Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, because of sexual immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband give his wife the affection owed her, and likewise also the wife her husband. The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise also the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife. Don’t deprive one another, unless it is by consent for a season, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and may be together again, that Satan doesn’t tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment. Yet I wish that all men were like me. However each man has his own gift from God, one of this kind, and another of that kind. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they remain even as I am. But if they don’t have self-control, let them marry. For it’s better to marry than to burn.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 As he had spoken of fornication, he now appropriately…
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, 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.” 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 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 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.
Read full note →
But here another question presents itself, for these words of Paul have some appearance of inconsistency with the words of the Lord, in Genesis 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.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Touching those matters whereof you wrote unto me.
Touching those matters whereof you wrote unto me.
He teacheth concerning marriage, that although a single life hath his commodities, 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, or any wife many husbands.
Read full note →
Commodious, and (as we say) expedient. For marriage bringeth many griefs with it, and that by reason of the corruption of our first estate.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–9 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto…
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.
Read full note →
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.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1–9 It seemeth, that though this church was very much…
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 men’s 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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6 The first scruple or case of conscience which the…
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.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v1 The apostle comes now, as a faithful and skilful…
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, Co1 7:1. 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,
Read full note →
II. He informs them that marriage, and the comforts and satisfactions of that state, are by divine wisdom prescribed for preventing fornication (Co1 7:2), 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 (Co1 7:3), consider the disposition and exigency of each other, and render conjugal duty, which is owing to each other. For, as the apostle argues (Co1 7:4), 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 (Co1 7:5) 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, etc. (Co1 7:2): 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 (Co1 7:7), 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, Mat 19:11.
IV. He sums up his sense on this head (Co1 7:9, Co1 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.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–9 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me,....…
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,
Read full note →
"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, Psa 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, Jdg 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", Sa1 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 Gen 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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1–8 It is good for a man - Who is…
It is good for a man - Who is master of himself. Not to touch a women - That is, not to marry. So great and many are the advantages of a single life.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1–9 A solution of several difficult cases concerning marriage and
CHAPTER VII.
A solution of several difficult cases concerning marriage and
Read full note →
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: Γαμειν, εαν τις την αληθειαν σκοπῃ, κακον μεν εστιν, αλλ' αναγκαιον κακον· "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] Γυναικος μη ἁπτεσθαι· The learned reader need not be informed in what sense απτομαι is used among the Greeks, and langere among the Latins. For examples Wetstein may be consulted.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 5, 8 1Co 7:1-2. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote…
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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1–9 Now, concerning ... - In reply to your inquiries.…
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.
Read full note →
Not to touch a woman - Not to be connected with her by marriage. Xenophon (Cyro. b. 1) uses the same word (ἅπτω haptō, “to touch”) to denote marriage; compare Gen 20:4, Gen 20:6; Gen 26:11; Pro 6:29.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 Now concerning. The heads of the Church of Corinth…
Now concerning. The heads of the Church of Corinth had written to St. Paul, desiring to know whether he thought it more expedient to marry or not. This was a question which the sages of antiquity had frequently taken into consideration. To this question St. Paul here delivers his opinion. (Calmet) --- Others, with greater probability, suppose the chief question proposed to St. Paul was, whether they were not bound, upon their conversion, to abstain from their infidel wives. (St. Jerome, cont. Jovin. chap. iv.; St. John Chrysostom, on this location, hom. xix. --- To this he answers in v. 12. and 13. --- It is good. That is, according to the style of the Scriptures, it is better, if we consider the advantage of every particular, &c. (Witham)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
John Nelson Darby 1862 · Public Domain On v1 1 Corinthians Chapter 7
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.
Read full note →
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 apostle’s 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 unbeliever’s 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 Lord’s 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.
