1 Corinthians 7:1
Difficulties in the Church
The note on which Paul concluded 1Co_6:1-20, “honor God with your body,” could
well serve as the guiding principle for this fourth section in which he
answered questions put to him by the Corinthians on the topics of marriage (1Co_7:1-40), personal liberty (8:1-11:1), church
order (11:2-14:40) and doctrine (1Co_15:1-58).
Counsel concerning marriage
Marriage and Celibacy
Paul had spoken in 1Co_6:1-20
on the dangers of sexuality outside of marriage. Then he turned to the duty of
sexuality within marriage. Probably abandonment of marital duties on the part
of some in Corinth had contributed to the immorality he had just described.
The phrase not to marry may be an over
translation of the Greek phrase “not to touch a woman.” In the first 7 verses
these verses elevate singleness, as long as it is celibate, but they in no way
teach that marriage is either wrong or inferior.
This
letter had to be written to an individual in the church in Corinth, because we
notice that it was in answer to a letter that Paul had received. We know that
this, like many other specific Scriptures, is not to be taken as doctrine, or
even rules for the church at large, because it goes against what God said at
the creation of man and woman. There would be no need for two genders, if God
had intended this to be so. We must look at this carefully to understand.
This
is probably written to an individual who is, perhaps, going to minister in
God's work. Paul is just explaining to this person, that the fewer other
obligations he has, the more time he will have to devote to God's work. Paul
was never married, and he understood the freedom from other obligations that
went with not being married. Marriage is not a sin, however. It is God's plan
for populating the earth.
Paul probably intended it as a
euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. Gen_20:6;
Pro_6:29). This too may have been a
slogan for some in Corinth (cf. 1Co_6:12-13)
who argued that even those who were married should abstain from sexual
intercourse. All that Paul said, however, was that celibacy was a good
state and not to be depreciated.
1 Corinthians 7:2
However, marriage with sexual intercourse was
much more common. For an individual to try to maintain a celibate state apart
from the enablement of God (cf. 1Co_7:7)
would lead to immorality. For that reason Paul encouraged people to
marry. Paul
is saying here, that if you desire to be married, it is better to go ahead and
get married. You might be tempted to sin, if you desire a wife and do not have
one.
There
is a great danger of sexual sin when single. Marriage is God’s only provision
for sexual fulfillment. Marriage should not be reduced simply to that, however.
Paul has a much higher view and articulates it in Eph. 5:22-23. He is, here,
stressing the issue of sexual sin for people who are single.
Again,
I say, there is not sin in getting married. There is a sin when you live with
someone you are not married to.
1 Corinthians 7:3-4
Paul stressed the equality and reciprocity of the
husband and wife’s sexual relationship by emphasizing the responsibilities of
each to satisfy the other. When a man and woman get married, they then are to think of
the needs of their spouse more than they think of their own needs. The above
Scripture is just saying, be true to the wife or husband you have chosen. Love
them and comfort them, so there will be no need for them to look for comfort
elsewhere.
Married
believers are not to sexually deprive their spouses. While celibacy is right
for the single, it is wrong for the married. The practice of deprivation may
have been most common when a believer had an unsaved spouse. When we get
married, we become one flesh and we are no longer two flesh. Husbands and wives
should not be ashamed in the presence of their spouse. Their bodies belong not
to one of them, but each belongs totally to the other.
By
the marriage covenant, each partner is given the right over the spouse’s body
for the satisfaction of the other.
1 Corinthians 7:5
Some in Corinth were trying to practice celibacy
within marriage. Apparently this refraining from sex within marriage was a
unilateral decision of one partner, not a mutually agreed-on decision (1Co_7:3-4). Such a practice sometimes led to
immorality on the part of the other mate (1Co_7:5;
cf. 1Co_7:2). Paul commanded that they
stop this sort of thing unless three conditions were met: (a) The abstention
from sexual intercourse was to be a matter of mutual consent on the part
of both husband and wife. (b) They were to agree beforehand on a time
period at the end of which normal intercourse would be resumed. (c) This
refraining was to enable them to devote themselves to prayer in a
concentrated way. The
meaning of incontinency: without self-restraint, especially in regard to sexual
activity
This
is just saying for they two to comfort each other. They are not to refuse the
closeness of husband and wife, unless they have agreed that they will refrain
from personal contact, because they are fasting and praying.
The
reason it is so important for the husband and wife to sleep together is because
if they do not, their partner might stray to someone else for comfort. This is
not just a physical togetherness with the husband and wife, but is a bond
between them.
