1 Corinthians 7

CHAPTER VII

The Third Part of the Letter

Questions regarding Marriage, Chapter 7

Paul deals with this entire subject in a practical manner and bases his discussion on the situation existing in Corinth at this time. In fact, in their letter the Corinthians had asked Paul a number of questions in regard to these matters, and in this chapter he gives his reply. We may divide the chapter according to the various paragraphs and make sections accordingly or more summarily into only two or three sections as is indicated in the following.

I. In General regarding Marrying or Remaining Unmarried, 1–7

1 Corinthians 7:1

1 Paul begins with a transitional δέ and places a caption at the head of this part of his letter, namely the phrase: Now concerning the things you wrote. This is the first caption of this kind and indicates a formal reply to specific inquiries. We shall meet others as we read on, 7:25; 8:1; etc., all of them are alike, phrases introduced with περί. They help us materially in understanding why Paul writes on certain subjects. We need to supply nothing with each of these περί phrases, for each is intended only as a heading.

This first phrase is indefinite, for it fails to name the subject concerning which the Corinthians had made inquiry; the others that follow are definite, each states the subject. Yet we have no difficulty in determining the reference of this first caption; a glance at Paul’s reply shows that the Corinthians had written to him regarding questions relating to marriage. One point they had mentioned in particular, namely that regarding maidens, 7:25. Paul’s letter thus deals with two sizable groups of subjects: such as he himself introduces on the basis of positive information he had concerning the Corinthians; and such as the Corinthians themselves present to him in order that he may send them necessary instruction.

In beginning his extended reply to the questions about marriage Paul first of all lays down a general thesis, a proposition which forms the basis for all that he has to say on the points involved. It is excellent for a man not to touch a woman; yet on account of fornications let each have his own wife, and each have her own husband. This is the entire matter in a nutshell.

The first proposition in Paul’s thesis is that it is καλόν, morally excellent, for a mar? not to touch a woman, i.e., to remain celibate, unmarried. “To touch a woman” is euphemistic for the sexual contact and intercourse in marriage. Verbs of touch are followed by the genitive. Confusion results when this part of Paul’s thesis is taken abstractly, when it is regarded as being addressed to all Christendom and is to apply for all ages of the church. Paul writes for the Corinthians and for their specific circumstances at the time. We have Paul’s own commentary on this καλόν. In v. 28 he writes: “I would spare you,” in v. 35: “for your profit”; in v. 38: “shall do better”; and in v. 40: “happier.” All these expressions refer to the Christians in Corinth, to their situation at that time, in particular to the difficulties and the dangers they had to face.

Paul in no way contradicts Gen. 2:18: “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone.” In Eden God spoke for the human race. Paul writes to Corinth, to the Christians only, and such as were living in the worst pagan surroundings.

Paul does not call the unmarried state καλόν, “excellent,” in contrast to marriage as being κακόν, “base”; for he himself at once commands marriage. To remain unmarried and to marry are each “excellent,” each in its own way. Regarding the unmarried state Paul says that it is καλόν, “excellent,” in opposition to an idea that this state is perhaps οὑκαλόν, “not excellent,” or κακόν, actually “base.” He intends to say to the Corinthians that something is to be said in favor of remaining unmarried. Under what circumstances and in what respect this is true he will elucidate later. Paul’s “excellent” cannot be used in support of the papal order to priests, “forbidding to marry,” 1 Tim. 4:3; nor in support of celibacy as being a higher degree of holiness.

1 Corinthians 7:2

2 The second half of Paul’s thesis is a general command to marry: “each” (man) and “each” (woman), “let each have” (wife, husband). The two accusatives “his own wife” and “her own husband” clearly point to monogamy and accord with the original divine institution of marriage, Matt. 19:3–9. The varied modifiers ἐαυτοῦ and ἴδιον are used only for the sake of style, for both have the same meaning. But Paul is here writing, not on the institution of marriage as such, but in answer to specific inquiries from the Corinthian congregation regarding its own members.

This explains why Paul adds “on account of fornications,” and why he places the phrase in the emphatic position. The Greek article as well as the plural of the noun refer to the acts of fornication that would result if marriage were prohibited or should cease. The accusation brought against Paul that he thus places marriage on a very low level as though it were only the lesser of two evils, is unwarranted. For in Eph. 5:22, 23 the same Paul writes about the high and holy aspects of marriage as no man has ever done. But some forget that this apostle is a thoroughly practical man who knows also the weakness of human nature, especially when it is in the midst of countless seductions to sin. From this viewpoint he writes “on account of fornications,” and even the efforts of Rome to establish only the limited clerical and monastic celibacy more than justify Paul’s phrase.

1 Corinthians 7:3

3 After the basic thesis has been properly set down, Paul first elaborates the second half of it and then turns to the first half. To the wife let the husband render her due and likewise also the wife to the husband. The nominatives and the datives are arranged chiastically. The normal situation in this sinful world is that each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband (γυνή is used in the sense of “woman” and in the sense of “wife” as the context determines). This normal situation includes just what Paul here writes, the normal sexual intercourse between man and wife which was contemplated in the original institution of marriage and was not changed by the principles and the spirit of Christianity. Husband and wife are to render to each other τὴνὀφειλήν, the specific obligation involved in the marital union, the debitum tori (des Ehebettes, the marriage bed). “Likewise” as well as the parallel thought in the statement place both on an equality regarding this “due.” So also the verb ἀποδίδωμι, because of the force of ἀπό, means to give what one owes or is under obligation to render. It is evident that Paul excludes all false asceticism, for this nullifies the essential nature of marriage.

How much may we read between the lines which Paul here writes? Does Paul ward off a false asceticism which was found in Corinth? Did some members advocate total sexual abstinence in the married state? As we read on, especially v. 5, 6, this seems a fair deduction. Thus the phenomenon that extremes so often meet would again be illustrated in Corinth: on the one hand a lax libertinism and a license that had to be severely curbed, and on the other hand a false and a dangerous asceticism that had to be rooted out lest the vilest sins creep in under its pious cloak.

1 Corinthians 7:4

4 The imperatives used in the two preceding verses are now followed by two plain indicatives which state two facts. Although Paul writes no “for” or other connective, these two facts are the reasons for the preceding injunction that husband and wife must render their marital obligation to each other. The wife does not have the authority over her own body but the husband; and likewise also the husband does not have the authority over his own body, but the wife.

Paul is at pains to word the two statements exactly alike and even writes out the two verbs whereas in v. 3 he allows the second verb to be supplied by the reader. In other connections Paul upholds the headship of the husband and requires the submission of the wife. But in regard to their sexual relation both are on the same level, both have equally lost their ἐξουσία, authority or right over their body, both have transferred that authority equally to the other. The wife’s body is, indeed, her own, but her husband has the authority over it in regard to the obligations just mentioned; and the same thing is true in regard to the husband. Bengel notes the elegans paradoxon in both statements between “her (his) own” and “has no authority.”

All false, individualistic independence on the part of either wife or husband is barred out. Why this must be barred out the significant phrase in v. 2 has already made plain, “because of fornications.” In v. 3 the arrangement is chiastic, in v. 4 it is parallel. Yet in v. 3 “the husband” is followed by “the wife” while in v. 4 “the wife” is followed by “the husband,” which produces another chiasm. These arrangements are intentional and help to convey the complete equality of husband and wife in regard to their sexual relations with each other. We may mention them in either order, either first, either second; what Paul says is true.

1 Corinthians 7:5

5 Again no connective is needed, for the deduction is plain: Do not deprive one another, i.e., in regard to sexual obligation. This must stand as the rule and the normal conduct in marriage. What v. 3 expressed in positive form is now repeated in negative form; what v. 3 states for each separately is now combined; what v. 3 states objectively in the third person singular is now expressed subjectively by the second person plural. We see Paul’s mastery of thought and of expression in employing all these variations and combinations in just the right manner. He weaves a perfect pattern.

Now comes the one exception: except as may be by agreement for a term that you have leisure for prayer and again be together in order that Satan may not tempt you on account of your incontinence. The exception may occur when husband and wife mutually agree to refrain from sexual intercourse for a certain short term (πρὸςκαιρόν) and for a religious purpose. Paul is speaking generally, hence he makes no reference to sickness, to separation due to travel, etc. He speaks only about voluntary abstinence while husband and wife are living together. To εἰμήτι, which is our English “except,” the addition of ἄν lends the touch of expectancy: “it may be,” such instances may and probably will occur, B.-D. 376. No verb is needed, R. 1025. “By agreement” is really “due to agreement,” ἐκ, aus Uebereinkunft.

The first ἵνα clause has occasioned much discussion because it ushers in two verbs, the second of which does not indicate purpose. This ἵνα is subfinal, which means that it does not state the purpose of the temporary continence but the contents of the mutual agreement. The agreement is: “that we have leisure for prayer and again be together” when the time agreed upon expires. Paul states this in the second person: “that you have,” etc. The phrase ἐπὶτὸαὑτό is idiomatic and may be used with εἶναι (here ἦτε), “be together” again sexually as before. In this agreement husband and wife are again on the same level. To make such an agreement or not to make it lies in the sphere of Christian liberty.

Much interest has been aroused by the first part of the agreement, the arrangement to provide leisure for prayer. Although Paul uses the article τῇπροσευχῇ, no one has discovered fixed seasons for special devotions like our Lenten season or Holy Week in the apostolic church. All we have is this intimation on Paul’s part, which makes the impression that agreements such as this were not unusual among the Corinthians. Paul also gives them his full approval.

It seems as though Paul is referring to private devotions, when some family sets apart a week or more for this purpose. The sexual abstinence would then resemble the practice of fasting which obtained in the first period of the history of the Christian Church. It would be carried out in order to keep under the body, to master and fully to control its appetites, as an aid to strengthening the spiritual life. In Paul’s mind, of course, no trace of work-righteousness taints this voluntary practice as though either the devotions or the abstinence are meritorious before God. Nor does Paul’s approval of such agreements between husband and wife support the suggestion that cohabitation in marriage is, after all, a kind of impurity that leaves a stain or taint upon married people. Regarding that point Heb. 13:4 is decisive: “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled.”

The second ἵνα is plainly final and refers to the resumption of sexual intercourse, “lest Satan tempt you on account of your incontinence.” Paul would permit and advise only temporary abstinence with a religious background and is very frank in stating the reason, “on account of your incontinence.” This may not flatter our human nature but it certainly fortifies by honestly naming the weak point. The verb and the noun are placed so that both receive the full emphasis. The noun ἀκρασία (= ἀκράτεια), “incontinence,” negates κράτος and should be distinguished from ἀκρασία (in which the second α is short), “a bad mixture.” Satan is here pictured as being constantly on the watch to bring Christ’s followers to fall. It must be our purpose to thwart his nefarious attempts.

1 Corinthians 7:6

6 Paul’s next sentence has been variously understood: Now this I say by way of concession, not by way of command. The term ἐπιταγή is an order or a command that is issued by a proper authority. As the opposite of this συγγνώμη can mean only “favor” or “concession.” But what is τοῦτο, “this,” that Paul states not as a command which requires unquestioned obedience but as a favor or concession that may be used or left unused? One answer given is that τοῦτο refers to the resumption of the sexual relation in marriage after a season of devotions; that Paul does not command this resumption but only concedes it; that Paul’s principles and his ideals would really require that the married should abstain permanently by mutual consent. But this assumption contradicts all the imperatives used in v. 2–5, all of which are even durative (iterative) and therefore in the present tense, and it also perverts Paul’s ideal.