John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 A.1—The propriety of marriage, and the duties involved
XIII.—INSTRUCTIONS IN REGARD TO MARRIAGE
A.1—The propriety of marriage, and the duties involved
Read full note →
1Co_7:1-11
1 Now 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 [ἑαυτοῦ] wife, and let every woman have her own 3[ἴδίον] 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, διὰ] your incontinency. 6But I speak this by [as a, κατὰ] permission, and not of [as a, κατὰ] commandment 7For [But, δὲ6] 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 inference—though only a subordinate one—of 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 Gospel’s 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 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 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 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 περί, 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 καλόν 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 man’s 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 (καλόν) 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,’=αἰσχρόν, ‘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;—’Αυθρώπῳ does not stand precisely for ἀνδρί, 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 Rückert, 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, καλόν 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 (ἔχειν), 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 Paul’s 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 καλόν the real practical need.—But on account of [“διά 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 (ἑαυτοῦ) wife, and let every woman have her own (ἴδιον) husband.—The ἑαυτοῦ and ἴδιον point to the established relation of the monogamy. [The contrast between τὴν ἑαυτοῦ χυναῖκα and τοὺ ἲδιον ἂνδρα is a difference of idiom which runs all through the New Testament. ̓́Ιδιος is never used for γυνή, nor ἑαυτοῦ for ἂνήρ, in speaking of husband and wife; perhaps from the seeming inappropriateness of using ἑαυτοῦ, 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. ἐχέτω, 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.—’Οφειλήν cannot therefore mean simply ὀφειλομένη εὔνοια, 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 another’s, 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, εἰμή τι ἂν. [The ἂν belongs to τι. 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, ἐκ συμφώνου. But even then the arrangement must only be for a time, πρὸς καιρν. 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 τῇ νηστείᾳ καὶ)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 Christian’s 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. ’Επὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, a constructio pregnans=‘come together and remain together.’ The dependence of ἦτε upon ἵνα is somewhat remarkable: hence the reading χεσθε (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 is—that 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 Paul’s 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 prëminently “the tempter” (ὁ πειράζων) (Mat_4:3; 1Th_3:5). But the act of temptation (πειράζειν), 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.).—ΙΙειράζειν 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 ἀκρασία from κεράννυμι, as though it meant not mingling, i. e., in sexual intercourse, is a philological fiction of Rückert’s [one, also, which Words, adopts], which is untenable, if for no other reason than this, that κεράννυμι never appears as=μίγνυμι in this signification. The subst. ἀκρασία from κεράννυμι denotes bad mixture, such as that of insalubrious air. But the ἀκρασία of the text is that which comes from ἀκρατής and is=ἀκράτεια, the opposite of ἐγκράτεια [So Alford and Meyer. The latter takes the ‘your’ (ὐμῶν) 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’ (τοῦτο). 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’ (κατὰ συγγνώμην)=as an allowance or concession to your weakness. [‘Not as a command.’ “A proof of St. Paul’s authority. He is empowered to give a precept (ἐπιταγή) or to bestow an indulgence” (συγγνώμη) Words.].
1Co_7:7. I wish rather (δὲ) 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 γάρ; for, instead of δὲ; 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 Christ’s 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 (αλλά), 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’ (χάρισμα) 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 latter—a capacity granted by God within the Church, and therefore a proper gift of grace, grounded on an actual participation in Christ’s redeeming power,—attached it may be, however, to a person’s 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 God’s 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 ἴδιον, 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,—καὶ ταῖςχήραις, especially to widows; [so the καὶ 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 topic—from 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, καλον, as in 1Co_7:1, for them, αὐτοῖς, 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.’ ’Εγκρατεύιν=εγκρατή εἴναι, to be master of one’s self—especially as it regards the sexual passions; a word of the later Greek. For it is better to marry than to burn. ΙΙυροῦσθαι 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 marry—hence, to Christians. To limit this to such as were newly married, or to some particular parties had in mind (Rückert), is warranted neither by the expression itself, nor by the context.—I command; παραγγέλλω.—Here comes in the ἐπιταγή 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.—[“Χωρισθῆναι, the natural expression for the wife as not having power to dismiss her husband; ἂφιέναι, 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 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῆ 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 καὶ 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 injunction—let her remain unmarried—See Mat_10:12.—or let her be reconciled to her husband.