1Cor 7:1-13 | Barnes | STEP | 1st Corinthians CHAPTER VII, Introduction THIS chapter commences the second part or division of this epistle, or, the discussion of those points which had been submitted to the apostle in a letter from the church at Corinth, for his instruction and advice . See the Introduction to the epistle. The letter in which they proposed the questions which are here discussed, has been lost. It is manifest that, if we now had it, it would throw some light on the answers which Paul has given to their inquiries in this chapter. The first question which is discussed, , is, whether it were lawful and proper to enter into the marriage relation. How this question had arisen, it is not now possible to determine with certainty. It is probable, however, that it arose from disputes be- tween those of Jewish extraction, who held not only the lawfulness, but the importance of the marriage relation, according to the doctrines of the Old Testament, and certain followers or friends of some Greek philosophers, who might have been the advocates of celibacy. But why they advocated that doctrine is unknown. It is known, however, that many even of the Greek philosophers, among whom were Lycurgus, Thales, Antiphanes, and Socrates, (see Grotius,) thought that, considering "the untractable tempers of women, and how troublesome and fraught with danger was the education of children," it was the part of wisdom not to enter into the marriage relation. From them may have been derived the doctrine of celibacy in the Christian church; a doctrine that has been the cause of so much corruption in the monastic system, and in the celibacy of the clergy among the papists. The Jews, however, everywhere defended the propriety and duty of marriage. They regarded it as an ordinance of God. And to this day they hold that a man who has arrived at the age of twenty years, and who has not entered into this relation, unless prevented by natural defects, or by profound study of the law, sins against God. Between these two classes, or those in the church who had been introduced there from these two classes, the question would be agitated whether marriage was lawful and advisable. Another question which, it seems, had arisen among: them was, whether it was proper to continue in the married state in the existing condition of the church, as exposed to trials and persecutions; or whether it was proper for those who had become converted to continue their relations in life with those who were unconverted. This the apostle discusses in . Probably many supposed that it was unlawful to live with those who were not Christians; and they thence inferred that the relation which subsisted before conversion should be dissolved. And this doctrine they carried to the relation between master and servant, as well as between husband and wife. The general doctrine which Paul states in answer to this is, that the wife was not to depart from her husband, ; but if she did, she was not at liberty to marry again, since her former marriage was still binding, . He added that a believing man, or Christian, should not put away his unbelieving wife, , and that the relation should continue, notwithstanding a difference of religion; and that if a separation ensued, it should be in a peaceful manner, and the parties were not at liberty to marry again, . So, also, in regard to the relation of master and slave. It was not to be violently sundered. The relations of life were not to be broken up by Christianity; but every man was to remain in that rank of life in which he was when he was converted, unless it could be changed in a peaceful and lawful manner, . A third subject submitted to him was, whether it was advisable, in existing circumstances, that the unmarried virgins who were members of the church should enter into the marriage relation, . This the apostle answers in the remainder of the chapter. The sum of his advice on that question is, that it would be lawful for them to marry, but that it was not then advisable; and that, at all events, they should so act as to remember that life was short, and so as not to be too much engrossed with the affairs of this life, but should live for eternity. He said that though it was lawful , yet, (1.) in their present distress it might be unadvisable, . (2.) That marriage tended to an increase of care and anxiety, and it might not be proper then to enter into that relation, . (3.) That they should live to God, . (4.) That a man should not be oppressive and harsh towards his daughter, or towards one under his care; but that, if it would be severe in him to forbid such a marriage, he should allow it, . And (5.) that on the whole it was advisable, under existing circumstances, not to enter into the marriage relation, . Verse 1. Now concerning , etc. 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, , that "marriage is honourable 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 7:7,8,26,28,31,32 . Not to touch a woman . Not to be connected with her by marriage. Xenophon, (Cyro., b. 1,) uses the same word (απτω, to touch ) to denote marriage. Compare . (*) "to touch" "Not to take a wife"

