Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Corinthians 7

Concerning the things about which you wrote to me.—Some members of the Church, having written to Saint Paul to ask his advice on matters about which there was a difference of opinion at Corinth, the Apostle now proceeds to answer these inquiries. His reply occupies the remainder of the Epistle (to 1 Corinthians 16:4). The subjects about which the Corinthians sought Saint Paul’s opinion are addressed in the following order:

1. Marriage, 1 Corinthians 7:0.
2. The Eating of Meat Offered to Idols, 1 Corinthians 8:1 to 1 Corinthians 11:1.
3. The Attire of Women in Public Worship, 1 Corinthians 11:2–16.
4. The Lord’s Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:17–34.
5. Spiritual Gifts, 1 Corinthians 12:1 to 1 Corinthians 14:40.
6. The Doctrine of the Resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:1–58.
7. The Collection for the Poor in Judea, 1 Corinthians 16:1–4.

In the consideration of each of these subjects, various collateral matters are introduced, and the great principles which guided the Apostle, and which should always guide the Church and individuals, are set forth. Many of the subjects were of purely local and temporary interest.

The particular combination of circumstances that for the moment made them important has ceased to exist and can never arise again. However, the principles on which the Apostle based his arguments, and which he enunciates as the ground of his decisions, are eternal. To apply the injunctions of the Apostle in these chapters with a rigid and unyielding literalism to the Church in all ages is to violate those very principles that guided Saint Paul in enunciating them, and to exalt the dead and death-bearing letter at the sacrifice of the living and life-giving spirit of the apostolic teaching.

As we proceed with our examination of Saint Paul’s reply to the Corinthians’ letter, we will have little real difficulty in distinguishing between those practical injunctions that were of local and temporary application, and the wider and larger truths that are of universal and lasting obligation. This is because the Apostle himself is always careful to point out when a command is based upon some particular necessity of the day, and when it arises from some unchanging Christian principle.

The first subject about which the Corinthians sought advice was marriage. From the opening words of Saint Paul’s reply, It is good for a man not to marry (such is the force of the word rendered touch, as seen in Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29), it would seem that those who wrote for the Apostle’s advice were inclined to regard celibacy as preferable to the married state. So much so, indeed, that they had scruples about whether even those who had been married should not separate (1 Corinthians 7:3–5).

We may, therefore, conclude that the inquiry probably came from the Pauline party. It would be improbable that those who exalted some other teacher would have written to Saint Paul to ask his guidance on matters of controversy. The tone of the Apostle’s replies on such questions as marriage and food offered to idols (from which we can conjecture the line taken in the letter addressed to him) also leads to the same conclusion. It would be natural for the Pauline party to exaggerate unduly the importance of celibacy and to undervalue matrimony.

Saint Paul’s own example, and his strong preference for the unmarried state, would have easily come to be regarded by his followers as matters of moral importance, and not of merely temporary advantage and personal predilection. It is likely, also, as we know from other religious controversies, that the opposition of the Petrine party would drive the Pauline party into more extreme views. They would quote the example of their leader as a married man in opposition to the conduct of Saint Paul (1 Corinthians 9:5 and Matthew 8:14).

Good for a man.—We must not, on the one hand, force this statement into meaning that it is merely expedient. Nor, on the other hand, must we attach to it such great moral importance as to imply that the opposite is morally wrong (as Saint Jerome, ergo est malum tangere). The English word “good,” in its most general sense, accurately conveys the meaning. It is laid down as a proposition that, in Saint Paul’s opinion, it is a good thing to remain unmarried.

But that general proposition is immediately limited in its application by what follows. Saint Chrysostom paraphrases this and the following verse thus: “For if you inquire what is the excellent and greatly superior course, it is better not to have any connection whatever with a woman; but if, what is safe and helpful to your own infirmity, be connected by marriage.”

To avoid fornication.—Better, because of the (prevalent) fornication. This was so general in Corinth, and so little regarded as sin, that the unmarried were liable to be led into it.

It may at first sight appear as if the Apostle thus put marriage upon very low and merely utilitarian ground, but we must remember that he is here writing with a definite and limited aim, and does not enter into a general discussion of the subject. St. Paul gives a reason why those who wrote to him should marry, and the force of the argument does not extend beyond the immediate object in view. St. Paul’s view of the higher aspects of matrimony is fully set forth when he addresses that subject generally (2 Corinthians 11:2; Romans 7:4; Ephesians 5:25–32).

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence.—Rather, Let the husband render unto the wife her due—as this is the reading of the better manuscripts. In this verse, the Apostle answers the concerns of those who were already married and who doubted whether they should continue in that state.

Of her own body.—Bengel notices that these words, She has not power of her own body, form an elegant paradox, bringing out the equal rights of both.

Except it be . . . that you may give yourselves—i.e., that you may have leisure. Any such separation should be temporary, and with the consent of both parties. Even then, it must not be from mere caprice, but for some religious purpose, such as a special season of prayer (1 Samuel 21:4).

The alteration in the Greek text of the word “give” into the present tense, so as to make the word “prayer” refer to daily devotions and not to special and exceptional seasons, and the interpolation of the word “fasting”—not found in the older manuscripts—are a striking example of how the ascetic tendencies of a particular ecclesiastical school of thought led them to “amend” the sacred text to make it harmonize with their own views, instead of reverently regarding it as that by which those very views should be corrected.

And come together again.—Better (as in the best manuscripts), and be together again. This is still an explanation of the purpose of the separation: it is not to be a lasting one, but so that we may again return to the state of union. The text here bears further traces of having been altered so as to make it seem that the Apostle meant that the return to matrimonial life should be only to a temporary union, and not to a continuous state of life. The proper reading implies the latter, with the word “be” being used as in Acts 2:44.

For your incontinency.—Better, because of your incontinency; the reference being, as in 1 Corinthians 7:2, to the moral condition surrounding them and to the influence to which a man thus separated would be subject. The Corinthian Christians are here solemnly reminded that this sin, as all sin, is from Satan—because the Corinthians at large did not regard it as sin at all, but even mingled sensuality with worship.