Another view is that the antecedent of τοῦτο is to be sought as far back as v. 2; that Paul now informs the Corinthians that these imperatives used in v. 2 (and v. 5) are not intended as such but are only concessions to our weak human nature; that Paul’s real ideal is the celibate state and no sexual intercourse whatever. This assumption uses another route but arrives at the same goal. But why should anyone, least of all Paul, give commands and even repeat these commands with durative imperatives and then in the end say that he does not intend them as commands? Nor is the celibate state Paul’s ideal.

The simple fact is that τοῦτο regularly refers to something that has just been said, and here a glance at the preceding sentence shows that its antecedent is all that follows εἰμήτιἄν. “This” = what I have just said about such agreements which you may make to abstain and to devote yourselves to prayer for a time and then to come together again in order to ward off temptation. Observe that this antecedent is preceded by an imperative: “Do not deprive one another.” Someone might think that he ought therefore to read an imperative sense also into the exception which Paul adds, “except as may be by agreement,” etc. Such an imperative sense does not, of course, lie in these words, and Paul now says that he does not have in mind such a sense. He cannot and he does not order such a temporal sexual withholding by any “command,” he makes mention of it only by way of a “concession,” one that is connected with his commands (the imperatives used in v. 2 and 5), which stand as such and must remain. And “concession” or “favor” is the correct term, for when a general obligation is laid down by specific commands, exceptions are properly called concessions.

1 Corinthians 7:7

7 Paul now states most clearly what his ideal is. Yet I would that all men were even also as I myself; nevertheless each has his own charismatic gift due to God, one thus, another thus.

This ideal is, therefore, not at all the cessation of marriage, or the abolition of the sexual side of marriage, or the celibate state for all. For none of these is a “charismatic gift due to God,” and all of these contradict God’s institution of marriage and its divinely ordered sexual relation. Paul’s ideal is the ἐγκράτεια, entire self-mastery as to the sexual life and freedom from temptation in this regard. This explains why he favors the concession of temporary abstinence as explained above. This self-control and self-mastery is the charismatic gift which Paul had from God.

God grants many charismatic gifts to his church, but he distributes them, “dividing to each one severally even as he will,” 1 Cor. 12:11. None of these gifts is intended for all Christians. Paul used this charismatic gift of his in the interest of his life’s work as an apostle who traveled far and wide and for this reason rejoiced that he had complete sexual self-mastery as a gift from God and could thus remain without a wife and a family. Yet, as far as Paul’s right is concerned, he states emphatically: “Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” 1 Cor. 9:5. If Paul had felt the need he, too, could have married. The other apostles did, Peter included, and by so doing they, in their way, maintained Paul’s ideal just as Paul maintained it by not marrying.

This charismatic gift of sexual self-control is valuable also in the married state, for it frees from all temptation (last clause of v. 5). The fact that in this state such control does not mean avoidance of all legitimate sex contact v. 3 places beyond question. Nor is this ideal of self-control something that is exceptional in Paul’s case, perhaps the result of his life as a bachelor, for Jesus himself speaks about the same matter and in the same way in Matt. 19:10–12: “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given… He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” It is not for worldly people but for believers only, and they are to exercise this virtue and this gift.

Each one has his own charismatic gift, “one thus, another thus,” one in one manner, another in a different manner. Yet this does not mean that a strong inclination toward marriage is one of God’s charismatic gifts for the simple reason that no grace and no special gift of grace is needed for that, the constitution of our nature suffices entirely. What Paul means is that one Christian has a special gift from God in one direction, another in an entirely different direction. Grace works in all manner of directions as Paul shows in extenso in 1 Cor. 12:8, etc.

Note that θέλωδέ is used to express an unfulfilled wish: “I wish, but, of course, it is out of the question.” To obtain this thought we usually translate: “I would,” etc. There is no abruptness in the present tense, R. 923. The fact that Paul expresses this wish while by means of his actual distribution of charismatic gifts God acts differently, involves no disagreement or clash. Many other gifts besides sexual self-control are so fruitful and so lovely in themselves that we might well wish them for all Christians, yea, all men, and yet we know in regard to our wish, as Paul knew regarding his wish, that it must remain unfulfilled. With predicates ὡς is common and καί is not redundant but lends a gentle touch of its own. In ἐμαυτόν we have one of the few indirect reflexives found in the New Testament, R. 688.

In this paragraph the refined reticence and the delicacy of expression in discussing so intimate a subject deserve our attention. Certain things had to be said and to be understood, and Paul says them in the right way. The purity of his mind is reflected in every word and expression. This is the model for preaching and Christian discussion. Legal codes like those of the Old Testament and our modern laws require much plainer language for their purpose.

II. Special Groups and the Question regarding Marriage, 8–24

1 Corinthians 7:8

8 Verses 8–24 belong together because they deal with special groups in the congregation at Corinth.

The Unmarried and the Widows, 8, 9.—Paul himself names this group and then gives his brief counsel. The connective δέ is not intended to emphasize λέγω as now applying something that has already been mentioned above, for “I say” has its own emphasis. Δέ is only transitional in the usual manner. The practical principles on the subject of marriage have been laid down; Paul now applies these principles to the different groups in the congregation. Now I say to the unmarried and to widows: It is excellent for them if they remain even as I.

The term “unmarried” really includes all individuals mentioned in this first group, yet καί adds “widows.” This conjunction is often used thus to single out a part from a whole in order to give it special attention. Widows might, indeed, have special reasons for thinking their state a sad one and thus for desiring to have it changed. To all the unmarried, in particular also to the widows, Paul writes: “Excellent for them if they remain even as I.” This is the same καλόν as the one found in v. 1. Instead of imagining or permitting anyone to tell them that something is κακόν or amiss about their state so that they ought to do everything possible to change it, Paul assures them hat their state, too, is καλόν, “excellent” with a moral excellence of its own. If they then choose to remain in this state, all is well and good.

Note the conditional clause: “if they remain or shall remain”; the decision rests entirely with them. There is no inkling of a command: “Remain even as I!” No moral pressure even: “You ought to remain even as I!” The condition is the common one used to express expectancy, which means that Paul assumes that some will remain unmarried. That is all: if they so decide, who can find fault? But in this connection “even as I” is not identical with “even also as I myself” in v. 7. In v. 7 this personal reference points to the charismatic gift of self-control; in v. 8 it points only to remaining unmarried.

1 Corinthians 7:9

9 But a natural reason may urge toward marriage, and that very decidedly. Yet if they have not continency, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. The condition with ἐάν occurring in v. 8 expects some to remain unmarried; the condition with d in v. 8 merely takes up the actual cases for whom remaining unmarried is not advisable. The plural used in v. 9, “if they have not,” etc., is indicative only of the rule that applies to the cases specified, those who lack the charismatic gift of complete sexual self-control. And here Paul uses the decisive aorist imperative: “Let them marry!” Brief and to the point. Whoever lacks the gift of ἐγκράτεια (Paul uses the corresponding verb) in which Paul rejoiced, needs marriage—let him or her enter marriage!

The negative particle used with an entire εἰ clause is μή; here οὑ negates only the verb: “have not continency.” Paul is discussing no sentimental, economical, social, or even providential features connected with marriage or non-marriage. He is counselling consciences on how to avoid sin.

This explains the reason (γάρ) which Paul assigns: “It is better to marry than to burn.” The moral point decides, and “better” is meant in this sense. Paul is again succinct and to the point; there is no need to say another word. The difference in the tenses is important: “to marry” is an aorist to express a single definite act; “to burn” is a present to indicate a recur rent condition. The latter is middle, “to burn in oneself” with the strong fire of sexual desire, which, deprived of marriage, may result in criminal satisfaction or may in secret devastate the inner spiritual life. But the alternatives offered are not two evils, the lesser of which should be chosen, but a good on the one hand and an evil on the other, “for marriage is honorable in all.” Paul states the facts unblushingly: one either has or has not the gift. If he has he may remain unmarried although he, too, may marry. Nor does Paul say that it would be “better” for him to remain unmarried; all he says is that, if he elects not to marry, his unmarried state, like Paul’s, is “excellent.” But if one lacks the gift, only one course is in order, he must marry, for moral danger is too deadly.

The Married Christians, 10, 11.—10) “Now to the married,” with its transitional δέ, takes up another group, those who have entered marriage and are now in this state. However, a glance at v. 12, etc., shows that in v. 10, 11 Paul is speaking about couples in which both husband and wife are Christians, for in v. 12 he deals with mixed marriages. Now to the married I give command, not I myself but the Lord, that a wife be not separated from a husband (but even if she be separated, let her remain unmarried or else let her be reconciled to her husband), and that a husband send not away a wife.

To this group in which both husbands and wives are Christians Paul does not write λέγω, “I say or state,” as he did in v. 8, but παραγγέλω, “I command,” “I issue orders.” Yet it is in reality not Paul but the Lord himself who issues this order, for the order here stated is the one issued by Jesus himself in Matt. 5:32; 19:6, and when Paul says, “I give command” (present tense), he means that the order of Jesus has continuous, permanent force. In this instance Paul can use a word that was spoken by Jesus himself in regard to the permanency of marriage, a word that has validity for all time. There are some other questions about marriage, on which Jesus had no occasion to speak while he was here on earth. When Paul himself answers some of these questions he does so as the Lord’s apostle through whom the Lord now speaks. No matter how the divine command comes to us, whether from the Lord’s own lips or from the pen of the Lord’s apostle, the command has equal binding power.

Paul states in words of his own the Lord’s order to all Christian couples and uses two accusatives with infinitives. γυναῖκαἀπὸἀνδρὸςμὴχωρισθῆναι … καὶἄνδραγυναῖκαμὴἀφιέναι: “that a wife be not separated from a husband … and that a husband send not away a wife.” The sense of the double command is that neither a Christian wife nor a Christian husband should disrupt and thus destroy the marriage in which they are joined. While the wording is different, μὴχωρισθῆναι to indicate the activity of a wife, and μὴἀφιέναι to state the action of a husband, the substance of the commands is the same, for in v. 13 and 15 the verbs are reversed. The Greek offers a choice of verbs. Jesus used ἀπολύειν in Matt. 5:32; ἀποτέμνειν, ἐκβάλλειν, and ἀποπέμπειν could also be employed according to the connotation that might be desired.

We may note that Paul is not dealing with a case in which a Christian wife or a husband commits fornication and thereby disrupts the marriage tie; Jesus, too, disregards this in Matthew 5 as needing no comment since it eo ipso destroys the marriage. It is likewise important to note that, like Jesus, Paul is not speaking of divorce in the sense of a court action such as we connect with the word “divorce.” Marriage between Christians is to be permanent, and neither spouse is to dissolve it. The wife is not to permit anything to separate her from her husband, the husband is not to send away his wife, whether in addition either of them goes also to a secular court and has the disruption made legally permanent or not.

