http://biblebitbybit.blogspot.com/2016/01/1-corinthians-7.html
Posted by 1 Corinthians on Saturday, 9 January 2016
IV. Difficulties in the Church (chaps. 7-16:12).
The note on which Paul concluded chapter 6, “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 (chap. 7), personal liberty (8:1-11:1), church order (11:2-14:40) and doctrine (chap. 15).
A. Counsel Concerning Marriage (chap. 7).
1. Marriage and Celibacy (7:1-9).
Paul had spoken in chapter 6 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.
7:1. The phrase not to marry may be an overtranslation of the Greek phrase “not to touch a woman.” Paul probably intended it as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. Gen. 20:6; Prov. 6:29). This too may have been a slogan for some in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 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.
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. v. 7) would lead to immorality. For that reason Paul encouraged people to marry.
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.
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 (vv. 3-4). Such a practice sometimes led to immorality on the part of the other mate (v. 5b; cf. v. 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.
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. The suggestion that Paul was referring to marriage itself as a “concession” is unlikely in view of Genesis 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).
7:7. Paul, however, did not want any stigma to be attached to the single state, so he affirmed, as he had done earlier (v. 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. It is God who enables each Christian to be married or single (cf. Matt. 19:12).
7:8-9. What Paul wrote in verses 1-2 he now pointedly applied to those in Corinth who were unmarried but were sexually experienced (cf. “virgins,” v. 25). The unmarried included divorced persons of both sexes as well as widowers, with widows mentioned separately (cf. vv. 39-40). For these Paul affirmed the suitability of remaining single, if they had the appropriate enablement from God (v. 7). 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.
2. Marriage and Divorce (7:10-24).
Paul’s advice to married Christians is summed up in verse 24 after he addressed, in turn, individual Christians married to one another (vv. 10-11), Christians married to non-Christians (vv. 12-16), and other external physical and vocational states for Christians (vv. 17-23).
7:10-11. Paul’s direction to Christians married to one another was like that of Jesus Himself (Mark 10:2-12): as a rule, no divorce (cf. Matt. 5:32). The difference in language between separate (choristhenai) on the part of the wife (1 Cor. 7:10) and divorce (aphienai) on the part of the husband (v. 11) was probably due to stylistic variation as the word translated “separate” (chorizo) was commonly used in the vernacular as a term for divorce (William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 899). When problems occurred in a Christian marriage, the resolution was to be sought in reconciliation (cf. Eph. 4:32), not in divorce.
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. vv. 10, 25). But Paul, with no less authority (cf. v. 25) did. Some divorces may have been initiated because of the command of Ezra to the Israelites in Jerusalem after the Exile (Ezra 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 (aphieto) an unbelieving wife, and a Christian wife must not divorce (aphieto) a non-Christian husband.
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.
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 is chorizetai, the verb used in v. 10). Should this occur, the Christian was not bound to maintain the marriage but was free to marry again (cf. v. 39). Paul did not say, as he did in verse 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 Matt. 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.
7:16. Paul then stated a second (cf. v. 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. v. 14), leading ultimately to the point where the unbelieving spouse would believe the message of the Cross and experience salvation (cf. 1 Peter 3:1-2).
7:17. The general principle which Paul affirmed in dealing with decisions affecting a Christian’s marital status was again stated three times (vv. 17, 20, 24; cf. also v. 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.
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).
7:20-23. Likewise, a Christian’s vocational situation is a matter of little consequence (if status can be changed, well and good; if not, it is not a matter for worry). What matters is that every Christian should realize he is Christ’s slave and needs to render obedience to Him. Every vocation then becomes Christian service performed for the Master (cf. Eph. 6:5-8).
7:24. The fact that God had called each one to a vocation and sought from each one faithful service in that calling elevated and sanctified both the work and the worker. A Christian could then “live in peace” (v. 15) in his calling and carry it out as one responsible to God.
3. Marriage and Ministry (7:25-38).
The basic principle Paul had been setting forth (viz., to continue in one’s present position) was then applied to those who had never married. Apparently this was in response to a question put to him. Paul urged them to remain single, for three reasons: (a) an impending time of distress for Christians (vv. 26-28), (b) the imminent return of Christ (vv. 29-31), and (c) the opportunity for undistracted service for Christ (vv. 32-35).
7:25. Virgins here were sexually inexperienced people who had never married. Jesus had never specifically addressed the propriety of marriage per se (cf. Matt. 19:10-12, 29) but Paul gave his judgment on the issue which they could take as trustworthy counsel. (He of course was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and hence his “judgment” was as authoritative as Christ’s words; cf. 1 Cor. 7:40.)