“That
Satan temp you not”: After a “time” of abstinence say for pregnancy, an
illness, separation or for prayer and fasting, sexual desires intensify and a
spouse becomes more vulnerable to sinful desire.
1 Corinthians 7:6
Paul presented this possibility for temporary
abstention from sexual intercourse in marriage as a concession if the
preceding stipulations were met. He did not want his advice construed as a command.
All of this Paul
has said here, is something that Paul wanted to share with others who were
going into the ministry. It is a little of a personal testimony of himself. He
realized that he was freer to go and minister, since he did not have the
obligation of family. He was a eunuch by choice to serve God. Jesus spoke of
this only once in the following Scripture.
Matthew
19:12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their]
mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and
there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]."
The suggestion that Paul was referring to
marriage itself as a “concession” is unlikely in view of Gen_1:28, the first command to mankind in the
Bible, and in view of Paul’s Jewish background where marriage was obligatory
for all men except the sexually impotent (Mishnah Niddah 5.9).
1 Corinthians 7:7
Paul, however, did not want any stigma to be
attached to the single state, so he affirmed, as he had done earlier (1Co_7:1), that celibacy was good. Paul, in fact,
thought it to be an excellent state, and wished that everyone could see the
benefits of celibacy from his point of view. He realized, however, that
marriage or remaining single was more than a matter of weighing alternative
benefits; each was a gift from God. Paul was a eunuch by choice, and he felt the
call of the ministry could be better answered with fewer distractions that way.
Not all men are called to be eunuchs that are ministers of God. This is a
special calling.
Eunuch:
Tertullian, a second century Church Father, described Jesus himself and Paul of
Tarsus as spadones, which is translated as "eunuchs" in some
contexts. However, these statements can be interpreted as a metaphor for
celibacy, especially given the broad meaning of the term spado in Late
Antiquity.
As
a single person, Paul recognized the special freedom and independence he had to
serve Christ. But he did not expect all believers to be single, nor all who
were single to stay that way, nor all who were married to act celibate as if
they were single. Both singleness and marriage are God’s gracious gifts.
It is God who enables each Christian to be
married or single (cf. Mat_19:12).
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
What Paul wrote in 1Co_7:1-2
he now pointedly applied to those in Corinth who were unmarried but were
sexually experienced (cf. “virgins,” 1Co_7:25).
The unmarried included divorced persons of both sexes as well as
widowers, with widows mentioned separately (cf. 1Co_7:39-40). For these Paul affirmed the
suitability of remaining single, if they had the appropriate enablement from
God (1Co_7:7). Paul was expecting the
soon return of the Lord, and he thought there was not time to get entangled
with anything that might slow down their work for the Lord. He is saying, if
for any reason you are single, just stay that way and spend all of your time
for the Lord.
This
verse makes it clear that the unmarried and widows are distinct. His first
suggestion is that they stay single because of its freedoms in serving the
Lord.
Paul, no armchair theologian, anticipated the
practical question of how a person can know whether he or she is able to remain
celibate. Paul gave his judgment; if one lacks sexual control, he does
not have the gift of celibacy, and should marry. This probably is
speaking of those who want to be married, and are not, who are burned up with
lust for the opposite sex. It would be much better to be married, than to be
filled with lust.
The
Greek tense indicates a command, since a person can’t live a happy life and
serve the Lord effectively if dominated by unfulfilled sexual passion,
especially in the Corinthian society.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
Marriage and Divorce
Paul’s advice to married Christians is summed up
in 1Co_7:24 after he addressed, in
turn, individual Christians married to one another (1Co_7:10-11),
Christians married to non-Christians (1Co_7:12-16),
and other external physical and vocational states for Christians (1Co_7:17-23). What Paul writes to these believers was already
made clear by Jesus during His earthly ministry. (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:5-8; Gen.
2:24; and Mal. 2:16)
Depart
is a word used as a synonym for divorce, as indicated by the parallel use of
the word “put away” in verse 11.
He
is just saying, if you are married, stay married. You can still work for the
Lord married. Divorce is of man and not of God. God made one woman for one man.
They two are to be one. To divorce and marry another does not fulfill the
wishes of God.
Paul’s direction to Christians married to one
another was like that of Jesus Himself (Mar_10:2-12):
as a rule, no divorce (cf. Mat_5:32).
