/p>\n [30] Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 858 891<\/p>\n 1Co 7:27-28<\/span> apply in detail the advice just given, and first as it bears on men<\/em> , then on maidens<\/em> . , , pf. pass [1121] of present state determined by the past; , pr [1122] impv [1123] , “do not be seeking”. The two directions of 1Co 7:27<\/span> reinforce, from the new point of view, the instructions of 1Co 7:10-16<\/span> ; 1Co 7:8<\/span> respectively. , as opp [1124] of , applies either to bachelor or widower.<\/p>\n [1121] passive voice.<\/p>\n [1122] present tense.<\/p>\n [1123] imperative mood.<\/p>\n [1124] opposite, opposition.<\/p>\n In 1Co 7:28<\/span> the general advice<\/em> of 1Co 7:27<\/span> is guarded from being overpressed; cf.<\/em> the relation of 1Co 7:2<\/span> to 1Co 7:1<\/span> and 1Co 7:9<\/span> to 1Co 7:8<\/span> . The punctuation of El [1125] and Nestle best marks the connexion of thought, closing 1Co 7:27<\/span> with a full st p, each of the parl [1126] (- ) clauses with a colon, and separating and by a comma. In the second supposition (both with and sbj [1127] of probable contingency<\/em> ) P. reverts to the case of “the maiden,” from which he was diverted in 1Co 7:26<\/span> ; he makes her, by implication, responsible for her marriage, although in 1Co 7:36<\/span> ff., later, the action of the father<\/em> is alone considered. is used in the act<\/em> . here, and in 1Co 7:39<\/span> , both of man and woman; cl [1128] Gr [1129] applies it to the latter in pass<\/em> [1130] ; cf.<\/em> note on the double in 1Co 7:12<\/span> f. and are the older and later aors. The aor<\/em> [1131] in the apodosis , is proleptic<\/em> (Bn [1132] 50; Bm [1133] , pp. 198 f., 202), rather than gnomic<\/em> (Mr [1134] , Hn [1135] , Ed [1136] ), as though by way of general reflexion: the Ap. addresses specific instances “thou didst not she did not sin”; cf.<\/em> for tense, Joh 15:11<\/span> , Rev 10:7<\/span> .<\/p>\n [1125] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians<\/em> .<\/p>\n [1126] parallel.<\/p>\n [1127] subjunctive mood.<\/p>\n [1128] classical.<\/p>\n [1129] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.<\/p>\n [1130] <\/em> passive voice.<\/p>\n [1131] aorist tense.<\/p>\n [1132] E. Burton’s Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in the N.T.<\/em> (1894).<\/p>\n [1133] A. Buttmann’s Grammar of the N.T. Greek<\/em> (Eng. Trans., 1873).<\/p>\n [1134] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary<\/em> (Eng. Trans.).<\/p>\n [1135] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe<\/em> (1880), or 1 Korinther<\/em> in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar<\/em> (1896).<\/p>\n [1136] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians<\/em> . 2<\/p>\n The marriage Paul discourages is no sin, but will bring suffering<\/em> from which he would fain save his friends. “But affliction for the flesh such (as may marry) will have, but I am seeking to spare you.” With cf.<\/em> (2Co 12:7<\/span> ; also 1Co 5:5<\/span> above); there is some thought, possibly, of recompense<\/em> to “the flesh” which has had its way against advice. The affliction that Paul foresees is aptly indicated by Photius: “More easily and with small distress shall we endure if we have no wives and children to carry along with us in persecutions and countless miseries”. At such times, for those who have domestic cares, there arises “the terrible alternative, between duty to God and affection to wife and children” (Lt [1137] ). appears to be a conative present<\/em> (see Bn [1138] 11; cf.<\/em> Rom 2:4<\/span> , Gal 5:4<\/span> ).<\/p>\n [1137] J. B. Lightfoot’s (posthumous) Notes on Epp. of St. Paul<\/em> (1895).<\/p>\n [1138] E. Burton’s Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in the N.T.<\/em> (1894).<\/p>\n bound. Greek. deo, not doudoe, as in 1Co 7:15<\/p>\n to be loosed = release. Greek. lusis. Only here. <\/p>\n loosed. Greek. pass, of luo. <\/p>\n 27.] restated and illustrated: neither the married nor the unmarried are to seek for a change. The general recommendation here is referable alike to all cases of marriage, and does not touch on the prohibition of 1Co 7:10,-only dissuading from a spirit of change, in consideration of the . It seems better to take the verse thus, than with Meyer and De Wette, to regard it as inserted to guard against misunderstanding of the preceding of the Apostle.<\/p>\n does not imply previous marriage, but as Phot[30], , , , ,-and Estius, intelligit liberum a conjugio, sive uxorem aliquando habuerit, sive non.<\/p>\n [30] Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 858-891<\/p>\n 1Co 7:27. -, thou art bound-thou art loosed) There is an argument in the very words. When bound to a wife, a man is often prevented, with or without any blame to him, from being able so munificently to practise liberality and the other virtues, as he might wish. In the verb , thou art loosed, the participle is latently contained [thou art one untied], and it has the force of a noun, so that loosed denotes not only him, who is no longer bound to a wife, but also him, who never was so bound. We find a similar phrase in Job 39:5.-, not) twice, i.e. thou art not forced to seek.<\/p>\n 1Co 7:27<\/p>\n 1Co 7:27 <\/p>\n Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.