1 Corinthians 7:1-13

1st Corinthians CHAPTER VII, Introduction

THIS chapter commences the second part or division of this epistle, or, the discussion of those points which had been submitted to the apostle in a letter from the church at Corinth, for his instruction and advice. See the Introduction to the epistle. The letter in which they proposed the questions which are here discussed, has been lost. It is manifest that, if we now had it, it would throw some light on the answers which Paul has given to their inquiries in this chapter. The first question which is discussed, 1Cor 7:1-9, is, whether it were lawful and proper to enter into the marriage relation. How this question had arisen, it is not now possible to determine with certainty. It is probable, however, that it arose from disputes be- tween those of Jewish extraction, who held not only the lawfulness, but the importance of the marriage relation, according to the doctrines of the Old Testament, and certain followers or friends of some Greek philosophers, who might have been the advocates of celibacy. But why they advocated that doctrine is unknown. It is known, however, that many even of the Greek philosophers, among whom were Lycurgus, Thales, Antiphanes, and Socrates, (see Grotius,) thought that, considering "the untractable tempers of women, and how troublesome and fraught with danger was the education of children," it was the part of wisdom not to enter into the marriage relation. From them may have been derived the doctrine of celibacy in the Christian church; a doctrine that has been the cause of so much corruption in the monastic system, and in the celibacy of the clergy among the papists. The Jews, however, everywhere defended the propriety and duty of marriage. They regarded it as an ordinance of God. And to this day they hold that a man who has arrived at the age of twenty years, and who has not entered into this relation, unless prevented by natural defects, or by profound study of the law, sins against God. Between these two classes, or those in the church who had been introduced there from these two classes, the question would be agitated whether marriage was lawful and advisable.

Another question which, it seems, had arisen among: them was, whether it was proper to continue in the married state in the existing condition of the church, as exposed to trials and persecutions; or whether it was proper for those who had become converted to continue their relations in life with those who were unconverted. This the apostle discusses in 1Cor 7:10-24. Probably many supposed that it was unlawful to live with those who were not Christians; and they thence inferred that the relation which subsisted before conversion should be dissolved. And this doctrine they carried to the relation between master and servant, as well as between husband and wife. The general doctrine which Paul states in answer to this is, that the wife was not to depart from her husband, 1Cor 7:10; but if she did, she was not at liberty to marry again, since her former marriage was still binding, 1Cor 7:11. He added that a believing man, or Christian, should not put away his unbelieving wife, 1Cor 7:12, and that the relation should continue, notwithstanding a difference of religion; and that if a separation ensued, it should be in a peaceful manner, and the parties were not at liberty to marry again, 1Cor 7:13-17. So, also, in regard to the relation of master and slave. It was not to be violently sundered. The relations of life were not to be broken up by Christianity; but every man was to remain in that rank of life in which he was when he was converted, unless it could be changed in a peaceful and lawful manner, 1Cor 7:18-24.

A third subject submitted to him was, whether it was advisable, in existing circumstances, that the unmarried virgins who were members of the church should enter into the marriage relation, 1Cor 7:25-40. This the apostle answers in the remainder of the chapter. The sum of his advice on that question is, that it would be lawful for them to marry, but that it was not then advisable; and that, at all events, they should so act as to remember that life was short, and so as not to be too much engrossed with the affairs of this life, but should live for eternity. He said that though it was lawful, yet,

(1.) in their present distress it might be unadvisable, 1Cor 7:26.

(2.) That marriage tended to an increase of care and anxiety, and it might not be proper then to enter into that relation, 1Cor 7:32-35.

(3.) That they should live to God, 1Cor 7:29-31.

(4.) That a man should not be oppressive and harsh towards his daughter, or towards one under his care; but that, if it would be severe in him to forbid such a marriage, he should allow it, 1Cor 7:36. And

(5.) that on the whole it was advisable, under existing circumstances, not to enter into the marriage relation, 1Cor 7:38-40.