—The verb καταλλαγήτω had best be taken like χωρισθῆ 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 Apostle’s 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 friendship—as a union of hearts mutually completing each other—it 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 instincts—the strongest of them all—have 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 love—free surrender of oneself for the pleasure and gratification of another—sexual commerce has become one of the worst forms in which a degrading selfishness manifests itself—a 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 continence—that is, the power of the spirit over the animal passions—is 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 Whewell’s “Elements of Morality,” B. IV. chap. 7., Art. 630. Baxter’s “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 holiness—after an un-trammeled and undivided devotion to his Lord—after 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 consciousness—not, indeed, of an incapacity for marriage, which would render the act morally reprehensible—but of a peculiar fitness for a single life vouchsafed by the Lord, and of a Divine call to some sphere of labor in God’s 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 marriage—which, on looking up to God and invoking His direction in the matter, comes to be regarded as a Divine hint as to duty—leads 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 Christ’s 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 one’s 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 it—it may be for the manner in which he contracted the marriage, or for the manner in which he has maintained it—a 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 God’s will in the matter, and whether it be not a mere selfish inclination (which we are very apt to take for God’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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, § 633–635 and § 1027–1037; 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 lewdness—not 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 allowed—hence 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 scorn—the hypocritical contempt—the 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 God’s work, not the devil’s. 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 God’s 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 Heaven’s 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 other—body 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 God’s 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 corruption—while many prudent and pious men were kept from the sacred calling, refusing to ensnare themselves in this way. See Inst. B. IV chap, XII, § 23–28].
Footnotes:
[1]I have taken the liberty of altering Dr. Kling’s arrangement. He has treated this whole chapter connectedly, and divided the text into four subjects—1Co_7:1-40—with captions accordingly. The divisions I have adopted seem more natural, and I have treated them separately for convenience’ sake.—Tr.].
[2]1Co_7:1.—Μοι 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]Ὀφειλήν according to by far the most weighty authorities [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.1]. The Rec. has ὀφειλομένην εὔνοιαν, 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.—Τῇ νηστεία καί 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 συνέρχεσθε or συνέρχησθε—a gloss. [The true reading is ἦτε, as found in A. B. C. D. F.
[6]1Co_7:7. The Rec. has γάρ. This suits the sense, but is feebly supported. [It is found in B. D.2 K. L. Cod. Sin.3 Syr.; while δὲ is found in A. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.1].
[7]1Co_7:7.—The Rec.ὅς μὲν—ὅς δὲ, which belongs to the later Greek, ὁ—ὁ is better supported.
[8]1Co_7:10.—χωρισθῆναι [so A. B. C. K. L. Cod. Sin.], Lachmann [whom Stanley generally follows] reads χωρὶςεσθαι [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.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2–9 Here the general rule is given
Here the general rule is given
to avoid fornication--More literally, "on account of fornications," to which as being very prevalent at Corinth, and not even counted sins among the heathen, unmarried persons might be tempted. The plural, "fornications," marks irregular lusts, as contrasted with the unity of the marriage relation [BENGEL].
Read full note →
let every man have--a positive command to all who have not the gift of continency, in fact to the great majority of the world (Co1 7:5). The dignity of marriage is set forth by Paul (Eph 5:25-32), in the fact that it signifies the mystical union between Christ and the Church.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1–9 1. Advisory counsel as to marriage and celibacy, 1Co_7:1-9.
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.
Read full note →
Good—Καλον, proper to a Christian man; the reverse of αισχρον, 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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–7 Ch. 1Co_7:1-9. Advice concerning Marriage and Celibacy
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 Therapeutæ 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.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv2–9 (2) To avoid fornication.—Better, because of the (prevalent) fornication.…
(2) To avoid fornication.—Better, because of the (prevalent) fornication. This was so general in Corinth, and so little regarded as sin. that the unmarried were liable to be led into it.
It may at first sight appear as if the Apostle thus put marriage upon very low and merely utilitarian ground: but we must remember that he is here writing with a definite and limited aim, and does not enter into a general discussion of the subject. St. Paul gives a reason why those who wrote to him should marry, and the force of the argument does not extend beyond the immediate object in view. St. Paul’s view of the higher aspects of matrimony are fully set forth when he treats of that subject generally (2Co_11:2; Rom_7:4; Eph_5:25-32).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1–9 Vers. 1-40. Answers to the inquiries of the Corinthians…
Vers. 1-40. Answers to the inquiries of the Corinthians respecting marriage.