The question as to why the wife is mentioned first is usually answered by saying that cases in which the wife would act are more numerous. This is questionable. In v. 12 and 13 Paul has the order reversed. In Matt. 5:32; 19:5, etc., Jesus mentions only the husband who dismisses his wife because this was a common practice among the Jews since they supposed that it was authorized in Deut. 24:1. When Mark (10:12) writes for Gentile Christians he adds also the wife’s action. It would seem that the wife is mentioned first because Paul thinks of her as leaving of her own accord, by her act dissolving the marriage; thus the husband is mentioned in the second place, he by his act sends away his wife from their home.

This also explains the verbs used: χωρισθῆναι regarding the wife’s action, a passive: she is separated from her husband by something, she leaves him; ἀφιέναι regarding the husband: he sends her away, makes her leave him and their home. The order is proper: she leaves—he makes her leave. The A. V. is right in translating ἀφιέναι “put (send) away”; the R. V. is wrong: “leave not his wife,” for he makes her leave, he sends her away.

In regard to this double prohibition we should note its effect upon Jewish Christians in Corinth. As former Jews they would remember that the husband thought he could send away his wife for even the slightest reason by merely giving her a letter of divorcement, we may say her walking papers. The Lord himself forbade such a procedure. How even the disciples felt about the Lord’s dictum we may gather from Matt. 19:10.

The Roman state law and custom, of which the Gentile Christian would think, granted either party the right to take the initiative in dissolving a marriage. In addition it made distinctions between the marriages themselves. Marriages between slaves had no legal standing (and thus permanence) whatever. There were not a few slaves (7:21) in the congregation at Corinth. Marriage between a freedman (one released from slavery) and a slave had a low legal standing. In general, during this period of Roman history the permanency of marriage unions was exceedingly uncertain. The effect of the Lord’s command on the complete permanency of Christian marriage may thus be estimated.

Yet Paul refers to the Lord’s command, not as one that is now for the first time being made known to the Corinthians, but as one that is well known to them; he only reminds the Corinthians of its force and calls their attention to the fact that it applies to wives as well as to husbands.

1 Corinthians 7:11

11 The sentence introduced by ἐάν is plainly a parenthesis since it is inserted between the two coordinate infinitive clauses, the one regarding the wife, the other regarding the husband. The sentence considers only the case of the wife: “but even if she be separated, let her remain unmarried or else let her be reconciled to her husband.” There can be no question that this applies also to a Christian husband who is forced to leave his wife. Since he employs ἐὰνδὲκαί, the condition of expectancy, Paul expects cases such as this to occur. When we apply the words also to a husband we must retain the same verb, ἐὰνχωρισθῇ, the one that is here used with reference to the wife, and not change to the verb that is found in the following infinitive clause, namely ἀφιέναι.

Paul uses only the passive “be separated” and does not intimate what may force a wife (or a husband) into such a separation from a Christian spouse. To assume, as has been done, that the reason was of a religious nature, that such a separation was brought about in order to avoid all sexual contact so as to secure greater devotion to the Lord, is unwarranted. To think of adultery on the part of the spouse from whom separation is made is equally out of the question, for this would disrupt or destroy the marriage. Therefore also Paul does not speak of this, least of all in this parenthesis which, like the entire sentence, deals with marriage partners both of whom are Christians. All that can be said is that various reasons may bring about a separation and cause a wife (or a husband) to leave.

Does Paul say that the Lord commands that the two shall live together nevertheless? No; there is nothing in Paul’s word to this effect. What Paul says is this: “let her (him) be reconciled to her husband (to his wife).” The manner in which Paul writes indicates that he makes this a part of the Lord’s own command. We have no word of the Lord that states this directly; so we take it that Paul deduces this from what the Lord says regarding marriage in Matthew 5 and elsewhere.

When we compare all that the Lord said regarding marriage we see what is meant by the command: “let her (him) remain unmarried or else,” etc. Marriages were so often disrupted in order that the dissatisfied spouse might marry another; note Matt. 19:9, “and shall marry another.” For this reason so many of the Jews got rid of their wives—they wanted some other woman. We have thousands of similar cases today. This is forbidden Christians: “let her (him) remain unmarried.” Otherwise, “let her (him) be reconciled.” What this involves for her (him) who disrupts the marriage in order to marry another person is obvious—such a person forfeits her (his) Christian character and membership. For such a person but one other possibility remains, reconciliation with the deserted spouse. The conclusion is often drawn that, although the two are separated as indicated (and we may add, perhaps even legally divorced), they are, nevertheless, still married in the sight of the Lord and thus also in the sight of the church. Paul could easily have said that in just a few words; he did not do so although he is reminding the Corinthians of the Lord’s own command regarding marriage.

What Paul writes still leaves a number of questions unanswered for us who are living under different circumstances. The best we can do is to absorb fully what the Lord and his apostle say and then to answer such additional questions in the light of their words and in their spirit. As far as Paul is concerned, he intended to visit Corinth and would thus answer all further questions in person.

Husbands and Wives in Mixed Marriages, 12–16.

12, 13) A third class in Corinth needs information on this subject. This includes “the rest,” namely husbands and wives in mixed marriages. Now to the rest say I myself, not the Lord: If some brother has a wife unbelieving, and she consents to dwell with him, let him not send her away. And a wife whoever has a husband unbelieving, and he consents to dwell with her, let her not send away her husband.

The cases that came to the attention of Jesus were those of Jews, in which husband and wife belonged to the Jewish faith. Jesus, therefore, had no occasion to pronounce on the sort of cases that Paul had to treat among the Corinthians. Hence Paul cannot appeal to a λόγιον or statement of Jesus when he is instructing the Corinthians regarding these. He must himself speak (λέγω) regarding this type, but he does so as an apostle who has divine apostolic authority. Thus, as he writes, divine Inspiration applies to what he now records as his own apostolic statement just as fully as it did to what he records in v. 10, 11 in restating the Lord’s logion in its application to the Corinthians.

What he writes is so clear as to need little further comment. Both sides, that of a husband and that of a wife in a mixed marriage, are formulated with equal fulness, and both almost exactly alike. Even the two verbs: “let him (her) not send her (him) away,” are identical. From this we gather that, when Paul varied the verbs in v. 11, he intended to express no material difference. The two demonstrative pronouns, καὶαὑτή and καὶοὗτος, which are used instead of relative pronouns or instead of accusative participles after ἄπιστον (namely συνευδοκοῦντα), lend a formal tone to Paul’s pronouncement. They have the effect of legal phraseology.

Paul mentions the consent of only the unbelieving persons, that of the believing parties is taken for granted. A possibility of dissent would lie only with the unbeliever. In both of the instances considered “unbelieving” includes Jew as well as pagan; either might insist on separation and divorce. The two conditional clauses with εἰ contemplate the two cases as real and as actually occurring. “To dwell with him (her)” is literally “to house with him (her)” and means to continue the marriage relation. Mixed marriages are certainly not ideal; yet they are as truly marriages as other marriages are. Paul also does not forbid them as, of course, he also does not advise them. He takes them as they are and delivers his instructions accordingly.

1 Corinthians 7:14

14 Instead of seeking ethical reasons for disrupting such a marriage, a proper view of this type of marriage discloses the ethical reason for leaving it intact. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother, else evidently your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

There are other reasons that this kind of marriage should certainly be continued once it has been entered into. Paul seeks to remove all doubt that a believer might have as if by continuing in such a marriage he (or she) might become contaminated in some way. Paul declares the opposite as being true. Instead of the believer’s being made unholy by this marital union, the unbeliever is made holy. This is true equally for an unbelieving wife and for an unbelieving husband. By placing the verbs forward in the Greek this fact is made emphatic in the case of both: “Sanctified is the unbelieving husband, and sanctified is the unbelieving wife”—nothing less. The two perfect tenses point to a present, continuing condition.

Since Paul writes plainly: “the unbelieving husband” and “the unbelieving wife,” he excludes all thought of personal spiritual sanctification. As far as their persons are concerned, all unbelievers are unsanctified. He uses the passive “have been sanctified” and then two ἐν phrases: “in connection with his wife,” “in connection with the brother,” which R. 587 explains as a case of ἐν with persons: “in the person of” the believing spouse. A certain sanctity is conferred (passive) upon the unbelieving spouse, unbelieving though this spouse is, when by the marriage tie he is joined to a believing spouse, who is one of God’s saints. The unbelieving spouse is party to a Christian marriage. Through the believing spouse the blessings of a sanctified marriage are bestowed upon the unbelieving spouse and thus more is given (passive) to him than his unbelief deserves.

Thus Melanchthon also comments on our passage that “the use of marriage is permitted and holy on account of faith in Christ just as it is permitted to use meat, etc.” C. Tr. 371, 31. Marriage should be sanctified by faith on the part of both parties, but one believing spouse alone already brings that sanctification to the marriage. It is, therefore, a blessed thing for an unbelieving person to be married to a true and faithful believing spouse.

This is established by pointing to the effect of such a marriage on the children born to it: “else evidently your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” Paul uses the strong protasis of reality, ἐπεὶἄραἐστι, R. 1026, ἄρα indicating what is evident. The children are “holy” from the moment of their birth in the same sense as the unbelieving father or the mother has holiness conferred upon him or her, i.e., by being born in Christian wedlock, which is in this case made so by one of the parents. This is what should comfort a Christian father or a mother who are living in a mixed marriage.

Foreign to Paul’s thought is the idea that a sort of holiness is conferred upon the unbeliever by the marital sexual relation with a believer. Likewise the thought that by means of such a marriage the unbeliever enters into a sacred relation with the Christian congregation, for the pronoun “your” (children) cannot refer to the congregation but refers only to the parents of the children. Paul intimates nothing in regard to the baptism of such children. The conclusion that infant baptism could not have yet been practiced in these early days is unwarranted. The holiness which Paul here predicates regarding children has nothing to do with this sacrament and the regeneration wrought by the Spirit, John 3:5. It is exactly like that bestowed upon the unbelieving parent. In regard to the baptism of such children born in mixed marriages the only proper conclusion is that the believing parent would bring the children to this sacrament so that, being born in a holy wedlock, they may also be sanctified by the new birth in Christ.

1 Corinthians 7:15

15 But the unbelieving spouse may positively refuse to continue in marital union with a believer. Cases such as this occur frequently in foreign mission fields to this day. What then? But if the husband, the unbelieving one, keeps himself separate, let him keep himself separate! The brother or the sister has not been placed in bondage in such circumstances, but God has called us in peace.

In v. 11 Paul uses the passives χωρισθῆναι and χωρισθῇ. One might regard χωρίζεται and χωριζέσθω as passives; but they are intended to be middle because the unbelieving husband separates himself. He simply leaves his believing wife. Whether he also proceeds to procure a legal divorce makes no difference in the case whatever. What disrupts and destroys the marriage is the fact that he keeps himself separated. Paul uses a condition of reality and thus thinks of an actual case. The two verbs are durative: “If he keeps himself separate, let him keep himself separate.” In the expression ὁἀνὴρὁἄπιστος the addition of the adjective by means of a second article emphasizes the adjective: “the husband, the unbelieving one” (R. 776), and thus makes evident that it is his unbelief which causes him to abandon his believing wife and thus ends his marriage with her.

Paul writes succinctly: χωριζέσθω, “let him keep himself separate!” Short and done with. What can, indeed, be done when an unbeliever takes such action? The marriage is ended; let it remain thus. While Paul writes ὁἀνὴρὁἄπιστος, we see that he has in mind both cases, an unbelieving husband deserting his believing wife, an unbelieving wife deserting her believing husband. What is now the status of such a believing spouse? “The brother or the sister has not been placed in bondage ἐντοῖςτοιούτοις, in such circumstances.” The verb is placed emphatically forward and is itself strong: “not has been enslaved the brother or the sister.”