7:26-28. The present crisis may have referred to persecution then being suffered by the Corinthians (cf. John 16:33; 2 Tim. 3:12; 1 Peter 4:12) or to an experience of suffering which Paul anticipated would shortly befall them (in which case the words could be trans. “impending crisis”). In view of his silence in the letter about any present suffering on their part the latter point of view (and trans.) is preferred. (Cf. 1 Cor. 4:8 which intimates a perceived state of well-being or even positive euphoria.) Still, when persecution came, as Paul felt it surely would, its onslaught could be handled more ably by single than by married persons. However fearsome the thought of martyrdom (cf. 13:3) might be to a single person, it was doubly so to a married person responsible for a spouse and children. With these conditions in view marriage would not be wrong (if you do marry, you have not sinned), but it would be inexpedient.
7:29-31. The second reason Paul felt the single state was advantageous was the potential it offered for detachment from temporal situations. The phrase the time is short referred to the Lord’s return (cf. Rom. 13:11), but it was also a summary philosophy of life for Paul who lived not for the temporary but for the eternal (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18). This detachment from temporal matters should characterize all Christians but it was more complex for the married (cf. Mark 13:12) for whom, nonetheless, devotion to their Lord should occupy first place in life (Luke 14:26). Paul certainly was not recommending abandoning marital duties (cf. 1 Cor. 7:3-5).
Instead he was calling for a commitment to eternal matters and a correspond ing detachment from the institutions, values, and substance of this world which was passing away (v. 31). Such a commitment was more easily made and enacted by a single person.
7:32-35. Paul’s third reason was a development of the second. The single state has potentially fewer encumbrances and distractions than the married state, so it more easily facilitates a spirit of undivided devotion to the Lord. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned His followers against letting concern for the material aspects of this life distract them from devotion to God (Matt. 6:25-34). The poor widow (Mark 12:44) gave all her material sustenance to God as an act of singular devotion. A married man or woman with a needful concern for the well-being of his family would have been less likely to do that. The situation illustrates Paul’s point that the single life with its greater simplicity in obligations allows a potentially greater commitment of time, resources, and self to the Lord than would be possible for a married person dutifully carrying out the marital and familial obligations attached to that state.
7:36-38. The interpretation and translation of this passage is difficult, as the alternate marginal translation indicates. The issue revolves around whether the indefinite pronoun anyone (v. 36) refers to a father or to a prospective bridegroom. The NIV translators, following most modern commentators, have adopted the latter point of view but have included the traditional interpretation in the margin. The strength of the bride groom view lies in the fact that it permits a consistent subject for the verbs used throughout the passage, a strength which the NIV translators forfeited by making the virgin the subject of the phrase getting along in years. This decision was possibly prompted by the need to explain why the bridegroom might be thought to act improperly (i.e., his delay in consummating the marriage may, with her advancing age, adversely affect her chance of ever getting married). The bridegroom view, however, faces a lexical difficulty in the meaning of two verbs (gameo and gamizo) for marriage. In order to sustain the bridegroom view it is necessary to understand the terms as virtual synonyms, meaning “to marry.” But gamizo usually means “give in marriage,” and gameo means simply “marry,” as these words do in the other New Testament passages where they occur together (Matt. 24:38; Mark 12:25). This distinction in meaning continued to be recognized even in the second century (Apollonius Dyscolus, Syntax 3. 153). So it seems that the marginal reading is to be preferred.
Paul, then, gave advice to a father who in the first-century culture exercised great decision-making authority in matters affecting his family. A father may have decided that his daughter should not marry, possibly due to reasons similar to those Paul had mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:25-34. But in coming to this decision, the father had not reckoned with the fact that his daughter might not be able to remain single. She might not possess the gift of celibacy (v. 7). If so, Paul recommended that the father should not feel obligated to hold to his previous commitment but instead let his daughter marry. However, the father should feel free to follow through on his conviction to keep his daughter single (v. 37) if three conditions were met: (a) He had a settled and firm conviction about the propriety of her celibacy. (b) He was in a position where he was free to exercise his authority, that is, he was not a slave in which case the master could determine the daughter’s destiny. (c) He was under no compulsion from evidence which suggested that his daughter was not able to remain single but required marriage instead. If these conditions were met, then the father did well not to give her in marriage.
4. Remarriage and Widows (7:39-40).
7:39-40. Paul’s earlier counsel to widows (vv. 8-9) was to remain single. In that previous context, however, he acknowledged the fact that not all were equipped to do so. The only constraint Paul placed on a widow who sought remarriage was the obligation to marry another Christian (he must belong to the Lord)—an obligation which though previously unstated, he no doubt meant to apply to all who sought marriage partners. That point alone, however, affected a widow’s options. Within that condition she might choose whom she wanted and find with that husband great happiness, though Paul added that in his judgment she would be happier if she remained single. This advice was not only from Paul’s heart but also guided by the Spirit of God, who equipped both single and married Christians (v. 7) for their respective roles.
Excerpt from:
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985).
The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures.
Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