Vers. 1-11. The lawfulness of marriage, and its duties.
Read full note →
Now concerning. This refers to questions of the Corinthians. (1Co_7:25 1Co_8:1 1Co_12:1) 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 ver. 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.
Vers. 1-14, 25-28, 32-40.
Paul"s conception of marriage.
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" (ver 1); again. "I would that all men were even as I myself" (ver. 7); and again, "It is good for them if they abide even as I" (ver. 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" (ver. 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 subject it is a law of nature. God does not command us to eat and drink, because it is not necessary the 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. (ver. 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
2. hearty well wishing, each wishing the well being of the other. The New Version drops the word "benevolence.
3. 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.
1. 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.
2. 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 a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwelt with her, let her not leave him" (vers. 12, 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.
3. 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" (ver. 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 this the 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.
HOMILIES BY C. LIPSCOMB. Vers. 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 Judaism a 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 nation a 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 world such 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 gospel must 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 privileges so St. Paul had just argued and 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 import all involved in it as a Divine institution and as the basis, vitality, security, of all other institutions this 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.
HOMILIES BY E. HURNDALL Vers. 1, 2, 7-9, 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 celibacy speaking generally, "Let every man have his own wife." Both conditionsare 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 vers. 1, 7, 8, 38, it has been too hastily concluded by some that Paul decidedly favours celibacy per se. But ver. 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 ver. 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 snare an 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 another when 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
2. 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.
3. Marriage is the safer condition morally. (Ver. 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 (ver. 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" (ver. 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.
HOMILIES BY H. BREMNER Vers. 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 (ver. 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 vers. 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.
1. If a man has not the gift of continency, there is in that a clear indication that it is his duty to marry (ver. 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.
2. 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 theearthly 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.
1. It implies the rendering of conjugal duty. (Vers. 3, 4.) The one party exists for the other, and for the other alone the twain having become one flesh. (Gen_2:24)
2. 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.") B.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK Vers. 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 (ver. 7). R.T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 6 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote to me:…
1Co_7:1-17
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Read full note →
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.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv1–9 1–7. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote. In…
1–7. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote. In the preceding six chapters Paul has mainly treated of irregularities in the Corinthian church, of which he had learned through the “household of Chloe,” and other private sources. Now he begins to answer various questions asked in a letter from the church. If we had that letter, it would aid much in understanding what follows by revealing more clearly the state of the church and the discussions going on within. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. An Old Testament phrase which means not to marry. He does not mean that marriage is wrong, but that on account of “the present distress” it was a good thing not to be bound by family ties. See verse 26. “Forbidding to marry” is one of the signs of apostasy (1 Tim. 4:3). See Heb. 13:4.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 1. Observe: With this chapter commences a new section…
CRITICAL NOTES
A.
Read full note →
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. Lord’s Supper and Love-feast; xi. Women in Public Services, Lord’s 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 celibate’s 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 Tempter’s 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 Christ’s 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 know—how can you think—that you will, if even you persist?” Lies between. “Who can tell? Perhaps you may. There is at least a chance.” (He is reverting to 12–14.) 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 man’s 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 Paul’s 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 prœcepta. (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 daughter’s position was then conceived or then practicable; she was absolutely under her father’s power. See, for the fearful extent of this power, Pressensé, 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. Paul’s 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 tendency—not to say the aim—of “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 physician’s necessity, and with the physician’s 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 Christ’s (1Co_7:14), and—who 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 man’s 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 slave’s 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. Paul’s 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 this—“In 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 Christ’s, and carry Christ’s 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, “oscillation”—not between “yes” and “no” (cf. 2Co_1:18), but between “good” and “better,” between counsel in a negative sense and consent in an opposite direction—do 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 Lord’s 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” Martha’s “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 Christ’s 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 Spirit’s 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 one’s place and one’s work for God, with no obligatory reference to any will but His. [Except that the Christian daughter will pay right deference to her father’s 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 Lord’s 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 husband’s 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 Devil’s children, not nobody’s [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,” and—whether or not these happened to include very young children or infants matters little—his 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 confidence—they will, with no less assurance than if, as proselytes, they had even entered into the Jewish fold—bring 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 God’s “promise to Abraham and his seed” (Gal_3:14-18). Nor will that Lord refuse them Who once and again made the child’s 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 children’s 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 girl’s happy, holy union too, for her sake and her suitor’s. Fulfil God’s 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 Lydia’s or the gaoler’s or Philemon’s, 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 slave’s 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 Christ’s 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 submission—these 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 God’s dealings.—
1. Noah’s sons saved with, and for sake of, their father. Lot blessed for Abraham’s sake (Gen_19:29); Lot’s wife and daughters brought out for their father’s sake; Potiphar’s house blessed for Joseph’s sake (Gen_39:5); the crew of the Castor and Pollux all saved for Paul’s sake (Act_27:4)—all “given to him.” How much blessing on an ungodly man’s 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 God’s “peculiar” ones amongst the company?