The difference in language between separate (chōristh̄nai) on the part of the wife
(1Co_7:10) and divorce (aphienai) on the part of the husband
(1Co_7:11) was probably due to
stylistic variation as the word translated “separate” (chōrizō) was commonly used in the
vernacular as a term for divorce. The union of husband and wife is to be a
permanent arrangement. It is not to be like in our society today, jumping from
one husband to the other. A person should not get a divorce for just any little
whim. The Lord has made provision for those to get a divorce from the
unfaithful spouse.
This
is saying that if a Christian divorces another Christian except for adultery,
neither partner is free to marry another person. They should reconcile, or at
least remain unmarried.
When
problems occurred in a Christian marriage, the resolution was to be sought in
reconciliation (cf. Eph_4:32), not in
divorce.
1 Corinthians 7:12-13
The rest referred to
Christians who were married to non-Christians. Jesus, in the course of His
ministry, never had addressed this issue (cf. 1Co_7:10,
1Co_7:25). But Paul, with no less
authority (cf. 1Co_7:25) did. Some
divorces may have been initiated because of the command of Ezra to the
Israelites in Jerusalem after the Exile (Ezr_10:11)
to divorce themselves from pagan spouses. Paul affirmed that the same principle
should operate in a believer-unbeliever marriage as in a marriage of two Christians:
as a rule, no divorce. A Christian husband must not divorce (aphietō) an unbelieving wife,
and a Christian wife must not divorce (aphietō) a non-Christian husband.
“To the
rest”: Those not covered by the instruction of verses 10-11. This is a simple
way of saying that Jesus had not spoken on this and God had not previously
given revelation on the matter, as Paul was then writing. Apparently some
Christians felt they should divorce their unsaved spouses, to live celibately
or marry a believer.
The
Lord had taught from the beginning not to be unequally yoked with those of
unbelief. They should not have married a non believer in the beginning. This
house would have to be a house of confusion. One believing and the other does
not, leaves a separation between them. It is possible, in time that this
circumstance could change. If you love them enough to put up with the divided
house, then Paul is saying, it is alright to stay. Marriages with mixed belief
seldom last.
1 Corinthians 7:14
Divorce was to be avoided because the Christian
spouse was a channel of God’s grace in the marriage. Within the “one flesh”
relationship the blessing of God which came to the Christian affected the
family as a whole (cf. Jacob in Laban’s household [Gen_30:27]
and Joseph in Potiphar’s [Gen_39:5];
also cf. Rom_11:16). It is in this
sense that the unbelieving spouse was sanctified and the children
were holy. This
does not mean that an unbeliever will go to heaven, because their spouse is
saved. Sanctified in this instance, would be made clean. Not by the wife, but
in the wife. This really is not speaking of the child being saved in infancy,
but is speaking of not having any curse of unbelief on the child from birth.
This child would not be a bastard child, but would be of a union made
acceptable to God through marriage where one parent is a believer. This
cleanliness is of a ceremonial nature and is speaking of the family as being a
Christian family, because one is a believer.
The
sanctification is matrimonial or pertaining to family, not personal or
spiritual and means that the unsaved partner is set apart for temporal blessing
because the other belongs to God. One Christian in a marriage brings grace that
spills over on the spouse, even possibly leading them to salvation.
The
Christian need not separate from an unbeliever because of fear that the
unbelieving spouse may defile the children. God promises the opposite. They
would be unclean if both parents were unsaved, but the presence of one
believing parent exposes the children to blessing and brings them protection.
The presence of even one Christian parent will protect children from undue
spiritual harm and they will receive many blessings, and often that includes
salvation.
1 Corinthians 7:15
However, there were exceptions to the rule of no
divorce. If the unbeliever insisted on a divorce, he was not to be
denied (the word trans. leaves are chōrizetai, the verb used in 1Co_7:10). Should this occur, the Christian was not
bound to maintain the marriage but was free to marry again (cf. 1Co_7:39). This would be covered in the spiritual adultery
above. Moses permitted divorce, so that there might be peace in the family. The
very fact that two people could not agree in their worship would be a very
unsettling factor in a family. These two could not be one, if they had such
varying commitments.
“Let
him depart”: A term referring to divorce. When an unbelieving spouse cannot
tolerate the partner’s faith and wants a divorce, it is best to let that happen
in order to preserve peace in the family (Rom. 12:18). The bond of marriage is
broken only by death (Rom. 7:2), adultery (Matt. 19:9), or an unbeliever’s
leaving.
“Not
under bondage”: When the bond is broken in any of those ways, a Christian is
free to marry another believer. Throughout Scripture, whenever legitimate
divorce occurs, remarriage is assumed. When divorce is permitted, so is
remarriage. By implication, the permission for a widow to remarry (verses
39-40; Rom. 7:3) because the “bond” is broken, extends to this case where there
is no more “bondage.”