Verse 1. Now concerning, etc. 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 honourable 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 7:7,8,26,28,31,32.

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

(*) "to touch" "Not to take a wife" Verse 2. Nevertheless. But, (δε.) Though this is to be admitted as proper where it can be done, when a man has entire control of himself and his passions, and though in present circumstances it would be expedient, yet it may be proper also to enter into the marriage connexion.

To avoid fornication. Greek, On account of (δια) fornication. The word fornication is used here in the large sense of licentiousness in general. For the sake of the purity of society, and to avoid the evils of sensual indulgence, and the corruptions and crimes which attend an illicit intercourse, it is proper that the married state should be entered. To this vice they were particularly exposed in Corinth. See the Introduction. Paul would keep the church from scandal. How much evil, how much deep pollution, how many abominable crimes would have been avoided, which have since grown out of the monastic system, and the celibacy of the clergy among the papists, if Paul's advice had been followed by all professed Christians! Paul says that marriage is honourable, and that the relations of domestic life should be formed, to avoid the evils which would otherwise result. The world is the witness of the evils which flow from the neglect of his advice. Every community where the marriage tie has been lax and feeble, or where it has been disregarded or dishonoured, has been full of pollution, and it ever will be. Society is pure and virtuous, just as marriage is deemed honourable, and as its vows are adhered to and preserved.

Let every man, etc. Let the marriage vow be honoured by all.

Have his own wife. And one wife, to whom he shall be faithful. Polygamy is unlawful under the gospel; and divorce is unlawful. Let every man and woman, therefore, honour the institution of God, and avoid the evils of illicit indulgence. Verse 3. Let the husband, etc. "Let them not imagine that there is any virtue in living separate from each other, as if they were in a state of celibacy."--Doddridge. They are bound to each other; in every way they are to evince kindness, and to seek to promote the happiness and purity of each other. There is a great deal of delicacy used here by Paul, and his expression is removed as far as possible from the grossness of heathen writers. His meaning is plain; but instead of using a word to express it which would be indelicate and offensive, he uses one which is not indelicate in the slightest degree, The word which he uses (ευνοιαν, benevolence) denotes kindness, good-will, affection of mind. And by the use of the word "due," (οφειλομενην,) he reminds them of the sacredness of their vow, and of the fact that in person, property, and in every respect, they belong to each other. It was necessary to give this direction, for the contrary might have been regarded as proper by many, who would have supposed there was special virtue and merit in living separate from each other; -- as facts have shown that many have imbibed such an idea;--and it was not possible to give the rule with more delicacy than Paul has done. Many Mss., however, instead of "due benevolence," read οφειλην, a debt, or that which is owed; and this reading has been adopted by Griesbach in the text. Homer, with a delicacy not unlike the apostle Paul, uses the word φιλοτητα, friendship, to express the same idea.

(a) "husband" Ex 21:10, 1Pet 3:7 (+) "benevolence" "What is due to the wife" Verse 4. The wife hath not power, etc. By the marriage covenant that power, in this respect, is transferred to the husband.

And likewise also the husband. The equal rights of husband and wife, in the Scriptures, are everywhere maintained. They are to regard themselves as united in the most intimate union, and in the most tender ties. Verse 5. Defraud ye not, etc. Of the right mentioned above. Withdraw not from the society of each other.

Except it be with consent. With a mutual understanding, that you may engage in the extraordinary duties of religion. Comp. Ex 19:15.

And come together again, etc. Even by mutual consent, the apostle would not have this separation to be perpetual; since it would expose them to many of the evils which the marriage relation was designed to avoid.

That Satan, etc. That Satan take not advantage of you, and throw you into temptation, and fill you with thoughts and passions which the marriage compact was designed to remedy.