2. The world blessed for Christ’s sake, though ignorant of Him, or rejecting Him.
3. The Christian Church—this one isolated Christian—“holy” 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), Paul’s “kinsmen, in Christ before him,” prove the first “prick” of the goad which he really felt? “Who is this Nazarene—what is there in his ‘religion’—that 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, uncircumcision—nothing.” (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, don’t tell me what are a man’s 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. Don’t tell me—don’t let a man tell himself—that 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? Don’t tell me how a Church is winning adherents to its ceremonial, its creed, or confession; don’t let it, on the other hand, boast how it is getting rid of ritual or dogma; don’t 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 life—even 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 give—Christ and the Spirit.]
3. Should be remembered how the importance of such things varies with God’s 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 Crœsus 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 Cæsar’s 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 Obadiah—finding every day in some Ahab’s house, with a Jezebel for a mistress, that he walks constantly as between red-hot ploughshares, every step an ordeal and a peril—wishes he were something else than Ahab’s steward.
2. Feeling shapes itself, “Ah, now! if I were only in So-and-so’s position”; or, “If I had only So-and-so’s 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 man’s 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 man’s place, as before God. Christ, the Lord of his life, wants him there for the present—there 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 God’s 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 “learned”—he wrote from a Roman dungeon—“in whatever state therewith”—with dungeon and daily peril from Nero’s capricious, cruel “justice”—“to 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 employé, 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 position—perhaps its wealth after poverty—with as strict a sense of obligation to his Master, as a slave is forced to recognise towards his. Every added privilege—liberty 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 life—yourself—too precious to play into Devil’s hands, or to assume man’s 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 spend—why do ye—so 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 shepherd’s 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) Paul’s 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, then—laugh, 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 town’s 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 passing—the play and the actors—and 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 God’s 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 Wesley’s Journal, his vivid interest in everything). The strength; “This one thing I do.”] When first go to stay by seaside one sound always in one’s ears. Amidst the merry play of the children, behind the music of the shore, in the background of conversation, or reading, or dreamy thought—the roar of the waves. By-and-by we get accustomed to it, and forget it. The spirit of Paul’s outburst is: “Don’t be unpractical. Don’t 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 rest—the unmarried and the widows—I 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 apostle’s 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.]
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1. “But concerning those things about which you wrote…
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 Christ’s sake. While he appreciates his own celibacy as a gift from God, he gives his verdict in favor of matrimony as a rule.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 1Co 7:7
1Co 7:7
The Severe and Social Virtues (for St. Philip and St. James’s Day).
Read full note →
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.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v1 Section 4. (1Co 7:1-40.)
Section 4. (1Co 7:1-40.)
Nature: how far to be yielded to.
Read full note →
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.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 (a) Answer to Questions about Marriage
(a) Answer to Questions about Marriage
The Corinthians had in their letter (1Co_7:1) asked St. Paul's opinion on several points connectedwithmarriage. His language in reply is guarded; he speaks with some diffidence; he constantly admits exceptions and lays down restrictions. This makes his meaning sometimes obscure; but the general drift is that celibacy, though a good thing in itself, is not suited to the needs of many, especially in circumstances like theirs; and marriage, though not obligatory, is not only sinless, but good in itself; and those married, even to heathen spouses, should not separate without necessity.