Paul
did not say, as he did in 1Co_7:11,
that the Christian in this case should “remain unmarried.” (However, some Bible
students say that not being “bound” means the Christian is not obligated to
prevent the divorce, but that it does not give freedom for remarriage.)
The
second part of this verse in which Paul affirmed that God had called
Christians to live in peace could be understood as a separate sentence.
The same conjunction (de, but) which
introduced the exception at the beginning of this verse was repeated by Paul,
probably to indicate another shift in thought and a return to the main point in
this section, namely, the importance for the Christian spouse of preserving the
marriage union and living “in peace” with the non-Christian. (For a similar
digression in a discourse on the general rule of no divorce, see Mat_19:9.) Paul’s point was that a Christian
should strive to preserve the union and to keep the peace, but with the understanding
that marriage is a mutual not a unilateral relationship.
1 Corinthians 7:16
Paul then stated a second (cf. 1Co_7:14) and crucial reason why a Christian
should stay married to a non-Christian. God might use the Christian mate as a
channel of blessing (cf. 1Co_7:14),
leading ultimately to the point where the unbelieving spouse would believe the
message of the Cross and experience salvation (cf. 1Pe_3:1-2).
I have
always believed that if a person lives a good Christian life around anyone
[especially their spouse}, it would have great influence on the non-believer.
That, in my opinion is what this is saying. Love them with the love of the Lord
and live peaceably with them, and they will be won over to the Lord by your
great devotion to your Lord.
Some
may have been reluctant to let go of their unsaved spouse, who wanted out and
was creating discord in the home thinking they could evangelize the spouse by
hanging on for the purpose of seeing that one converted. Paul says there are no
such assurances and it is better to divorce and be at peace (v.15), If the
unsaved partner wants to end the marriage that way.
1 Corinthians 7:17
The general principle which Paul affirmed in
dealing with decisions affecting a Christian’s marital status was again stated
three times (1Co_7:17, 1Co_7:20, 1Co_7:24;
cf. also 1Co_7:26): in brief, “stay
put.” The call to conversion radically altered an individual’s spiritual
relationship but need effect no changes at all in physical relationships that
were not immoral. Paul
is saying in this, if you were married when you were called, stay married.
Serve God wherever you were when the Lord called you. Do not leave your spouse
to serve the Lord. If you were called to the ministry while you were single,
consider staying single and devoting all of your time to the Lord. Paul is
saying, if you were called in a certain circumstance, who is he to question God
in that? Just serve where you were called, and how you were called.
Discontent
was prevalent among these new believers in the Corinthian church. As noted up
to this point (v.1-16), some wanted to change their marital status, some were
slaves who wanted to be free, and some used their freedom in Christ to
rationalize sinning. In a general response to that, this passage plainly
repeats the basic principal that Christians should willingly accept the marital
condition and social situations into which God has placed them and be content
to serve Him there until He leads them elsewhere.
This
is the first verse of three Paul states the principal of contentment which is
required of all Christians. The other two are verses 20 and 24.
1 Corinthians 7:18-19
The external operation of circumcision or
the obliteration of the same (cf. [apocryphal] 1 Maccabees 1:15-16) was a
matter of little importance compared with keeping God’s commands, which
for Paul meant being controlled by the Spirit (cf. Rom_2:25-29).
With
Judaizers demanding all Gentile believers in Christ to be circumcised (Gal.
5:1-6), and with some Christian Jews wanting to disassociate with Judaism and
thus having a surgery to become uncircumcised (as addressed in rabbinic
literature), Paul needed to clarify the issue by saying that neither was
necessary. Figuratively, the idea is that when a Jew became a Christian, he was
not to give up his racial and cultural identity in order to appear like a
Gentile. Likewise, a Gentile was not to become culturally like a Jew. Culture,
social order and external ceremony have no bearing on spiritual life. What
matters is faith and obedience. This is just explaining that it is not the
doctrine of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ to keep the law of Moses. If a
person is not circumcised, then let him stay that way. If he was acceptable to
God, then why should the people put extra restrictions on him? Of course, if a
person is already circumcised before he receives the Lord, that is alright too.
Accept them the way the Lord accepted them. Circumcision was part of the law
which Jesus fulfilled on the cross. Sacrificing of any kind after the
crucifixion of Jesus would have been saying that Jesus' sacrifice was not
enough. You can see why all of this sacrificing was stopped.