The perfect tense states more than the present used in our versions. The perfect reaches back to the day when the unbelieving spouse entered upon the desertion and states that from that moment onward the believing spouse has not been held bound. From that day onward the fetters of the marriage tie have been broken and remain so, now and indefinitely. The deserting spouse broke them. No law binds the believing spouse. Let us add that no odium on the part of Christians has a right to bind such a believing, deserted spouse. It goes without saying that a believing spouse will by Christian kindness and persuasion do all that can be done to prevent a rupture. But when these fail, Paul’s verdict is: “Thou art free!”

Desertion is exactly like adultery in its effect. Both disrupt the marriage tie. For that matter, the case is the same as when in olden times a wife was forced out of the home by her husband. The essence of marriage is union. When this is disrupted, the union which God intended to be a permanent one is destroyed, sinfully destroyed. There is only this difference in the case of adultery, the innocent spouse may forgive and continue the marriage, or may accept the dire result, the sundering of the marriage.

In the case of desertion the former is not possible; the deserted spouse can no longer continue a marriage, for none exists. To speak, as is generally done, of “two causes for divorce” is a mistake. In the first place, neither Jesus nor Paul discusses what we term “divorce,” namely legal court action; both speak about what destroys a marriage. In the second place, just as a man may be murdered in various ways, the one frightful thing being that he is murdered, so no matter how a marriage is destroyed, the terrible thing is its destruction.

It is a separate matter as to what the innocent spouse does by way of obtaining the civil court action regarding his or her status in civil law in regard to property rights and the like. Court action may be most necessary after a marriage is wrecked but it should not be considered the all-important thing, nor should it be confused with what has actually destroyed the marriage. In the case of desertion, when a spouse runs away, a special question arises: “Will the one who has deserted perhaps change his (her) mind and return?” Both the church and the courts have rightly set time limits as to how long the innocent party should wait until a formal pronouncement is made to the effect that the desertion is, indeed, permanent. While setting such a time limit is a human matter, ecclesiastical or legally secular, it harmonizes with Paul’s decision.

When Paul adds: “but God has called us in peace,” he refers to peace with our fellow men. The perfect tense “has called” points to the enduring state of the Christians as people who are now living under God’s gracious and effective gospel call, a call that is connected with “peace,” which is not merely the opposite of strife but includes the idea of well-being. The implication is that a deserting spouse shall not destroy this “peace.” Paul at once adds a plain explanation that is intended to protect this peace against the false legalistic ideas of Christians who are inclined to go to extremes.

1 Corinthians 7:16

16 This explanation (γάρ) is directed against the one point that might be urged by a deserted Christian’s conscience against peacefully accepting such desertion, namely the thought of thus losing all opportunity of saving the unbelieving spouse. For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

The vocatives make the questions highly personal and thus the more effective. If here or there a spouse grieved over such a supposed lost opportunity, Paul brushes such grief aside. A Christian wife will, indeed, try to win an unbelieving husband, 1 Pet. 3:1: “That, even if any obey not the Word, they may without the Word be gained by the behavior of their wives.” A Christian husband will do the same. But what opportunity can be found when a spouse is so adverse as eventually to separate himself or herself entirely? Thus the two questions answer themselves: “How knowest thou?” τί, adverbial accusative: “in what respect.” The wife and the husband will have to answer: “I have no way of knowing.” And Paul’s implied reply is: “Then dismiss the matter.” After all, the business of saving a soul belongs to God; he alone determines the human instruments as well as all other providential aids which he will employ. Let not even a spouse assume too readily that she or he is the God-chosen instrument.

These questions have been understood in the exactly opposite sense. Such a sense may be obtained by making v. 15 a parenthesis and thus connecting v. 16 with v. 14: the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse, for she will save her husband, or he his wife. This may also be done by connecting v. 16 with the phrase “in peace” in v. 15: the Christian, being called in peace, will convert the non-Christian spouse to this same peace. Both combinations are artificial, and both rest on a preconception, namely that the believing spouse will save the unbelieving—the very thing which Paul questions, the very thing which often did not happen, unbelieving spouses even going so far as to desert the believing for the very reason that they believed. There is no need to make v. 15 a parenthesis; no casual reader could surmise that this is Paul’s intention. To attach v. 16 to a subordinate clause in v. 15 is unsatisfactory, since it fits the chief thought exactly: the Christian spouse is not bound. Nor does εἰ mean ob nicht, “whether not,” in the New Testament, εἰ = “whether.”

Excursus on the Ethical Principle Involved, 17–24.

1 Corinthians 7:17

17 This excursus is typically Pauline, for it shows that what Paul posits for the specific case of marriage relations is really a general Christian principle and as such applicable to many other relations, some of which are introduced as illustrations. This breadth of vision is found throughout Paul’s writing. He never stops at the halfway mark, he always makes us see the whole. Thus his writings always give the reader the fullest satisfaction. Too much wrong theology and wrong church practice has resulted from failure to go far enough in apprehending what the Scriptures say.

Also the manner of presenting the principle is full of beauty. The principle itself is restated thrice, and the two illustrations used are couched in the effective form of questions and answers. At times, when these features of style are discussed, too much it attributed to pagan Greek influences. At other times Jewish apocryphal and apocalyptic sources are postulated as the source of Paul’s terms, expressions, and so-called “theories.” All honor to historical interpretation which reads Paul through the eyes and the ears of his own day, but Paul is not a borrower but is original throughout.

Only as the Lord apportioned to each, as God has called each, thus let him walk. And thus I ordain in all the churches.

This is the first statement of the principle that underlies all the preceding injunctions and instructions in regard to marital relations although it, of course, also says much more. The sense of εἰμή (ausser, B.-D. 448, 8) is “only” or “except,” but it is not to be construed with the verb “let him walk,” R. 1025. In ἐμέρισεν (the aorist, which is better attested than the perfect) there lies the noun μέρος, the special portion, here in the sense of task, assigned by the Lord to each Christian in his personal situation in life, whether single, married, or deserted by a spouse; and the aorist merely points to the divine act which made the apportionment. The Greek places the emphasis on “each” and on “the Lord”: he in his right as the Lord gives to each under his gracious jurisdiction a special assignment in keeping with the course of his providence.

The parallel clause adds the divine κλῆσις in which each Christian is found by virtue of the Lord’s grace. The perfect tense κέκληκεν is in order because it implies the present standing of the Christian as one of “the called.” Our portion in life is thus to be viewed in connection with our saving call, our providentially allotted task in union with our position as one of Christ’s own.

Accepting both our portion in life and our saving call as coming from God and from the Lord, “thus,” in this manner, “let each walk” or go on in his life. The portions allotted to different persons vary greatly, the call is one and the same, but both are from above. Let us rest content with that.

Thus Paul ordains in all the churches, namely as an apostle with the authority divinely entrusted to him. This statement is necessary in order that the Corinthians may understand that what Paul writes to them on the practical subjects mentioned above is not something that was newly devised for the Corinthians alone but something that was applied by Paul in all the churches. The principle is universal for Christians. The verb “I ordain” is strong because of the preposition and because of the middle voice.

1 Corinthians 7:18

18 Now the first illustration which is couched in simple questions and answers and thus has a dramatic touch but is taken from a feature of life that is entirely removed from questions regarding marriage. Was someone called who has been circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised! Has someone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised!

The two questions and the two answers are close parallels, but the formulation has a good deal of linguistic variation: an attributive participle, “who has been circumcised” matched by a phrase, “in uncircumcision”; first the indefinite “someone” before the verb, then the indefinite after the verb; first an aorist, “was called,” then the perfect, “has been called”; first the aorist imperative, “let him not become uncircumcised,” then the present imperative, “let him not be circumcised” (let him not engage in having that done).

The reasons formulated in the minds of those concerned for desiring the change are not indicated. If they were of a religious nature, we should expect some reference to this fact. But a Jewish Christian might have a variety of reasons that might prompt him to desire to hide his origin from Gentile Christians and from pagans. A Gentile Christian might likewise imagine it to be to his advantage to appear as if he, too, had originally belonged to the chosen nation. Paul tells both: Remain as you were originally called when you became Christians. In both cases he combines the person’s “portion” with his saving “call,” once with the aorist which simply marks the fact of his call, secondly with the perfect which adds the state that is due to this call.

The removal of circumcision was often secured by a surgical operation which allowed the foreskin again to project, hence Paul’s expression μὴἐπισπάσθω, ne sibi attrahit, sc. praeputium, which uses the Jewish technical term. Jews who followed the Greek mode of living and built a gymnasium at Jerusalem “hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greeks,” Josephus, Ant. 12, 5, 1.

1 Corinthians 7:19

19 As far as circumcision and uncircumcision are concerned, the matter is decidedly simple. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the guarding of God’s behests. Being “nothing,” why should a Christian treat them as being something? In spite of Paul’s own words we are told that Paul after all treats the matter, not as an adiaphoron, but as a matter of religious consequence, for how could he otherwise object to making the indicated changes? The answer is obvious: “Just because these are adiaphora and amount to nothing, make no change. Why dissemble your origin when you who were once a Jew or you who were once a pagan are now by God’s grace and call a Christian?” Paul’s principle thus applies even in these slight matters.

“But the guarding of God’s behests” is something, i.e., something vital. Disregard the providential portion allotted to you in life and concentrate on this one vital point. “The guarding,” with its article in the Greek, is definite: that which is your business in your Christian profession; while “God’s behests,” without the article, is qualitative: these being such, i.e., nothing less than behests of God.

The term τήρησις means more than “keeping,” holding or observing; it means “guarding” like a guard who is posted to watch and to protect against violation or removal. Guarding includes more than our own personal observance of God’s behests, it includes watchfulness on our part so that others, too, may not take away these behests or violate their requirements. The ἐντολαί are really “behests,” not in a legal sense as “commandments” or laws like those of Moses, but in the gospel sense, the requirements of faith, love, etc., which were given to us as friends of Jesus, John 15:14, see also v. 10–12. These “behests” are beyond question our real concern as followers and friends of Christ.

1 Corinthians 7:20

20 Paul states the principle once more, but with variations by combining emphasis and explanation. Each in the call wherewith he was called, in that let him remain. The two parallel clauses found in v. 17 are now reduced to a unit: “the call wherewith he was called,” or, in one word, “the call.” The minor idea of portions in our earthly life is merged in the major blessing of the call. We should not regard κλῆσις in the sense of a man’s profession, position, or life work, for this is the standard apostolic term for the effective gospel call which makes a man a true Christian. This sense of the term is heavily emphasized when Paul heaps up the cognates, a noun, a relative, a verb, and in addition to all this a demonstrative: “in the call—by which (call)—he was called—in that (call)” let him remain, continue to remain as the present imperative implies. Three similar verb forms are found in the next two verses.

The dative ἧ is an attraction to the case of its antecedent from the cognate accusative ἥν which belongs to the passive verb, R. 716. By combining into one the different portions meted out to us with the great thought of God’s effective call of grace Paul obtains a variety of “calls.” All are identical in the vital respect, namely as the one call of grace that has come to each of us; yet they all vary and differ in the minor points as one Christian has this portion, another that portion in life from God. Compare 1:26.