Read full note →
1-7. Celibacy is good, but marriage is usually advisable; only let it be real and complete.
Paraphrase. '(1) In answer to your questions—Celibacy is a good thing. (2) But because of the profligacy around you, it is well that each should marry. (3, 4) But the marriage must be a real one, each giving the other conjugal rights. (5) Let there be separation only by mutual consent, for a given time, for purposes of devotion. (6) But I say all this as a concession to your circumstances, not as a command. (7) I should like all to be like myself. But all have not the same gifts from God.'
1. The things whereof ye wrote] Probably most of the rest of the Epistle is taken up with answers to these questions, and considerations arising out of them. It is not clear whether the letter from the Corinthians suggested that celibacy ought to be universal, or deprecated it as unnatural, or asked, as Ramsay thinks, whether it was 'incumbent on Christians to marry, as the Jews and Roman law maintained.' Good] i.e. celibacy is an excellent thing (the reasons for this are given, 1Co_7:26, 1Co_7:32), but marriage is often the safer course.
2. To avoid fornication] which was very prevalent at Corinth. St. Paul treats of the higher aspect of marriage elsewhere (Eph_5:26, Eph_5:33). Every (RV 'each') .. his own] Concubinage and polygamy are forbidden.
3. Due benevolence] RV 'her due'; i.e. primarily, cohabitation.
5. To fasting and prayer] RV 'unto prayer,' omitting 'fasting' on the authority of the best MSS. So Mar_9:29. For your incontinency] i.e. through your lack of self-control.
6. This] Perhaps 1Co_7:5 more probably, all he has said in recommendation of marriage from 1Co_7:2 onwards.
7. Even as I myself] i.e. able through self-control to lead a celibate life.
His proper gift] He to whom God has denied this ability, has received some other gift from Him. St. Paul must have been unmarried, or, just possibly, a widower.
8-16. Consequent advice or commands. (a) 8, 9. To the unmarried and widows—to remain so, unless they have an overmastering desire. (b) 10, 11. To the married Christians. The Lord's command is against separation; if Such take place, the separated party is to remain unmarried, (c) 12-14. In cases of mixed marriages St. Paul's opinion is that the two should continue to live together if the heathen partner, is willing; for the fact that the one is a Christian brings the other also into the Christian sphere, as is the case with the children. 15, 16. But if the heathen partner wants to separate, he or she may do so, and the Christian is then set free. But domestic peace is what God desires; the heathen partner may possibly be converted.
8. Even as I] i.e. unmarried and without desire for marriage.
10. Not I, but the Lord] This exhortation is confirmed by the Lord's own authority (Mat_5:32; Mat_19:4-9) which forbids divorce. This is one of the passages which show St. Paul's acquaintance with Christ's teaching, and the supreme authority he attached to it: cp. 1Ti_6:3.
12. I, not the Lord] Christ had said nothing about mixed marriages; the Apostle is left to his own judgment: cp. 1Co_7:40. He does not encourage mixed marriages (2Co_6:14), but is thinking of cases where husband or wife has been converted since marriage.
14. Is sanctified] i.e. brought into the Christian sphere, under Christian influences. Now are they holy] i.e. regarded as Christian children; as are still more evidently the children of two Christian parents. This phrase 'enunciates the principles which leads to infant baptism, viz. that the child of Christian parents shall be counted as a Christian' (J. Lightfoot).
15. A brother or a sister] the Christian partner. Not under bondage] i.e. is not bound to continue with the other.
15, 16. God hath called us to (RV 'in') peace.. save thy wife] 1Co_7:16 either (a) continues the thought of 1Co_7:15—God's aim for us is peace, which will here be best secured by separation; and the possibility of saving the heathen partner by remaining is, after all, uncertain—but more probably, (b) it continues the main thought of 1Co_7:12-14, 1Co_7:15 being parenthetical, 'But God desires that the married should live in peace together, and this may result in the conversion of the heathen partner.'