(b) "with consent" Joel 2:16 (c) "Satan" 1Thes 3:5 Verse 6. But I speak this by permission, etc. It is not quite certain whether the word "this," (τουτο) in this verse, refers to what precedes, or to what follows. On this commentators are divided, the more natural and obvious interpretation would be to refer it to the preceding statement. I am inclined to think that the more natural construction is the true one, and that Paul refers to what he had said in 1Cor 7:5. Most recent commentators, as Macknight and Rosenmuller, however, suppose it refers to what follows, and appeal to similar places in Joel 1:2, Ps 49:2; 1Cor 10:23. Calvin supposes it refers to what was said in 1Cor 7:1

By permission. συγγνωμην. This word means indulgence, or permission, and stands opposed to that which is expressly enjoined. Comp. 1Cor 7:25: "I am allowed to say this; I have no express command on the subject; I give it as my opinion; I do not speak it directly under the influence of Divine inspiration." See 1Cor 7:10,25,40. Paul here does not claim to be under inspiration in these directions which he specifies. But this is no argument against his inspiration in general, but rather the contrary. For,

(1.) it shows that he was an honest man, and was disposed to state the exact truth. An impostor, pretending to inspiration, would have claimed to have been always inspired. Who ever heard of a pretender to Divine inspiration admitting that in anything he was not under Divine guidance? Did Mohammed ever do this? Do impostors now ever do it?

(2.) It shows that in other cases, where no exception is made, he claimed to be inspired. These few exceptions, which he expressly makes, prove that in everywhere else he claimed to be under the influence of inspiration.

(3.) We are to suppose, therefore, that in all his writings where he makes no express exceptions, (and the exceptions are very few in number,) Paul claimed to be inspired. Macknight, however, and some others, understand this as mere advice, as an inspired man, though not as a command.

Not of commandment. Not by express instruction from the Lord. See 1Cor 7:25. I do not claim in this to be under the influence of inspiration; and supposed that it was unlawful for a Christian wife or husband to be my counsel here may be regarded, or not, as you may be able able to receive it. Verse 7. For I would, etc. I would prefer.

That all men, etc. That Paul was unmarried is evident from 1Cor 9:5. But he does not refer to this fact here. When he wishes that all men were like himself, he evidently does not intend that he would prefer that all should be unmarried, for this would be against the Divine institution, and against his own precepts elsewhere. But he would be glad if all men had control over their passions and propensities as he had; had the gift of continence, and could abstain from marriage when circumstances of trial, etc., would make it proper. We may add, that when Paul wishes to exhort to anything that is difficult, he usually adduces his own example to show that it may be done; an example which it would be well for all ministers to be able to follow.

But every man hath his proper gift. Every man has his own peculiar talent, or excellence. One man excels in one thing, and another in another. One may not have this particular virtue, but he may be distinguished for another virtue quite as valuable. The doctrine here is, therefore, that we are not to judge of others by ourselves, or measure their virtue by ours. We may excel in some one thing, they in another. And because they have not our peculiar virtue, or capability, we are not to condemn or denounce them. Comp. Mt 19:11,12.

Of God. Bestowed by God, either in the original endowments and faculties of body or mind, or by his grace. In either case it is the gift of God. The virtue of continence is his gift as well as any other; and Paul had reason, as any other man must have, to be thankful that God had conferred it on him. So if a man is naturally amiable, kind, gentle, large-hearted, tender, and affectionate, he should regard it as the gift of God, and be thankful that he has not to contend with the evils of a morose, proud, haughty, and severe temper. It is true, however, that all these virtues may be greatly strengthened by discipline, and that religion gives rigour and comeliness to them all. Paul's virtue in this was strengthened by his resolution; by his manner of life; by his frequent fastings and trials, and by the abundant employment which God gave him in the apostleship. And it is true still, that if a man is desirous to overcome the lusts of the flesh, industry, and hardship, and trial, and self-denial will enable him, by the grace of God, to do it. Idleness is the cause of no small part of the corrupt desires of men; and God kept Paul from these, (1.) by giving him enough to do; and, (2.) by giving him enough to suffer.