1 Corinthians 7:21

21 Here, for instance, is one such “call”: Wast thou called, thou a slave? Do not worry about it! But if thou art also able to become free, use it the rather.

So this is one call with which a person may be called: a slave may be called by the grace of God and by that call, slave though he is, be made a Christian. There were not a few slaves in the Corinthian congregation. “A slave” is predicate to the subject of the verb. Paul tells such a slave: “Do not worry about it!” or: “Let it not trouble thee!” The Greek is idiomatic. As the reason for this injunction Paul will presently state the blessedness of this kind of a call. “Also,” καί, adds the ability to become free to the having been called as a slave. Paul is thinking of an actual case in which a slave is able to secure his freedom, for the condition is one of reality. Then, Paul says, take the freedom and use it rather than the slavery. The comparative “rather” implies alternatives, one of which is to receive the preference, the one indicated by the context.

Some think that Paul has in mind the exactly opposite. Having written: “Stay in your position in life!” this must in the present case mean: Once a slave, always a slave! Yet in v. 15 by forsaking a believer an unbelieving spouse changes the status of the believer completely from a married estate to a single estate, for Paul writes: “he (she) has not been placed in bondage,” οὑδεδούλωται. Does Paul cancel this οὑ, “not,” in the case of the slave and demand for him δεδούλωται: forever a δοῦλος, a slave? Incredible! All that Paul says is that while a Christian is a slave he is not to worry about his status; if it changes to one of freedom, so much the better.

Slaves were legally freed in various ways, sometimes even without their consent as by a master’s death and testament. This automatically set the slave free. Slaves were also freed by a master’s generosity or as gratitude in reward for notable service. One method was to deposit the slave’s savings in the temple of some god, who was thus supposed “to buy the slave for freedom,” Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 333. Thus we find many freedmen, former slaves set free, and among them men of great importance. Can we suppose that Paul’s ethics demanded that such freedom should be rejected? Moreover, all Christianity shows no ethical principle which forbids a slave to accept or legitimately to secure his freedom.

The interpretation centers on the imperative χρῆσαι and the dative to be supplied. Some supply τῇδουλείᾳ, but the apodosis: “use it the rather,” follows from the protasis: “if thou art also able to become free.” From this protasis the dative object of the main verb “use” is to be drawn. “Use it,” we may say, means “use liberty,” τῇἐλευθερίᾳ. Linguistically more exact would be, “use this that thou didst become free,” ἐλεύθεροςγενέσθαι, exactly as the protasis has it. Luther is right: brauche des viel lieber. The R. V. translates ἀλλά with the climacteric “yea,” yet the simple adversative “but” is satisfactory.

The argument that freedom was often not good for a slave is not cogent, for in more cases slavery was certainly not good for the slave. The view that Paul intends to forbid only the purchase and not the gift of freedom, is unsatisfactory. Finally, if the preference indicated by μᾶλλον were that for slavery instead of freedom, it would be so abnormal as to require the strongest kind of reason, but Paul’s words do not supply such a reason.

It is quite true that Christianity is not revolutionary, and that it tolerated slavery until general Christian influence made it intolerable. But it is not true that the ethics of Christianity ever forbade a man to improve his social or his economic condition by rightful means. The one principle to be applied here is “the guarding of God’s behests.” Where Christianity is a new force, the danger may arise that men degrade it so that it becomes a disruptive ferment to upset law, order, customs, etc., in anomistic, even revolutionary ways. Against all such tendencies the Scriptures stand adamant.

1 Corinthians 7:22

22 Paul cannot add the parallel case of a free man becoming a slave, except abstractly, since no such case existed in Corinth. Paul deals with facts and not with hypothetic abstractions as pagan philosophers do. So he proceeds at once to illumine both the injunction to a slave not to be worried because he is a slave, whatever disabilities this entails, and the injunction to use freedom when a slave is able to attain it or is already a freedman. This is the force of γάρ. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise the free man who was called is a slave of Christ.

We may put it abstractly: slavery in Christ is true freedom; freedom in Christ is true slavery. The delicate shading in the two subjects is erased by our versions which translate both subjects alike. The first subject is “he who was called,” to which there is added predicatively “as a slave,” which hints that he was such only when he was called and hence may change his status later on. The second subject is “the free man,” one who is free whether he was born free or set free, to which there is added predicatively “who was called,” which hints at nothing more, for he will remain a free man. To be sure, both calls are “in the Lord,” in connection with him and his grace. And “Lord” is the proper term, for through the call both this slave and this free man bow to Christ as Lord.

The two predicates are exactly alike save for the genitives. A slave who is called by that call becomes “a freedman of the Lord,” ἀπελεύθερος, dismissed to freedom by the Lord, by a gracious act of manumission, to the spiritual freedom of a child of God. While “the free man,” ὁἐλεύθερος, who has this status among men, by the call becomes “a slave of Christ,” now belongs to Christ as his spiritual Master. In “freedman (ἀπελεύθερος) of the Lord” the genitive is that of the agent, he releases unto freedom; in “a slave of Christ” the genitive is that of possession, he belongs to Christ. Thus also Paul uses “Christ” in the latter connection. The cases of the two men are thus in a strange manner “likewise” or similar.

In both we see slavery, and in both freedom. In the first bodily slavery and the spiritual freedom or release from sin, guilt, bondage of sin, death, and all evil; in the second, bodily freedom and the spiritual bondage which binds to heavenly obedience, service, good works, a slavery that is as sweet as any freedom that can be imagined. The terms “free man” and “slave” appear like opposites, and they are that in earthly and merely human relations, but in the blessed call of the Lord they flow together and become one, each expressing only one side of the same blessed relation.

1 Corinthians 7:23

23 This convergence is now focused in the unit idea of “price.” Paul loves such unification in his concluding statements. They gather the extended elaboration into one point, where it is left to rest. You were bought with a price; be not slaves of men. The great fact of our purchase is stated in 6:20, in a different connection. “You were bought with a price” is one of those deep and mighty statements, written by Inspiration, which reach through the entire Christian life and down to its very bottom. Beautiful like a diamond when it is viewed in different gold settings, it is no less glorious when it is held up and looked at by itself.

You were bought with a price whether you are slaves or free men; in this respect you are all alike. The aorist “were bought” refers to the price of Christ’s blood and death that was paid for us all on the cross. The gracious and efficacious “call” turns Christ’s property over to him. Those who spurn the call in unbelief were also bought with the same price but rob Christ of his property, 2 Pet. 2:1. Because of its very brevity the genitive of price, τιμῆς, denotes a great price.

Having been bought thus, “be not slaves of men,” not an aorist but a present imperative. “Become not” in the R. V. is misleading, for it sounds too much like an aorist. The aorist would denote entire cessation of the relation to Christ, total reversion to the slavery of men. The present denotes that Christians may revert to the old bondage by various foolish thoughts and actions. Instead of rejoicing in full freedom these Christians would still continue to carry some of the fetters. They would be “slaves of men” by letting the worldly ideas of men still rule them in one or in the other respect, in the way in which they regard human slavery and human freedom, circumcision and uncircumcision, marriage, the single state, or any other part of the Christian life as we must live it in this imperfect world.

1 Corinthians 7:24

24 In conclusion Paul once more and for the third time restates the ethical thesis which he has elaborated in detail. Let each wherein he was called, brethren, therein remain with God. Let that principle govern as a principle of Christ and of the new life, as one of the precious gospel behests we are to guard, not as an iron-bound law. From the second person plural used in v. 23 Paul turns to the third person singular and touches “each” personally. He inserts the affectionate address “brethren,” for the great apostle himself is one of this blessed company whom Christ owns. As “brethren” the Corinthians will gladly heed what their “brother” tells them.

Yet in every restatement which Paul makes we may look for a new touch. In regard to our call v. 24 is only an abbreviation of v. 20, but the final phrase is new: let him remain “with God.” The Greek conceives this as being “beside God,” παρά with the dative, resting and remaining at God’s side in peace and contentment. This our “call” does for us, namely places us in such a delightful position beside God. Called to his side, safe and happy there, let us disregard and never lay undue stress on our condition, station, or outward form of life. Let us not keep looking downward to these things that may be more or less hard, disagreeable, and subject to change although they need not be changed; let us look upward to God, for our one obligation is to remain (durative present imperative μενέτω) “with God.”

III. Regarding Maidens, 25–38

When he answers the questions regarding maidens Paul takes a comprehensive view, hence we have the preliminary elaborations in v. 25–35 and then the brief answer in v. 36–38.

In order to understand this section of Paul’s letter we should have regard to the intimations that Paul’s view of the unmarried state had lost favor among the Corinthians after Paul’s departure from their midst. His teaching was being criticized in various ways. One phase of the information desired from him is further instruction in regard to maidens. Had the Lord, perhaps, left some word in regard to them? We see why Paul is obliged to answer at some length and also why he fortifies his answer in different directions. First, against the assumption that the unmarried state is inferior to the married state and that it involves a certain loss.

Some of those living in Corinth evidently think so. Secondly, against a false asceticism which considers the sex features of marriage wrong and contends especially that unions with unbelievers should not be allowed. Thirdly, a libertinistic tendency over against which as well as over against other tendencies the binding force of marriage must be emphasized. Finally also a narrow legalism that is ready to inflict a yoke on the conscience in regard to the natural relations of life.

It is not an easy task for Paul to straighten out this snarl of opinions, tendencies, and cross tendencies. None of the questions that arose in Corinth regarding these subjects was simple, and each plays into the other. For this reason Paul puts up barriers, now on this, now on that side, and then states the true principle which is the key to the solution of the problem. After this he illumines that principle by introducing illustrations from other sources. One way in which to learn to appreciate the reply which Paul gave is to face this complicated situation in Corinth yourself and to write out what you think ought to be the reply and then to compare it with Paul’s reply. There is no need to say more.

The Preliminary Considerations, 25–35.—25) Here we meet the second περί phrase (see v. 1) by which Paul takes up a point in the letter sent him by the Corinthians. The fact that they should ask whether the Lord himself had, perhaps, left any directions in regard to Christian maidens does not necessarily imply a meager knowledge on the part of the Corinthians regarding what Jesus had taught. It may just as well imply that in Corinth certain persons insisted on some “command” that came directly from the Lord himself and then claimed that there was none and so drew false conclusions from that fact.

Now Paul is far removed from resorting to evasion or to equivocation. When the Lord settles a question, Paul says so, v. 10, 11; when the Lord has no pronouncement, Paul again says so, v. 12 and our present verse. But parallel to the personally spoken logia of the Lord is the apostolic authority bestowed by the Lord, and although this was mediated through the apostles it is just as binding as the Lord’s own logia. This authority Paul asserts in v. 12, compare Luke 10:16. In addition, questions may and do arise to which neither a logion of the Lord nor an authoritative dictum of an apostle furnish a direct answer. For the direct answer depends on the accompanying circumstances, and thus according to the circumstances, the answer may in one case be “yea,” in another may be “nay.” Our only guide is the general gospel principle that applies to the individual case. This is true regarding the παρθένοι.