17-24. The general principle; let each remain as he was when God. called him (1Co_7:17, 1Co_7:20, 1Co_7:24). This holds good, (a) of circumcision and uncircumcision. Let each keep as he is; the one important thing is to keep God's commandments. (b) Of slavery and freedom. A slave should not mind his position (though he may avail himself of an opportunity to become free). The Christian slave is Christ's freedman; the Christian freeman, Christ's bond-: servant, owing service to Him, not to men.
17. But] RV 'only'; I only lay down the general rule. Hath distributed] i.e. his condition and circumstances of life.
18. Circumcised.. uncircumcised] Used metaphorically, 'If any Jew has been converted, let him remain a Christian Jew; if a Gentile is converted, let him not seek to become a Jew, but remain a Christian Gentile.'
19. Circumcision is nothing] cp. Gal_5:6; Gal_6:15; Rom_2:25-29. 'Not nationality but obedience to God determines Christian character' (Stevens).
20. Calling] not 'occupation in life,' but 'condition in which God's call found him.' St. Paul lays this down, not as a universal, but as a good general rule: cp. 1Co_7:9, 1Co_7:15, 1Co_7:28.
21. But if thou mayest be made free, use it rather] an ambiguous sentence, like 1Co_7:16. 'It' may mean 'slavery' or 'freedom.' Either 'even if you have an opportunity of freedom, remain a slave'—this suits the immediate context—or, 'but if you have an opportunity of freedom, take it.' This would be a parenthetical piece of advice. This is favoured by St. Paul's thought elsewhere. He was proud of his citizenship; he prefers celibacy because it gives greater freedom to serve God. So does liberty compared with slavery. Slavery was an essential part of the social conditions of the time. The Apostle accepts it as such, but lays down a principle which undermines it, viz. that Christ makes no difference between bond and free. He insists, not on the rights of slaves, but on the duties of masters towards their Christian brethren (Eph_6:5-9; Col_3:22 to Col_4:1; 1Ti_6:1-2, and especially Philemon). The spread of the Christian spirit swept away the worst evils of slavery, before abolishing slavery itself.
22. Freeman] RV 'freedman'; set free from sin (Joh_8:34-36; Rom_8:2; Gal_5:1), but still owing service to Him who freed him. Christ's servant] RV 'bondservant'; bought by Him 'whose service is perfect freedom.'
23. Bought with a price] cp. 1Co_6:20. Servants] (RV 'bondservants') of men] i.e. slavishly yielding to their desires; slaves to custom or public opinion: cp. 2Co_11:20.
24. With God] i.e. in His presence, consciously doing His will.
25-38. Marriage of virgins. The Corinthians seem to have asked particularly whether fathers ought to give their daughters in marriage. St. Paul now comes to this point, first, however, going into the question of marriage generally, and giving reasons for preferring celibacy. He says he cannot appeal to any commandment of the Lord, so simply gives his own opinion, assured that he deserves their confidence. He repeats the general rule (cp. 1Co_7:17) that it is best for each to remain as he is, considering the early coming of the Lord and the distress preceding it; so that while there is no sin in marriage, yet celibacy is best, (a) because the married will meet with greater troubles; (b) because the shortness of the time before the Lord's coming bids all to sit loose to worldly things; (c) because the unmarried is freer from distraction, and able to serve the Lord more completely. However, he does not want to constrain them, but merely to advise for the best. If a man considers it right to give his daughter in marriage, let him do so; but he who, feeling no such necessity, resolves to keep her unmarried, does better.
25. Virgins] i.e. unmarried daughters. The Roman law endeavoured to make marriage universal; and the Jewish view was similar.
No commandment of the Lord] either laid down by Him while on earth (see on 1Co_7:10-12), or imparted by special revelation. To be faithful] i.e. to give a trustworthy opinion, one deserving of confidence, as a steward of the mysteries of God (1Co_4:1-2).
26. The present distress] Perhaps persecution, which, however, is not elsewhere mentioned in this Epistle; more probably the 'distress' Christ had said would precede His return (Luk_21:23), which was thought to be near (1Co_7:29). So to be] RV 'to be as he is.'