(a) "every man" Mt 19:11,12 Verse 8. To the unmarried. The word unmarried (αγαμοις) may refer either to those who had never been married, or to widowers. It here means simply those who were at that time unmarried, and his reasoning applies to both classes.

And widows. The apostle specifies these, though he had not specified widowers particularly. The reason of this distinction seems to be, that he considers more particularly the case of those females who had never been married, in the close of the chapter, 1Cor 7:25.

It is good for them. It may be advisable, in the present circumstances of persecution and distress, not to be encumbered with the cares and anxieties of a family. 1Cor 7:26,32-34.

If they abide. That they remain, in the present circumstances, unmarried. See 1Cor 7:26.

(*) "unmarried and widows" "Or to widowers" Verse 9. But if they cannot contain. If they have not the gift of continence; if they cannot be secure against temptation; if they have not strength of virtue enough to preserve them from the danger of sin, and of bringing reproach and scandal on the church.

It is better. It is to be preferred.

Than to burn. The passion here referred to is often compared to a fire. See Virg. AEn. iv. 68. It is better to marry, even with all the inconveniences attending the marriage life in a time of distress and persecution in the church, 1Cor 7:26, than to be the prey of raging, consuming, and exciting passions.

(+) "contain" "have not continence" (b) "let them marry" 1Timm 5:14 Verse 10. And unto the married. This verse commences the second subject of inquiry; to wit, whether it was proper, in the existing state of things, for those who were married to continue this relation, or whether they ought to separate. The reasons why any may have supposed that it was best to separate, may have been,

(1.) that their troubles and persecutions might be such that they might judge it best that families should be broken up; and,

(2.) probably many supposed that it was unlawful for a Christian wife or husband to be connected at all with a heathen and idolator.

I command, yet not I, but the Lord. Not I so much as the Lord. This injunction is not to be understood as advice merely, but as a solemn divine command, from which you are not at liberty to depart. Paul here professes to utter the language of inspiration, and demands obedience. The express command of "the Lord" to which he refers, is probably the precept recorded in Mt 5:32, 19:3-10. These precepts of Christ asserted that the marriage tie was sacred and inviolable.

Let not the wife depart, etc. Let her not prove faithless to her marriage vows; let her not, on any pretence, desert her husband. Though she is a Christian, and he is not, yet let her not seek, on that account, to be separate from him. The law of Moses did not permit a wife to divorce herself from her husband, though it was sometimes done, (comp. Mk 10:12; but the Greek and Roman laws allowed it.--Grotius. But Paul here refers to a formal and legal separation before the magistrates, and not to a voluntary separation, without intending to be formally divorced. The reasons for this opinion are,

(1.) that such divorces were known and practised among both Jews and heathens.

(2.) It was important to settle the question whether they were to be allowed in the Christian church.

(3.) The claim would be set up, probably, that it might be done.

(4.) The question whether a voluntary separation might not be proper, where one party was a Christian and the other not, he discusses in the following verses, 1Cor 7:12-17. Here, therefore, he solemnly repeats the law of Christ, that divorce, under the Christian economy, was not to be in the power either of the husband or wife.

(c) "Let not the wife" Mal 2:14-16, Mt 19:6,9 Verse 11. But and if she depart. If she have withdrawn by a rash and foolish act; if she has attempted to dissolve the marriage vow, she is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled. She is not at liberty to marry another. This may refer, I suppose, to instances where wives, ignorant of the rule of Christ, and supposing that they had a right to separate themselves from their husbands, had rashly left them, and had supposed that the marriage contract was dissolved. Paul tells them that this was impossible; and that if they had so separated from their husbands, the pure laws of Christianity did not recognise this right, and they must either be reconciled to their husbands or remain alone. The marriage tie was so sacred that it could not be dissolved by the will of either party.

Let her remain unmarried. That is, let her not marry another.

