Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 7

1 Corinthians Chapter 7, Introduction

This chapter commences the second part or division of this epistle, or, the discussion of those points which had been submitted to the apostle in a letter from the church at Corinth, for his instruction and advice. See the Introduction to the epistle. The letter in which they proposed the questions which are here discussed has been lost.

It is clear that, if we now had it, it would throw some light on the answers which Paul has given to their inquiries in this chapter. The first question which is discussed (1 Corinthians 7:1–9) is whether it was lawful and proper to enter into the marriage relation. How this question had arisen, it is not now possible to determine with certainty.

It is probable, however, that it arose from disputes between those of Jewish extraction, who held not only the lawfulness but also the importance of the marriage relation according to the doctrines of the Old Testament, and certain followers or friends of some Greek philosophers, who might have been advocates of celibacy.

But why they advocated that doctrine is unknown. It is known, however, that many even of the Greek philosophers—among whom were Lycurgus, Thales, Antiphanes, and Socrates (see Grotius)—thought that, considering "the untractable tempers of women, and how troublesome and fraught with danger was the education of children," it was the part of wisdom not to enter into the marriage relation.

From them may have been derived the doctrine of celibacy in the Christian church—a doctrine that has been the cause of so much corruption in the monastic system and in the celibacy of the Roman Catholic clergy. The Jews, however, everywhere defended the propriety and duty of marriage.

They regarded it as an ordinance of God. To this day they hold that a man who has arrived at the age of twenty years and has not entered into this relation—unless prevented by natural defects or by profound study of the law—sins against God. Between these two groups, or those in the church who had been introduced there from these two groups, the question would be debated whether marriage was lawful and advisable.

Another question which, it seems, had arisen among them was whether it was proper to continue in the married state in the existing condition of the church, which was exposed to trials and persecutions; or whether it was proper for those who had converted to continue their relations in life with those who were unconverted.

The apostle discusses this in 1 Corinthians 7:10–24. Probably many supposed that it was unlawful to live with those who were not Christians, and they therefore inferred that the relation which subsisted before conversion should be dissolved. They extended this doctrine to the relation between master and servant, as well as between husband and wife.

The general doctrine which Paul states in answer to this is that the wife was not to depart from her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10); but if she did, she was not at liberty to marry again, since her former marriage was still binding (1 Corinthians 7:11). He added that a believing man, or Christian, should not put away his unbelieving wife (1 Corinthians 7:12), and that the relation should continue, notwithstanding a difference of religion. Furthermore, if a separation ensued, it should be in a peaceful manner, and the parties were not at liberty to marry again (1 Corinthians 7:13–17).

The same applied to the relation of master and slave. It was not to be violently sundered. The relations of life were not to be broken up by Christianity; instead, everyone was to remain in the station in life they occupied when converted, unless it could be changed in a peaceful and lawful manner (1 Corinthians 7:18–24).

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

1. In their present distress it might be unadvisable (1 Corinthians 7:26).
2. That marriage tended to an increase of care and anxiety, and it might not be proper then to enter into that relation (1 Corinthians 7:32–35).
3. That they should live to God (1 Corinthians 7:29–31).
4. That a man should not be oppressive and harsh towards his daughter or towards one under his care; but that if it would be severe of him to forbid such a marriage, he should allow it (1 Corinthians 7:36).
5. That on the whole, it was advisable under existing circumstances not to enter into the marriage relation (1 Corinthians 7:38–40).

Now concerning, etc. In reply to your inquiries, the first, it seems, was in regard to the propriety of marriage; that is, whether it was lawful and expedient.

It is good. This means it is well, fit, convenient, or suited to the present circumstances; or, the thing itself is well and expedient in certain circumstances. The apostle did not mean that marriage was unlawful, for he says in Hebrews 13:4 that marriage is honourable in all. But he here admits, with one of the parties in Corinth, that it was well and proper in some circumstances not to enter into the marriage relation. See 1 Corinthians 7:7, 8, 26, 28, 31, 32.

Not to touch a woman means not to be connected with her by marriage. Xenophon (Cyropaedia, Book 1) uses the same word (aptw, meaning to touch) to denote marriage. Compare Genesis 20:4, 6; Genesis 26:11; and Proverbs 6:29.

The expression "to touch" in this context signifies "not to take a wife."

Nevertheless. But, (de.) Though this is to be admitted as proper where it can be done, when a man has entire control of himself and his passions, and though in present circumstances it would be expedient, yet it may also be proper to enter into the marriage connection.

To avoid fornication. Greek, On account of (dia) fornication. The word fornication is used here in the broad sense of licentiousness in general. For the sake of the purity of society, and to avoid the evils of sensual indulgence, and the corruptions and crimes that attend illicit intercourse, it is proper to enter into the married state.

To this vice they were particularly exposed in Corinth. See the Introduction. Paul would keep the church from scandal. How much evil, how much deep pollution, how many abominable crimes that have since grown out of the monastic system, and the celibacy of the clergy among Roman Catholics, would have been avoided if Paul's advice had been followed by all professed Christians!

Paul says that marriage is honorable, and that the relations of domestic life should be formed to avoid the evils that would otherwise result. The world is the witness of the evils that flow from the neglect of his advice. Every community where the marriage tie has been lax and feeble, or where it has been disregarded or dishonored, has been full of pollution, and it ever will be. Society is pure and virtuous, just as marriage is deemed honorable, and as its vows are adhered to and preserved.

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

Have his own wife. And one wife, to whom he shall be faithful. Polygamy is unlawful under the gospel; and divorce is unlawful. Let every man and woman, therefore, honor the institution of God and avoid the evils of illicit indulgence.

Let the husband, etc. "Let them not imagine that there is any virtue in living separate from each other, as if they were in a state of celibacy."—Doddridge. They are bound to each other; in every way they are to show kindness, and to seek to promote the happiness and purity of each other.

There is a great deal of delicacy used here by Paul, and his expression is removed as far as possible from the grossness of heathen writers. His meaning is plain; but instead of using a word to express it which would be indelicate and offensive, he uses one which is not indelicate in the slightest degree. The word which he uses (eunoian, benevolence) denotes kindness, good-will, affection of mind.

And by the use of the word "due," (ofeilomenhn), he reminds them of the sacredness of their vow, and of the fact that in person, property, and in every respect, they belong to each other.

It was necessary to give this direction, for the contrary might have been regarded as proper by many, who would have supposed there was special virtue and merit in living separate from each other—as facts have shown that many have imbibed such an idea—and it was not possible to give the rule with more delicacy than Paul has done.

Many manuscripts, however, instead of "due benevolence," read ofeilhn, a debt, or that which is owed; and this reading has been adopted by Griesbach in the text. Homer, with a delicacy not unlike the apostle Paul, uses the word filothta, friendship, to express the same idea.

The wife hath not power, etc. By the marriage covenant that power, in this respect, is transferred to the husband.

And likewise also the husband. The equal rights of husband and wife, in the Scriptures, are everywhere maintained. They are to regard themselves as united in the most intimate union, and in the most tender ties.

Defraud ye not, etc. Meaning, the right mentioned above. Do not withdraw from the companionship of each other.

Except it be with consent. Meaning, with a mutual understanding, so that you may engage in the extraordinary duties of religion .

And come together again, etc. Even with mutual consent, the apostle did not intend for this separation to be perpetual, since it would expose them to many of the evils that the marriage relationship was designed to avoid.

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