Chapter 7
This chapter starts with:
(2021 - This marks a contrast with the general nature of the things Paul has said up to this point, that would apply to all churches everywhere in all times, and the specific questions the Corinthians wrote and asked him to address. Though these first things were happening in their church, the way they were to be addressed is general and applicable to all. It is possible - and we should keep clearly in mind - that what follows may well be specific to that church in Corinth and not be for general application. We have to allow a little "room" on these next. We will have to watch the context of Paul's answers closely for clues as to whether his commands about these things are for all, or just for Corinth. I suspect with that in mind, the sources of a lot of church conflict will become apparent!)
1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." [1Co 7:1 ESV]
Paul turns to things they had apparently sent questions about. He now answers their specific questions.
Paul is very firm that not having sex is a very tall order. So tall that marriage is most often better for all concerned. That way, sexual urges can be satisfied within the plan of God for men and women - as husband and wife - rather than outside of marriage and destroying our own bodies, or by "attempted abstinence" that will almost certainly fail and result in the sin we were trying most to avoid.
2022 - This verse has no loopholes:
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. [1Co 7:2 ESV]. It DOES NOT SAY each man should find a man or a woman to marry, nor that a woman should find a woman or a man and get married. Men are urged ONLY to marry women, and to read generality into that is just ridiculous.
2023 - The word translated "man" is "ekastos". The real key to making this point though is that each ekastos is to have his own WIFE (gynaika), and each "hekaste", or woman, is to have her own HUSBAND (andra). It is VERY interesting that ekastos is the masculine form, and hekaste the feminine form of the same root word, G1538, ekastos. I think the intent is clear - to contrast that men have wives and women have husbands. The use of that same root word makes the injunction universal - to all humanity - but care is taken to distinguish between how a man and woman execute this same injunction. Remember that this is in Corinth, and that in 1Co 6:9, Paul reminds them that some of them were homosexuals before. This is not an accident. This is carefully purposeful in distinguishing the natural order.
2024 - Also note that Paul makes the statement twice - once for men and again for women. If all he meant was that everyone should marry someone, couldn't he have said that in Greek? You know he could! But he didn't say that at all. He told men to marry women, women to marry men, and he said this, knowing that homosexuality in Corinth was perhaps a lot more openly practiced than in other places. And yet he made NO PROVISION for that at all!
2021 - This answer would not seem to apply ONLY to Corinth, but to all people everywhere all the time. This question came from Corinth, but the answer I would say, is universal. People at Ephesus would also be better off getting married. I think we can say this because sexual urges did not just occur in Corinth. They are quite general.
2024 - How have I left this verse out all these years:
6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. [1Co 7:6 ESV]. So the question is whether he is referring all the way back to vss 1-2, where all are to marry, or to 3-5, where those who are already married are not to deprive their spouse of sex - except by mutual agreement. MSB says Paul was not commanding "marriage", because he himself knew the advantages of remaining single. MSB says it might better read "Now this is to make you aware, not to command you.". That is, he is not commanding that they get married, but wants them to understand that in most cases, it is the best course. Living together according to God's plan for men and women is never a "bad" choice...but it is also not commanded that everyone be married.
Look at this verse, thinking ahead to 1Co 12 and the Spiritual gifts:
7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. [1Co 7:7 NKJV]
Surely being able to go without sex is not a Spiritual gift?!?! But...if not that, then what? All MSB says it is that both marriage and singleness are God's gracious gifts. Hmm...
Paul says it is better to remarry than to be overcome by unsatisfied passion. He says that women shouldn't leave their husbands, and that husbands shouldn't divorce their wives. He says both. This is because the children are not unclean as long as one parent is "holy". And we also can never know what impact we are having on a spouse. Maybe staying married to an unbeliever will one day lead to their conversion.
2022 - These verses:
10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. [1Co 7:10-11 ESV].
I am afraid this is going to be a lot longer "trip" than I wish it was...but here goes. The word translated "separate" in vs 10 is "choristhenai", a form of chorizo, Strong's G5563. In this form, it is an aorist passive infinitive. So...this verb is "divorced" wrt time. It is more like "don't change your position from "here" to "gone". Don't be "a departed wife" in the sense of being still alive but as if you were never there. Here are some verses that I think convey the meaning:
1 After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, [Act 18:1-2 ESV].
In verse 1, Paul "left", he separated, from Athens. A physical move. In vs 1, the verb is also aorist. See how it does not say "last year in March" or "six months after this event". It does not attempt to "stick" Paul's leaving into a particular time. Same sense in 1Co 7:10. Don't "have left", don't be gone, don't leave next week. As a contrast, in Acts 18.2, Claudius command was made at a specific time in the past. So the same Greek word in vs 2 is in the present tense. It was a still active command of Claudius, not revoked or completed. Why would Paul say it this way? Because it was not legal in that day for a woman to initiate divorce proceedings. She just had no standing before the law to bring divorce proceedings against her husband. So Paul does not tell her not to divorce, but not to "be elsewhere geographically".