27. Art thou loosed] i.e. unmarried.
28. Trouble in the flesh] i.e. in their earthly circumstances. Trouble would fall not only on themselves, but on those dear to them. St. Paul wants to save them such suffering (RV 'and I would spare you').
29. The time is short: it remaineth, that, etc.] RV 'the time is shortened that henceforth,' etc. The thought of the nearness of the Lord's coming, when earthly things would pass away, should keep them from being engrossed in present interests.
31. Abusing] RM 'using it to the full,' as if the sole source of enjoyment: cp. 1Jn_2:15-17.
32. Without carefulness] RV 'free from cares.'
33, 34. The exact words and punctuation are doubtful (cp. RM); but this does not affect the general sense, viz. that the unmarried are less subject to worldly distractions and anxieties than the married.
35. Cast a snare (or, 'halter') upon you] i.e. not deprive you of liberty; force you into this course.
Comely] RV 'seemly.'
36. Any man] i.e. parent or guardian. Uncomely] i.e. unfairly, in not seeing her married. His virgin] daughter or ward. Let them] i.e. the maiden and her suitor.
37. Hath power over (RV 'as touching') his own will] i.e. is able to carry it out. The whole v. shows the need of careful deliberation in the matter; no hasty resolve. Throughout, according to the social and legal conditions of the time, no account is made of the maiden's own wishes. This is probably due also to the precise question St. Paul had to answer.
In applying this chapter to the present day we have to remember, (1) the altered social conditions, (2) that St. Paul's advice is influenced by his regarding the Lord's coming as very near.
39, 40. Remarriage of widows. A widow may remarry after her husband's death, provided it be a Christian marriage; but. St. Paul's opinion is, she will do better to remain a widow.
39. In the Lord] This forbids marriage from unchristian, worldly motives; and, practically, marriage with a heathen.
40. So abide] RV 'abide as she is': cp. 1Ti_5:3-10, for widows on the Church roll. Have the Spirit of God] am guided by Him in what I say, not merely expressing my personal inclinations.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv1–9 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote [Hitherto Paul…
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 .
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v1 and in your
and in your
Some authorities end verse with "body."
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 4. Concerning the Relationship of Man and Woman
4. Concerning the Relationship of Man and Woman
CHAPTER 7
Read full note →
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 unbeliever’s 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 God’s 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.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 6 Instructions with Regard to Marriage.
Instructions with Regard to Marriage.
The propriety and the duty of marriage:
Read full note →
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.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 5, 8 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
Paul gives the believers some specific instructions on marriage.
Read full note →
Now
Paul is introducing a new topic in his teaching.
the issues you wrote about
The Corinthians had written a letter to Paul to ask for answers to certain questions.
about: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." But because
Possible meanings are 1) Paul is quoting what the Corinthians had written, "about: you wrote, 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.' That is true, but because" or 2) Paul is saying what he really thinks, "about: my answer is that yes, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because"
It is good
"It is most helpful"
for a man
Possible meanings are 1) "a man" refers to a married man. AT: "a husband" or 2) "a man" refers to any man.
not to touch a woman
Possible meanings are 1) "touch a woman" is a euphemism for having sexual relations. AT: "not to have sexual relations with his wife for a while" or 2) "touch a woman" is a metonym for marry. AT: "not to marry" (See: Euphemism and Metonymy)
But because of temptations for many immoral acts, each
"But because Satan tempts people to commit sexual sin, each" or "But we desire to commit sexual sin because of our sinful nature, so each"
translationWords
tempt
sexual immorality
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 6, 8 7:1–16:4 Paul now addresses the questions the Corinthians had…
7:1–16:4 Paul now addresses the questions the Corinthians had asked him by letter, beginning with the question of marriage (cp. 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1).
7:1-40 Paul consistently states his strong conviction that true Christians, as slaves of Christ, are wholly claimed by Christ the Lord for his own service. Because of this, he recommends that Christians remain single, but concedes that getting married is no sin.
Read full note →
7:1 it is good to abstain from sexual relations: Both Paul and Jesus encouraged the ideal of a celibate life for God’s sake (cp. Matt 19:10-12). Paul’s emphasis on celibacy is shaped by his expectation that the end of the age is near (see 1 Cor 7:29-31).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.