Who are the παρθένοι? Various opinions are expressed. One such idea is that they are bachelors and maidens who have voluntarily vowed to remain celibate They are even called Amtsjungfrauen, virgins who were officially recognized as such by the congregation, we might call them monks and nuns who have not as yet withdrawn to monasteries. Another idea advanced is that these were couples, bachelors and maidens who were betrothed to each other, but not in order eventually to marry, but rather always to remain celibate. It has even been claimed that they lived together so that the maiden might have male protection, and the bachelor might enjoy the company and the housekeeping of the maiden.

All of these and similar ideas are read into the text without the shadow of support. They are moral monstrosities that are impossible in the church except as morbid excrescencies. Not until the third century do we hear of sorores, devoted virgins, who lived together with ascetics and clerics and even shared their beds in order to demonstrate their strength of will and their ability to retain chastity, a practice which, of course, only too often ended in the very reverse. The church strongly opposed these unions at the time, and they disappeared. Later on they were revived when the so-called Joseph marriages, or angel marriages of Roman Catholicism, originated. Meusel, Kirchliches Handlexikon, article Subintroductae.

Yet no one ever thought of appealing to this paragraph of Paul’s letter in justification of all these morbid practices and during the controversies they enkindled. Nowhere has Paul the least hint that vows were taken, and nowhere is there a trace of official recognition.

The Greek term παρθένος signifies maiden or virgin, and Paul uses the feminine article and thereby excludes all reference to a bachelor. This term is only rarely used to designate an unmarried man; in the New Testament it is found in Rev. 14:4 and in a sense which the context makes plain. While these “maidens” thus belong to the general class of the unmarried already considered by Paul in v. 8, 9, they, nevertheless, constitute a distinct class, and one that, as we shall see, required an extensive and particular treatment.

Now concerning the maidens I have not a command of the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who has had mercy conferred upon him by the Lord so that I am trustworthy.

Paul has no command which was left by the Lord concerning Christian maidens that touches the question as to whether their fathers should or should not give them in marriage. Paul also has no divine revelation from Christ which he can with apostolic authority present as such. The latter he does not say with so many words but implies when he offers only his “judgment.” This is not a mere personal opinion that is due to personal likes or dislikes or anything else that produces only personal preferences; it is the weighty “judgment” (γνώμη) and advice of one who is in every way qualified to render it. The expression: “I give (render) my judgment,” does not mean to offer a resolution which the congregation at Corinth is to vote upon, for such a sense would require a different verb, C.-K. 249.

Paul does not say that he offers this judgment of his as an apostle, for he would thereby appeal only to his authority. He re-enforces his judgment as being one that is worthy of acceptance on the part of the Corinthians by mentioning his apostolic qualification for rendering such a judgment “as one who has had mercy conferred upon him by the Lord so that I am trustworthy.” “As” has the causal idea “because,” etc., R. 1128, 1140. The perfect participle implies that the mercy that was once conferred upon Paul is still his. This is the mercy that chose him, a pitiful persecutor of the church, and made him one of the Lord’s apostles.

Paul’s humility is evidenced by this description of himself. Those Corinthians who demanded no less than a command from the Lord himself perhaps did so in an arrogant tone; Paul meets them with a tone of humbleness. The emphasis is, however, on the result of this divine mercy: “so that I am trustworthy,” 4:2. The infinitive εἷναι is not intended to indicate purpose merely but expresses an actual fact.

While Paul is humble when he recalls the mercy he received from the Lord, humble even before the Corinthians, he yet asserts his reliability and his trustworthiness, for this the Lord wrought in him by his mercy. The term πιστός cannot mean merely “a believer” like others, including the Corinthians themselves, for believers often make mistakes. Paul offers his judgment to the Corinthians as an apostle of whom by his mercy the Lord made a trustworthy steward who should administer the affairs of his church. As such he now speaks and expects the Corinthians to receive his judgment accordingly.

1 Corinthians 7:26

26 Paul begins to state his judgment. I hold, therefore, that this is excellent because of the present distress—that it is excellent for a person so to be. “I suppose” in the A. V. is too weak; “I think” in the R. V. is not strong enough. When one is rendering a judgment, νομίζω means: “I hold” or “I consider.” The construction is merely pleonastic; the emphatic τοῦτο is resumed and expanded by the epexegetical ὅτι clause, R. 1205, thus doubling καλόν and emphasizing this significant term: excellent—quite excellent.

First of all, then, Paul applies to the maidens the principle already stated in v. 8 as being valid for all the unmarried. Do some individuals in Corinth perhaps think that it is bad for a girl not to be married? No; it is quite excellent for her, too, to be as she is. Paul uses ἄνθρωπος much as we use “person”: it is excellent for any person to remain single, it is no less, then, for a maiden. The two verbs ὑπάρχειν and εἶναι are used only to obtain variation although the former is somewhat stronger; both mean “to be.”

And now Paul explains why he regards this to be excellent, namely “because of the present distress.” There is no need to let the participle mean only the “impending” distress, for the perfect of this verb is always used in the durative present sense. By this “distress” Paul refers to the painful and terrible experience which the confession of Christ may at any time bring upon a believer. Paul had many such experiences, and the Corinthians may well recall what the hostile Jews tried to do to Paul in the very city of Corinth. The days of the extensive pagan persecutions were drawing nigh. A girl that married and reared a family might thus be doubly and trebly overwhelmed, for her beloved husband might become involved, or she with him—and what about the children? History records many agonizing cases.

Paul thus very properly writes that, in the face of the situation prevailing at that time, “a person” may well prefer to remain alone, untrammeled by tender family ties. No wife and no children needed to rend their hearts when Paul went on his journeys and often faced death itself.

1 Corinthians 7:27

27 But Paul must be on his guard against all possible misunderstanding. If it is better, as he says, for a man to remain alone, some individuals in Corinth may stress this to the extreme and seek release from existing marriages. Art thou bound to a wife? Do not seek release. Art thou released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

The two perfect tenses employed in the two questions, literally: “hast thou been bound” and “hast thou been released,” refer to present conditions as the result of a past act. Didst thou marry at one time, and art thou thus married now? Wast thou in some way released from the marriage tie at some past time, and art thou still thus released? The questions are direct, personal, and thus stronger than mere conditional clauses would be. Paul addresses men, for he speaks about being bound to a wife or being released from a wife. Yet this is true in the case of women as well as in the case of men. In fact, both the questions and the answers include the women as well as the men, nor could the men possibly be treated as exceptions.

The moment Paul says with reference to unmarried girls that in his judgment it is excellent for them to remain unmarried because the present distress makes it excellent for any person to be single, he must face the questions: “How, then, about people who are already married? Ought not their marriage to be dissolved?” The answer to these questions is negative and must be so for the reason stated previously in v. 10: the Lord forbids such dissolution. Whatever distress may come, married people must bear it as best they can. The term λύσις is general: any form of “release” that would “loose” or dissolve the existing marriage.

But if a person is not as yet married, Paul’s advice applies not to seek marriage because of the present distress. This applies to the whole category of the unmarried, to maidens, of course, for Paul has them in mind especially, but also to unmarried men, to widowers, and to widows. Being bound to a wife and its opposite being released from a wife refer to actual marriage, to its presence or to its absence as the case may be. The effort in these expressions to find the particular “betrothals” which the church of a later age had to oppose is a misunderstanding of Paul’s simple words.

1 Corinthians 7:28

28 But more must be said, decidedly more. Paul’s judgment and his advice in regard to remaining unmarried “because of the present distress” lie altogether in the domain of expediency and dare not be transferred to the domain of moral right or wrong. Paul is stating what is best and most expedient under given circumstances and not what is right or what is sin under these circumstances. Therefore he is compelled to add: Nevertheless, even if thou shalt marry thou didst not sin; and if the maiden shall marry she did not sin. Yet such shall have tribulation for the flesh, and I am sparing you.

“If thou shalt marry” is addressed to a man although it, of course, involves also some unmarried woman to whom he is to be married. Because, however, the question at issue is one concerning unmarried girls, Paul singles out such an individual in particular: “and if the maiden shall marry.” He twice uses the condition that expresses expectancy. For reasons already stated in v. 9 marriages of all types will necessarily take place, and Paul himself writes: “Let them marry!” In the first protasis some texts have γήμῃς, others γαμήσῃς, which is only a later form of the aorist. The aorist is used in both conditional clauses because the rite is a single act, but the subjunctive refers to the future: if thou “shalt marry”; if she “shall marry.” Yet both of the apodoses have aorist indicatives which refer to the past: “thou didst not sin,” “she did not sin.” This is matter of viewpoint: a future act is considered from the standpoint of its completion and is then spoken of as if it were already done, R. 1020, 1022.

Viewing these coming marriages in this manner, Paul declares in regard to all of them, including in particular that of a maiden: there was no sin in forming these marriages. The whole matter of marrying in spite of the present distress or of not marrying because of the present distress has nothing to do with committing or with avoiding sin. No one must entertain such an idea or draw conclusions from such an idea. Paul seems to fear something of the sort because the Corinthians perhaps wanted to know whether the Lord had left a command regarding the marrying of maidens. Let it be understood then, Paul says, that it is no more a sin for a maiden to marry than for any other person.

But, of course, those who do marry during these evil times must expect tribulation. “Such shall have tribulation for the flesh”—Paul states this as a fact and refers not merely to the tribulation that is ordinarily incident to the married state, regarding which the marriage liturgy remarks: “Days of adversity will also come”; but “tribulation” (literally “pressure”) that is due to wicked agitation against the gospel and is increased because of tender ties. The dative “for the flesh” depends on “tribulation” because the Greek term is derived from a verb that governs the dative, R. 526. “Flesh” refers only to our human nature as such and thus includes both mind and body. When it comes, this infliction will be hard to bear. Paul knows it: “I for my part (emphatic) am sparing you,” namely by counselling you as I do, by trying to make your life easier for you and not harder. Paul reveals his ethical motive here.

1 Corinthians 7:29

29 Back of all these considerations regarding the question of marriage and non-marriage there lies the attitude of the true Christian toward all the transient temporalities of this earthly life. What Paul says regarding all these questions relating to marriage will be rightly apprehended only when we, too, know what this Christian attitude ought to be, and when we learn to share it with Paul. But this I say, brethren, the period has been shortened. Henceforth let even those that have wives be as not having them, and those that weep as not weeping, and those that rejoice as not rejoicing, and those that buy as not possessing, and those that use the world as not overusing it; for the form of this world is passing away. The preamble: “But this I say, brethren,” impresses the following statements upon the hearts and the minds of Paul’s Corinthian readers. Unless they understand these well they will not penetrate into the inwardness of Paul’s advice and instruction regarding marriage.

First he can announce a divine grace, viz., “the period has been shortened,” καιρός, this “season” or “period” of the world age which precedes the final coming of Christ. Jesus himself says: “And except those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved; but for the elects’ sake those days shall be shortened,” Matt. 24:22. The verb συνστέλλω means “to draw together” and thus to shrink or to shorten. God graciously compressed the season that is marked by tribulation so that it may not become so extended that his saints cannot bear it.

Here we again meet the thesis that Paul was entirely certain that the Parousia would occur during his lifetime, and that the shortening of which he speaks implies a reduction to a few years at the longest. The fact is quite otherwise. Even as we now, so Paul at his time had to be ready for the Lord’s return at any time. We, therefore, see him reckoning with the imminence and with the delay of Christ’s return and speaking of it now in one, now in the other way. For the hour (period) and the day (date) were not revealed to him as they are not revealed to us. He knew what we also know, namely that the Lord’s return shall be unexpected, and no more.