But in vs 11, the husband is told not to DIVORCE his wife. A completely different Greek word, "aphiemi", is used. This word means "to send away", to "put away", and like that. Because a husband could legally separate himself by divorce from his wife. He could just decide to send her away. Apparently there were no property rights of any kind for women. They could just be kicked to the curb with no financial repercussions at all. So in that culture, Paul had to use different words for the same "end result", depending on gender...although in vs 13, he uses the word for divorce of action initiated by a woman. So...all that, and it just gets torn right back down.
2023 - 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. [1Co 7:9 ESV]. I put this in because I take issue with the translation - or rather interpretation - that the ESV gives us here. In the Greek, there is no "with passion" included. TR and mGNT are identical here. The Greek "pyroo" is the last word in the sentence. It usually means to burn with fire. We can see what Paul means, and I "agree" with the interpretation, but I do NOT think including the words "with passion" is consistent with a word for word translation, which is what the ESV claims to be. This is not ok.
2021 - Here is a contextual clue that Paul is giving a general command:
10 Now to the married I command, [yet] not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from [her] husband. [1Co 7:7, 10 NKJV] Paul says this is not opinion, this is God's command about the matter. He will later let us know when things are his opinion.
Never noticed this before...It is Paul's position - not necessarily the Lord's - that a believer should not divorce an unbeliever. Oh my...So in 10, husbands and wives should not divorce is God's decree. In 12, that believers should not divorce unbelievers is Paul's opinion. So...believers stay married, but mixed might be allowed to divorce? This is...a very new idea to me. Wow...
2022 - Confirmed. Paul makes it very clear that he has no specific "command" from God as to whether believers should divorce unbelievers. This is strictly Paul's own opinion.
2021-2, So Paul is very specific that this is what he thinks, but that he has no "revelation" from God about the matter. We can also be sure that Paul doesn't believe the OT scriptures ever addressed this situation. Why would he not find out? He gets revelation from God on other matters not directly addressed in the OT, why not on this? Did he just not think it was all that big a deal, since he wasn't married and wasn't tempted either? We would also have to say that God didn't choose to make it a bigger deal by revealing a specific answer to him.
Next he turns to circumcision. If you already are, don't try to reverse it. If you aren't, then don't have it done. Because it does not matter anymore! Beyond circumcision, we should not try to "escape" our lot in life, our calling, etc, when we are saved, but to serve God as best we can where we are. He extends this to servants and free men also. However you were - whatever your status or condition in life when you were saved - be content with that. Servants should not insist that because they are saved they should be free men. I think we've moved on from married and single here. He isn't saying stay in that status. He has turned more to social status I think.
2024 - If I wanted to make a case for homosexual Christians, this is the passage I would use. If you were homosexual when called, then stay homosexual. That's what I'd say it meant, and I'd be wrong. None of Paul's examples here tie back to married, single, or anything at all of a sexual nature. These are about externally imposed circumstances. Circumcision is done to us by someone else. We are sold into slavery, or born into slavery, under the power of someone else...or we might be consenting to it. Tattoos come to mind. Keep them, don't have them removed. Was your nose pierced when you were saved? Keep it. Unless you want to change it. Paul does give the slave the option of buying his own freedom if he can. The point though is that this is not about homosexuality. Paul would never tell them that if they were in sin when they were saved they can stay in sin. Yes...that is the way to put it. No example here gives them leave to remain in sin. In fact, they are to change their marital status if necessary to AVOID sin!
2023 - I wonder if vss 18-20 were written before or after the Jerusalem Council? And how can Paul say this and then have Timothy (was it Timothy?) circumcised?
2021-2, 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. [1Co 7:23 ESV]. In context, Paul is telling those saved who were slaves when they were saved, to not worry too much about that, but to serve God. BUT, he is also telling everyone who is "free", that like the bondservant slaves around them, they too were up for auction, and purchased by Jesus blood. We are owned, we also are slaves to Christ, because we are bought and paid for with his life. The point is, both the bondservants and the free men were slaves of Christ. In the church, being a slave to another person means nothing. It is not a big enough deal to get nuts about, BECAUSE no man can own what has been purchased by Christ. It is Christ who owns us, not our earthly master.