-Neither the married nor the unmarried are to seek for a change. [This is an explanation and reassertion of to be as he is in the preceding verse. He dissuades from the spirit of change in consideration of the distress that was pending.] <\/p>\n thou bound: 1Co 7:12-14, 1Co 7:20 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Jer 16:2 – General 1Co 7:8 – General<\/p>\n 1Co 7:27. This repeats the teaching running through much of the chapter.<\/p>\n 1Co 7:27-28. Art thou bound to a wife? Because the directions which the apostle was about to give (1Co 7:36) to fathers, concerning the disposal of their children in marriage, were partly to be founded on the inclination and circumstances of the children, before he gave these directions, he very properly addressed the children themselves, and set before them the considerations by which their inclinations were to be regulated in that matter, namely, the inconveniences attending a married state, and the brevity and uncertainty of all human enjoyments; considerations which, he told them, ought to determine them to wish to remain unmarried under the present distress. Seek not to be loosed From her by an unjust divorce, or by deserting her. Art thou loosed? Hath Providence never led thee into those engagements; or has it broken the bond by the death of thy former companion? Seek not a wife If thou canst conveniently and virtuously continue as thou art; at least at present, till the storm, which now hovers over the church, be a little blown over, and more peaceful times return. But yet if thou marry, thou hast not thereby sinned: and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned The marriage state is, no doubt, both lawful and honourable. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh Many outward troubles; but I spare you I speak as little and as tenderly as possible. <\/p>\n Vv. 27, 28. Thou art bound to a wife, seek not to be loosed; thou art loosed from a wife, seek not a wife. 28. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned; nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh; but I would spare you.<\/p>\n The apostle would not, however, have 1Co 7:26 a understood in the sense of a moral superiority granted to celibacy. He therefore expressly repeats what he had said in 1Co 7:10 (from a somewhat different standpoint): He who is bound, whether as affianced or as married, ought not, with a view to realizing a higher sanctity, to break the bond. I do not think that there is ground for restricting the application of these first words to the affianced, as Hofmann does.<\/p>\n If one were to take the term , art thou loosed, in the strictness of the letter, it would apply only to widowers and those divorced. But the context proves that, as Origen had already understood it, the word here signifies in general: If thou art free from bond, and that it refers also to celibates. <\/p>\n Vv. 28 is meant to prevent a misunderstanding to which the second part of 1Co 7:27 might give rise. What Paul says here is not a command; if one act differently he will not sin.<\/p>\n The form evidently means, as in 1Co 7:11; 1Co 7:21, if therewith, if nevertheless, and not though.<\/p>\n On the two forms and , see on 1Co 7:9. Edwards remarks that if we read , we have here the two forms in the same verse.<\/p>\n The flesh strictly denotes the organ of physical sensibility; but the meaning of the word extends very often to moral sensibility.<\/p>\n The term trouble, literally, tribulation, must denote the same thing as the present necessity, 1Co 7:26, so: the state of permanent conflict in which the Church is with the world till the perfect establishment of the kingdom of God. As long as this state of things shall last, Christian parents who are tender and faithful will have to suffer much for themselves and for their children in a community which is strange to God. The denotes those who marry in spite of this counsel.<\/p>\n There is a sort of paternal solicitude in the words, but I spare you. The path of celibacy which he recommends will be that in which they shall have least to suffer. St. Augustine makes a singular mistake in giving these words the meaning: I spare you the enumeration of the troubles of family life. <\/p>\n But, in all that precedes, Paul has not yet gone to the root of the matter. What is of importance is not: marrying or not marrying; but a habit of soul in keeping with the situation indicated above. And as in 1Co 7:17-24 he had extended his point of view and generalized the question, so as better to justify his counsel to remain in their present state, so in 1Co 7:29-31 he explains, while applying it to various analogous cases, his true view in regard to celibacy and marriage in present circumstances. <\/p>\n Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. <\/p>\n Paul thought it prudent to stay married rather than seeking a life of singleness with a view to serving the Lord more effectively. Obviously it would be wrong to split up a marriage for this purpose. If an unbelieving spouse had abandoned the Christian, or if he or she had lost his or her spouse to death, a single life would provide greater opportunity for Christian ministry.<\/p>\n Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. Art thou bound unto a wife? – Art thou already married? Marriage is often thus represented as a tie, a bond, etc.; see the note at Rom 7:2. Seek not to be loosed – … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 7:27”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28466","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28466\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"