The sentence introduced by ἵνα is not a purpose clause. Nor is this ἵνα subfinal, it is an elliptical substitute for the imperative that expresses what is commanded without the use of a verb that denotes a command, B.-D. 387, 3; R. 994: “Henceforth let even those that have wives be,” etc. We may consider τὸλοιπόν an adverbial accusative or a nominative absolute, R. 487, but it certainly belongs to the ἵνα sentence and is placed before ἵνα only for the sake of emphasis: “as for the rest,” or “henceforth.” The first καί = “even” and singles out those who have wives while the other καί are ordinary connectives.

Now there follow five lovely exemplifications of the Christian’s freedom from this transient world. The life and the heart are in the world, the hands and the heart do their part in the world, yet they are not brought into captivity by the world, 6:12. The number five is the half of ten and thus permits us to add other illustrations. These exemplifications are by no means a heterogeneous collection; all of them fit into the connection beautifully; they are like the examples cited in v. 18 and 20. First, “those that have wives,” which omits the mention of the opposite class since they are naturally exempted from this command—having no wives, they will live as having none.

1 Corinthians 7:30

30 Then “those that weep,” for there will be tears in the married state, perhaps bitter tears if persecution lifts its hand. Paul can happily add: “those that rejoice,” for the picture is not entirely a dark one, nor is Paul a pessimist who paints only in somber colors—God will provide also joys and rejoicings. Then “those that buy,” for Christians need food, shelter, and clothing, and families require many things for their households. Paul is no theorist; all the practical features of life are near his thinking.

1 Corinthians 7:31

31 Finally, “those that use the world” (but Paul does not write “this world,” worldly pleasures and vices) since Christians are placed into the midst of the world and are not to escape from the world, 5:10. The last four groups include all Christians although the activities mentioned apply in their own way to those who are married. The verb χράομαι is here followed by the accusative instead of the usual dative, “in response to the general accusative tendency,” R. 476. And καταχράομαι does not mean “not to use” nor “to misuse” or “to abuse” as our versions translate, for such translations mar the symmetry of the entire series, but “to overuse,” to use to excess.

One does not understand how Paul’s beautiful picture of the true Christian in the midst of the world can create the impression that Paul “is here trying to salve his conscience” for having been too strict when he dissuaded Christians from entering marriage, and that he is practically retracting a large part of what he said.

Paul’s ethics have also been questioned. It has been said that he contradicts what he says elsewhere, and that he does not at all offer a Christian ideal for today but hampers all progress, crushes out all feeling, turns Christians into callous ascetics, etc. Luther is held up as a man who progressed far beyond Paul in love to wife, children, etc. Paul, indeed, orders husbands to love their wives, Eph. 5:25; and bids us weep with those that weep, Rom. 12:15. Yet in the present famous passage he mars none of these fine ethical precepts. Only when Paul’s negatives are sundered from their corresponding positives and thus overstrained can any man read a coldness, callousness, and unethical indifference into them and charge Paul with overstatement.

What does Paul really say? Marriage, tears, joys, purchases, the whole world of earthly things—we Christians may have all of them, use all of them, experience all of them—how? for what they are, as belonging to the σχῆμα or form of this present world. What Paul says is true: as soon as we go beyond this limit and permit any or all of these to interfere with our spiritual life and our relation to the life to come, a false ἐξουσία (6:12b) or power reaches into our lives and begins to ruin them. Compare Luke 12:18–20.

As for Luther, he actually is the best example of a man who followed Paul’s program, for he used every thing that Paul mentions yet did so that all things were made subservient to true and higher ends. For this reason he even married rather than remain single. As far as progress in our modern age is concerned, so much of it is used—as Paul, to be sure, would not dream of using it—for the self-glorification of men; not to glorify the Lord but to deny him his glory.

“For the form of this world is passing away.” That is the key (γάρ, explanation or reason); it is also a commentary on the shortening of the time, v. 29. It “is passing away,” παράγει, constantly slipping by, even at this moment—nothing about it is stable. Paul does not say “the world” is passing away; or even “this world”; he specifies more closely: “the form of this world,” its σχῆμα or fashion. The entire expression, in particular the verb παράγει, seems to be borrowed from the ancient theatrical language: the role of the old σχῆμα is being played out, and a new σχῆμα is about to step onto the boards.

We at once see that marriage, weeping, etc., are only a part of this form and fashion of the world which is ever moving on and away, is transient, for a day, “life’s little day.” Why try to cling to them, to make of them more than they are, to value them above their real worth? The decisive passage of Scripture regarding the question as to whether this present world will be annihilated or will be transformed is Rom. 8:19–23, which declares for the latter. Not the world as such but its form is passing away and will at last pass away completely.

1 Corinthians 7:32

32 After having shown what this present time or season requires of all of us, in particular of those who have wives, Paul turns to what our own spiritual interest should be. Now I desire that you be free from cares—“you,” all of you Corinthians. Verses 32–35 pivot on the term μεριμνᾶν, “to have care or cares” in the sense of devoting special attention and effort to some person or some thing. Paul’s desire is that the Corinthians may be ἀμέριμνοι, free from cares; and in a moment we shall see that he means free from cares of a certain kind, such as interfere with the supreme purpose to which we should all devote ourselves. Under the caption of cares Paul sketches the two classes, the unmarried and the married, and in this setting presents a part of his judgment in regard to maidens.

1 Corinthians 7:33

33 The unmarried man has cares about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but the married man has cares about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. But the unmarried woman and the maiden has cares about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in the body and in the spirit; while the married woman has cares about the things of this world, how she may please her husband.

In v. 33, 34 we meet an important textual question which must be decided before an interpretation can be begun. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort is used here. This is not the same as the text that is used for the translation given in the margin of the R. V., the Greek for which is found in A. Souter, note (n).

First the unmarried man; then the married man. Next the unmarried woman and the maiden; then the married woman. What about the cares that devolve upon each? The unmarried man has only one set of real cares, namely those “about the things of the Lord,” which is explained by the indirect question: “how he may please the Lord,” the aorist ἀρέσῃ, succeed in actually pleasing him. In all his thinking and his doing he has really only the Lord to consider and no other person.

Quite otherwise is the case of the married man, the one who entered marriage as the substantivized aorist participle describes him. He has cares about the things of the world that are necessary for his family life; and again the indirect question helps to make the matter clear: “how he may please his wife,” succeed in pleasing her, for he and she are one flesh. In addition to the question how he may succeed in pleasing the Lord, for him the second question arises (which will not be denied its answer) how he may at the same time please her. Hence “he is divided” in the matter of cares, some call him in one direction, some in the other direction. The perfect tense indicates that he was hitherto so divided and is so now. What being thus divided means we see from the case of Martha: “Thou art anxious (literally, divided) and troubled about many things,” trying to do a number of things at the same time, Luke 10:41.

1 Corinthians 7:34

34 When he is speaking about the women Paul combines the unmarried woman (γυνή may be either “woman” or “wife” as the context requires) and the maiden. Like the unmarried man, each of these has only one set of cares. Paul uses a singular verb with the double subjects, which is quite usual when each subject is considered by itself. Instead of repeating the indirect question which he used in connection with the men Paul varies his style by using a subfinal ἵνα clause that is appositional to “the things of the Lord.” The sole care of each of these women is “to be holy both in the body and in the spirit.” We now see what pleasing the Lord means: his pleasure is that we be holy in our entire person. This is, of course, holiness in the Scriptural and not in the monkish sense of the term. Both body and spirit are named because this holiness affects both sides of our nature, the material as well as the immaterial. Our souls and our bodily members are holy when we separate them from sin and devote them wholly unto the Lord, do his will and his alone.

In regard to the married woman, the one who entered marriage (again the substantivized aorist participle), her case is exactly like that of the married man: she has her set of cares “about the things of the world” in her family life, “how she may please her husband.” Paul does not need to add “and she is divided,” for his readers can supply this without effort.

Paul describes a condition which our daily experience makes evident to us all. One great difference between the unmarried and the married state is brought to our attention: the former is dominated by only one set of cares, the other by two. The present tenses of all the verbs state so many facts. We blur the point which Paul makes when we argue that single persons also have earthly cares; or when we try to compare individual cases: on the one hand, a childless couple with a few cares, on the other, a widower or a widow with a cluster of little ones and many distressing cares. The same is true in regard to pleasing the Lord and living holy in body and in spirit.

We need not inform Paul regarding young widows who incline to wax wanton, 1 Tim. 5:11; and he himself immortalized that lovely couple Aquila and Priscilla, with whom he made his home in Corinth and perhaps in Ephesus. Paul does not intend to lose himself in a labyrinth of cases. As Christians we all have one supreme set of cares, how to please the Lord. Whoever enters upon marriage assumes another great set of cares, how to please the wife or the husband. This simple fact is true to this very day. The implication is not that these two sets of cares may or will clash. They are two, that is enough. They are distinct, and thus they divide. If Paul had sinful things in mind he would have written “the things of this world.”

1 Corinthians 7:35

35 Paul now tells the Corinthians why he writes these things. Now this I say for the advantage of our own selves, not in order to cast a noose upon you, on the contrary, as an aid to seemliness and devotion to the Lord without distraction.

The entire question is not one of sinning or of avoiding sin but of spiritual advantage. The adjective σύμφορον is substantivized by the addition of the article (τὸσυμφέρον would be the neuter participle used as a noun, R. 1109) and is here construed with the second person plural reflexive: “for the advantage of your own selves,” R. 687, 689. Paul’s words are dictated solely by a concern for the spiritual interest of the Corinthians, to further them in the Christian life as much as possible.

This point is amplified by a negative and by a positive addition. Paul’s purpose (ἵνα) is not to cast a noose upon the Corinthians; he is not like a hunter who ropes a wild animal in order to render it helpless. Paul is not throwing a noose of legal commandments about the necks of the Corinthians in order to force their consciences into helpless surrender. In fact, he is not using the law at all but the very opposite, the liberty of the gospel which enables us always freely to choose what most enhances our spiritual advantage.

“On the contrary,” the strong adversative ἀλλά; Paul aims at something that is totally different. The preposition πρός denotes purpose like ἵνα and repeats the same preposition found in the main clause: “I say this for the advantage of our own selves … for the seemliness and devotion” which you owe to the Lord. For the sake of smoothness we translate this second πρός “as an aid to” seemliness, etc. Paul uses two substantivized adjectives (instead of abstract nouns) in order to express his positive purpose and thus matches the substantivized adjective that was used in the first phrase with πρός. First the minor purpose: “as an aid to seemliness,” to propriety as far as the outer conduct that is visible to the eyes of men is concerned. The word does not mean “chastity” as such but indicates the proper decorum in word and in deed which is expected of all whether they are married or unmarried. Each has his cares and must attend to them in the way that is proper to a true Christian.

But this minor purpose is combined with the major purpose so that the two form a unit, for the two adjectives have but one Greek article. “Seemliness and devotion” naturally go together in the case of a Christian; both spring from one inner source. The adjective εὑπάρεδρον is interesting: εὑ = well; παρά = beside; ἕδρα (ἕζομαι) = seat or sitting: sitting well beside a task, faithful attendance upon a person or a thing, devotion to. Paul’s chief purpose is to promote among the Corinthians the fullest devotion to the Lord on the part of each individual, and this explains what Paul means by cares for the things of the Lord, how to please him.