Or be reconciled to her husband. Let this be done, if possible. If it cannot be, let her remain unmarried. It was a duty to be reconciled, if it was possible. If not, she should not violate her vows to her husband so far as to marry another. It is evident that this rule is still binding, and that no one who has separated from her husband, whatever be the cause, unless there be a regular divorce, according to the law of Christ, (Mt 5:32,) can be at liberty to marry again.

And let not the husband. Mt 5:32. This right, granted under the Jewish law, and practised among all the heathen, was to be taken away wholly under the gospel. The marriage tie was to be regarded as sacred; and the tyranny of man over woman was to cease; Verse 12. But to the rest. "I have spoken in regard to the duties of the unmarried, and the question whether it is right and advisable that they should marry, 1Cor 7:1-9. I have also uttered the command of the Lord in regard to those who are married, and the question whether separation and divorce were proper. Now in regard to the rest of the persons and cases referred to, I will deliver my opinion." The rest, or remainder, here referred to, relates particularly to the cases in which one party was a Christian, and the other not. In the previous verses he had delivered the solemn, explicit law of Christ, that divorce was to take place on neither side, and in no instance, except agreeably to the law of Christ, Mt 5:32. That was settled by Divine authority. In the subsequent verses he discusses a different question; whether a voluntary separation was not advisable and proper when the one party was a Christian and the other not, The word rest refers to these instances, and the questions which would arise under this inquiry.

Not the Lord. 1Cor 7:6. "I do not claim, in this advice, to be under the influence of inspiration; I have no express command on the subject from the Lord; but I deliver my opinion as a servant of the Lord; 1Cor 7:40, and as having a right to offer advice, even when I have no express command from God, to a church which I have founded, and which has consulted me on the subject." This was a case in which both he and they were to follow the principles of Christian prudence and propriety, when there was no express commandment. Many such cases may occur. But few, perhaps none, can occur in which some Christian principle shall not be found, that will be sufficient to direct the anxious inquirer after truth and duty.

If any brother. Any Christian.

That believeth not. That is not a Christian; that is a heathen.

And if she be pleased. If it seems best to her; if she consents; approves of living together still. There might be many cases where the wife or the husband, that was not a Christian, would be so opposed to Christianity, and so violent in their opposition, that they would not be willing to live with a Christian. When this was the case, the Christian husband or wife could not prevent the separation. When this was not the case, they were not to seek a separation themselves.

To dwell with him. To remain in connexion with him as his wife, though they differed on the subject of religion.

Let him not put her away. Though she is a heathen, though opposed to his religion, yet the marriage vow is sacred and inviolable. It is not to be sundered by any change which can take place in the opinions of either party. It is evident, that if a man were at liberty to dissolve the marriage tie, or to discard his wife when his own opinions were changed on the subject of religion, that it would at once destroy all the sacredness of the marriage union, and render it a nullity. Even, therefore, when there is a difference of opinion on the vital subject of religion, the tie is not dissolved; but the only effect of religion should be, to make the converted husband or wife more tender, kind, affectionate, and faithful, than they were before; and all the more so, as their partners are without the hopes of the gospel, and as they may be won to love the Saviour, 1Cor 7:16.

(d) "not the Lord" Ezr 10:11, etc. Verse 13. Let her not leave him. A change of phraseology from the last verse, to suit the circumstances. The wife had not power to put away the husband, and expel him from his own home; but she might think it her duty to be separated from him. The apostle counsels her not to do this; and this advice should still be followed. She should still love her husband, and seek his welfare; she should be still a kind, affectionate, and faithful wife; and all the more so, that she may show him the excellence of religion, and win him to love it. She should even bear much, and bear it long; nor should she leave him unless her life is rendered miserable, or in danger; or unless he wholly neglects to make provision for her, and leaves her to suffering, to want, and to tears. In such a case, no precept of religion forbids her to return to her father's house, or to seek a place of safety and of comfort. But even then it is not to be a separation on account of a difference of religious sentiment, but for brutal treatment. Even then the marriage tie is not dissolved, and neither party are at liberty to marry again.

(*) "him" "not put him away"