Paul seeks to instill a sense of urgency in the Corinthians that compels them to set aside worldly matters - up to and including spousal obligations and such - in order to teach, preach and save the lost before it is too late. It is not about whether being a good spouse is important - of course it is! But if you make less progress on being a good spouse, it costs no one eternity in heaven. If you focus on being a spouse, and not much on spreading the gospel, then the consequences for someone could be eternity in hell. It is just about priority.
2021 - In vs 25, Paul prefaces what he is about to say as being his opinion. He thinks it is a good and trustworthy opinion, but it is opinion. And then, still before he launches into his points, he uses the phrase "in view of the present distress". It is pretty important to determine what distress he is talking about. He puts it in the present. Does the Greek make it ongoing without end?
(((2023 - Here is the verse: 26 I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. [1Co 7:26 ESV]. "present" is a perfect active participle. Perfect tense means the distress is assured - either past, present or in this case pretty obviously current and future - but without specifying the time. As for participle, remember that the BLB definition of participle says that it generally corresponds to -ing endings....but my experience is that they almost NEVER do in the translations. In this case, there is a footnote in ESV that says instead of present, the word can be translated "impending", as in the impending distress. I think this is the best way to look at it. It makes it pretty clear that Paul is NOT talking about the second coming here, which would not have been "distress" at all. He is referring to developments where they were and in the time they were. Persecution was coming, attacks on the church from within and without were in progress and also "imminent". Using "impending" to translate here seems to make things a lot more clear. When Paul says a few verses later that "I would spare you that", he means that "Those who love give hostages to fate". That is, when persecution comes, and they drag off your spouse or your child, it will be crushing to your spirit and more trying to your faith. Paul says it might be better to stand alone through such circumstances. I'm going with that.)))
Is he talking about the distress that immorality and arguments within that church are putting on the Corinthian church at that time as they struggle in an immoral culture? Or is he talking about the distress of the world - then and now - as it moves along toward Christ's return and the end of any chance for salvation? It seems to me, since he goes right back to talking about marriage, singleness, betrothal, widows and so on, that the present distress is the state of the Corinthian church at that time. We might gain some guidance here, but I don't see any of this as imperative to us. In fact, Paul says these things are not even imperative to Corinth.
2021-2, The present distress is the imminent return of Christ. Why get married when Christ's return is just around the corner? Even if you're betrothed, maybe it is better to wait and not get married, and focus on Christ's imminent return. Paul says he'd rather people were not anxious about anything (vs 32) but then goes on to relate - I think - that human nature is always to be anxious about something. And as it turns out, unmarried people, unmarried Christians really, worry most about how to live a good life and prepare for Christ's return. Married people on the other hand, worry about worldly matters more. House cleaning, rent, a second car, and so on. Paul's evaluation - his personal opinion about it, though he considers his opinion pretty weighty - is that it is better to be worried about Godly things than worldly things, so put off marriage and focus on God. BUT, do not forget that if the hormones are raging and we lack the self-control to deal with them, it is better to marry than to burn. If you're burning, you ain't gettin' nothin' done!
2022 - This phrase:
31 ... For the present form of this world is passing away. [1Co 7:31 ESV]. Paul's basis for saying just forget about what you have going on wrt marriage, betrothal, and so on, along with whatever you have going on in your livelihood, because...the world as you know it now is passing away. Are we really to believe that this was Paul thinking the rapture was entirely and completely imminent? That it was to come any day at all? Somewhere around just 5 years earlier, Paul had written the Thessolonicans that the falling away still has to happen and the MoL must appear - AND BE RECOGNIZED before that will happen? We certainly don't have any references of which I am aware where Paul says "Hey look, just like I said, the falling away is happening, so don't waste your time getting married". I think it is a huge stretch to believe that is what he meant. I think it more likely, in light of the increasing hostility of Rome toward all things Christian, Paul was anticipating severe and world-wide persecution, violence, loss of property and possessions by anyone Christian, and so on. This hostility wasn't just coming from Rome either, though it was entirely supported by them in word and decree, but also from the Jews. Paul was anticipating trouble when he told them these things, because he was seeing how the attitude of the world was changing toward this new religion. It is hard to flee persecution and start over elsewhere when you have a wife and two toddlers. I think this is what he meant.
2022 - Paul is saying, in vss 32-40, that he believes the best way for a saved person - man or woman - to live, is in complete and undistracted service to God. He says that because for him, this is the way that works best, given his complete control over his own passions. But I think Paul makes it clear that if you are not "put together as he is", then this is probably not going to work for you, and you are just fine, and it is not a sin, to get married and live your life as most people do. I mean, how could he ever say that marriage is a bad thing, when it was so obviously set up and ordered by God as the fundamental building block of his kingdom?