The thought is enhanced by the addition of the adverb ἀπερισπάστως, “undistractedly,” “without distraction,” which recalls Martha’s action: περιεσπᾶτο, she was distracted about much serving of food and of drink; for this she received the Lord’s rebuke, Luke 10:40. Paul thus wants us to be like Mary who chose the good part, the one thing needful, which the Lord would not allow Martha to take from her, namely complete devotion to the Lord and his Word. Here, too, we see what Paul means by being “divided” in our cares. Martha was thus divided (μεριμνᾷς, Luke 10:41), anxious about many things, mere temporalities, and was yet trying to please the Lord. She failed because she was thus divided. The same danger confronts us, too, when the things of the world, which we think we must attend to, draw us in one direction, and the things of the Lord draw us in the other direction. Mary clung to the one thing needful, to that with a single mind, and she succeeded.

The Answer in regard to Maidens, 36–38.

1 Corinthians 7:36

36 Paul has taken care of all the different angles which the question raised by the Corinthians may present to them. Now he comes to the direct answer itself. When we are considering this answer we must remember the control which a father had over the marriage of his daughter in ancient times, remnants of which exist today in the custom that the aspiring son-in-law asks the father for the hand of his daughter, and that at the wedding the father gives the daughter away. Now if one holds that he is acting unseemly toward his maiden daughter in case she be past the flower of her age, and if it ought to be this way, let him proceed to do what he is minded; he does not sin; let them marry.

This is a case when the father ought to give his daughter in marriage, or a guardian his ward. The verb νομίζει is used as it was in v. 26: if he “holds” or has the conviction. Paul thinks of an actual case, hence he writes the condition of reality. This is a case in which the father comes to the conclusion that he is acting toward his daughter in an unseemly way, ἀσχημονεῖν (the opposite of τὸεὕσχημον “seemliness” in v. 35). The unseemliness lies, not in the fact that he is compelling his daughter to become an old maid, but in the fact that his refusal to consent to have his daughter married would subject her to the danger of seduction.

Hence we have the clause: “if she be past the flower of her age,” ὑπέρακμος, beyond the ἄκμη, peak, bloom, zenith, etc.; here the word refers to full sexual maturity. Before she reached this stage the father did not need to harbor misgivings. Now, however, if he continues to deny her a proper marriage he himself feels that he is not acting properly in regard to her.

Therefore Paul adds: “and if it ought to be this way.” First the father’s own subjective conviction, secondly the objective condition of his daughter, her sexual maturity euphemistically expressed; we may say: “if it cannot be otherwise” than that she ought to marry. This clause introduced by καί depends on εἰ as the indicative ὀφείλει shows and not on ἐάν, which would require the subjunctive. The adverb οὕτως belongs to ὀφείλειγίνεσθαι, which should be read together as one concept, and ὀφείλει is impersonal: “it ought to be thus” as her sexual maturity indicates. The girl desires to marry, in fact, she ought to marry, and her father realizes that he would be acting improperly by forbidding her to marry.

Then “let him proceed to do what he is minded,” have her married. The translation “what he pleases” is indefinite and misleading as though Paul means that he may still refuse consent to her marriage. The present middle imperative ποιείτω = “let him proceed to do in his own interest” what he is minded. “He does not sin,” for the whole question concerning maidens does not turn on sin or no sin. “Let them marry,” namely the young people concerned, the subject of the plural verb is derived from the context, R. 1204. Even if Paul had written the singular “let her marry,” a second person would be involved.

1 Corinthians 7:37

37 The case may, however, be quite the opposite (δέ). But he who stands steadfast in his heart, subject to no necessity, but has power regarding his own will and has made this his decision in his own heart, to keep his own maiden daughter, he shall do excellently. Four factors determine this father’s course, and Paul formulates them according to their nature and their weight. The first is the father’s own firm resolution: he does not want his daughter to marry because of the consideration which Paul has presented. The implication is that, in spite of all that Paul has said about the preference for the unmarried state at this time, some other father might resolve to have his daughter marry or might leave the matter entirely to her. The first stand of this father, however, to keep the daughter at home is one which he makes “in his heart,” of his own accord, following Paul’s advice. Ἕστηκεν (this perfect is always used with the force of a present) ἑδραῖος = “stands steadfast.”

Two closely related points follow, the first is expressed by a participle: “subject to no necessity,” literally, “having no necessity” such as the other father faces. This daughter has no especial sexual urge to marry, and her father has no special obligation toward her due to this circumstance. Paul could now continue with another participle but reverts to the relative ὅς and uses a finite verb: “but (who) has power regarding his own will,” i.e., is able to decide the matter entirely according to his own will. This construction makes parallel the first and the third factor, the father’s firm stand and the freedom to follow his own will. The latter shows that the father is not arbitrary or simply stubborn. Yet the second and the third factors are also linked together in both form (ἔχων and ἔχει) and substance, for the freedom of the father in regard to his own will is due to the absence of necessity on the daughter’s side which might compel him. The other father may also desire to have his daughter remain single but is obligated to decide differently.

Paul is not yet through but adds the fourth factor, the father’s final decision: “and (who) has made this his decision in his own heart,” namely, “to guard his own maiden daughter.” We might think that the first factor is sufficient, the father’s firm stand in his own heart, at least with the addition of the other two factors, freedom from necessity and thus unhampered ability to decide. But Paul requires one additional thing, the rendering of a formal decision, κέκρικεν, the perfect tense to indicate a decision that, once rendered, stands. All of this creates the impression that Paul considers the matter as solemn and serious, to be finally settled only when the necessary requirements are properly met. The demonstrative “this” is followed by the appositional infinitive: “this … to keep his own maiden daughter,” i.e., to take care of her in his own home as a maiden all her days.

The objection that the daughter’s will is left entirely out of consideration is not in accord with the fact. For in each case the father considers the physical make-up of his daughter, and that means her desires and wishes as well. Thus the fact is that what eventually influences the father to decide one way or another is not simply his own will but the daughter under his care.

Paul commends the second father’s ultimate decision: “he shall do excellently,” καλῶς, which recalls καλόν in v. 1, 8, 26; “excellently,” not in a superior moral way, but most advantageously for the Christian profession during most trying times. The future tense intimates that the outcome will prove the fact. Some texts have the present tense “he does excellently.”

1 Corinthians 7:38

38 Paul repeats this more extensive reply to the question of the Corinthians in briefer form. So then, both he who gives his own maiden daughter in marriage does excellently, and he who does not give her in marriage shall do more excellently.

The comparison pivots on the two adverbs “excellently” and “more excellently,” both are to be considered in the light of the preceding elucidation. Each course has its own advantage, yet the second exceeds the first. The excellence is one of degree only. The circumstances decide. But not according to law or legalistic points but only according to the gospel and true gospel principles and considerations.

The interpretation herewith presented stood unchallenged for centuries until during recent years a few modern interpreters produced an innovation. Compare the remarks on v. 25. Aside from the moral impossibilities advocated by this new interpretation as well as the unchallenged historical data which make this interpretation unsatisfactory, Paul’s language does not yield the sense found in it. The father mentioned in v. 36 and 37 is ignored, and the spiritual bridegroom takes his place, who is “betrothed” to the maiden in question (although Paul knows nothing of such “betrothals”), namely spiritually with a vow on the part of both that they will remain celibate (although Paul knows nothing about these vows). In v. 36 this bridegroom finds that he cannot carry out his vow because of his own sexual urge, and rather than to have him bring disgrace upon his bride Paul is thought to say that the couple should break their vows and marry. Paul then says this bridegroom “does not sin.” And it seems to escape the notice of these modern interpreters that the ancient “betrothals” were in reality marriages. The other bridegroom has better sexual control over himself (nothing is said about his bride), is able to keep his vow, and so guards his bride throughout life and keeps her a virgin.

Do they live together? Then what about the “seemliness” Paul seeks to further in v. 35? Will people say nothing about a couple of this kind that lives together? Can we imagine that a man like Paul has nothing to say to these spiritual bridegrooms and their brides except that the one does “excellently” and the other “more excellently”? But in v. 38 the participle of γαμίζειν is used twice. This verb invariably means “to give in marriage” and never “to marry.” Yet this new theory holds that the verb has this latter meaning, for the bridegroom marries, he does not give in marriage, which is the action of the father.

Since all research fails to find the meaning this theory should have for its support, the true meaning is accepted with this result: the spiritual bridegroom gives his bride in marriage to another man in order to save his own celibacy! We are, of course, to believe that he has such a right, that the bride consents, and that the other man stands waiting, and that Paul approves such conduct with the verdict: “Excellent!” More may be said, but let this suffice.

Appendix on Remarriage, 39, 40.—39) To complete the subject, so many aspects of which Paul has covered, he adds a word on widows and their remarriage. A wife is bound for as long a time as her husband lives; but if her husband be fallen asleep, she is free to be married to whomsoever she desires, only in the Lord.

The perfect δέδεται (probably gnomic, R. 897) means that, once bound by the marriage tie, a Christian wife remains thus bound as long as her husband lives, which is self-evident from v. 10. Desertions on the part of unbelieving husbands have been treated in v. 15. But a Christian husband may die, “be fallen asleep,” the passive is used in the middle sense, an aorist expresses the single act of dying, the condition is one of expectancy, ἐάν with the subjunctive. Then the widow is free to be married again. Paul states this in so many words. The antecedent of ᾧ would also be in the dative, R. 720, yet see also 716.

Paul mentions widows in v. 8 but does not there say that they may marry again. He now weaves in this loose thread, for he never likes to let one of them hang. Widows may certainly marry again.

“Only in the Lord” would be beyond question if the Christian widow be married to a Christian husband. Paul seems to have that in mind in this “judgment” (v. 25) which he is delivering to the Corinthians. Yet many take “in the Lord” in a wider sense, namely, “in a Christian way” or “in the fear of the Lord,” asking his blessing. For there are cases in which a marriage with a non-Christian may be justified.

1 Corinthians 7:40

40 Yet more blessed she if she remain as she is (οὕτως, “thus”), according to my own judgment. And I, too, for my part think I have God’s Spirit.

Regarding the substance of this γνώμη or “judgment” see v. 8 and 26. This judgment is one that was well considered on Paul’s part, it is no mere opinion or notion. Paul is wholly controlled by spiritual considerations in his findings. Μακαριωτέρα is more than “happier” (our versions), for this does not refer to the ordinary human contentment found in marriage. “More blessed” is the meaning, spiritually richer. Yet the comparative is important, for it denotes only degree and does not deny this blessedness to the widow who marries.

Ἐγώ is emphatic, “I on my part”; δέ is copulative, “and”; καί in κἀγώ is “too.” Thus: “And I, too, on my part.” Paul writes δοκῶ: minus dicit, plus intelligit. This is one of Paul’s effective understatements, cf. 4:9, into which we should not put too little. All that Paul writes in answer to the questions relating to marriage which the Corinthians had addressed to him emanates from “God’s Spirit” and the principles of the gospel. Legalists will desire a different type of answer, one that is composed of laws and legal regulations. Paul’s is the gospel way: Above all things hold fast to the Lord; prefer everything that will aid you in this and discard whatever will not.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.