1 Corinthians 7

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

     In this lengthy chapter, Paul answers a series of inquiries which the Corinthians had made on the topic of marriage (see note 1Cor 1:1). He considers virtually every marital condition, yet in giving the divine rules, the Apostle at times offers his own advice when he has no direct commandment of God. It is an unusual feature among the writings of Paul and worthy of further consideration.

     The contrasting cultural mores of the time, especially between the Jews and the Greeks, were the main cause for much of the controversies in Corinth. The subject of marriage further follows that pattern. The Jews thought that marriage was mandatory for all. According to the Gemara (codified circa A.D. 200), it was sinful for a man to remain unmarried after reaching 20 years of age. The Greek philosophers however, taught that marriage was a necessary evil – it was preferable to avoid marriage altogether.

     In light of these differences, we might reconstruct the Corinthian’s question to the Apostle: “Is it a sin for a person to be single?” The Jews believed that it was (Gen 9:1), but the Greeks believed it better to never marry. Paul answers, “While it is good to not marry, in order to avoid sexual sins it is preferable for a man to have a wife.” Here is a brief sketch of topics in this chapter.

     At the time of Paul’s writing, marriage was greatly encumbered with un-Christian customs on all sides. A genuine loving, sharing relationship was not the goal of marriage and was rarely even considered. Instead, marriages were arranged by families apart from personal choice. Among the Jews, marriage was a duty; among the Greeks, a political and/or societal tool. The Jews practiced polygamy, the Gentiles permitted prostitution; both severely undermined the respectful, faithful husband/wife relationship patterned after Christ and His chaste, obedient Bride. Among the societies of Paul’s day, monogamous, once-for-life marriage was rare (Mat 19:10). These considerations probably contributed to Paul’s belief that the present distress made it wiser to refrain from marrying (1Cor 7:26). However, today the present distress is different, as also current marriage customs. Now, the boy/girl decides who to marry instead of the father (1Cor 7:36), and often the boy/girl does not particularly choose singlehood. In today’s society, monogamous marriage is generally admired, but rarely practiced.

     Therefore, I believe the Apostle’s teaching that it is good for a man not to touch a woman should be read in connection with 1Cor 7:25-26, meaning that it is relevant to answering the questions of the present discussion. No other Scriptures, neither within this chapter nor elsewhere, support this phrase as a general or absolute truth. Actually, the opposite is consistently expressed throughout the Testaments (Gen 2:18; Pro 18:22; Eph 5:22-33; Heb 13:4). Full reading of this chapter will bear out that both singlehood and marriage can be beneficially employed in the Kingdom of Christ. A good and faithful marriage is a beautiful, strong testimony for Christ in our present age, yet singlehood enables the exceptional youth to more fully give himself/herself to specialized ministry and evangelism. So the Apostle writes: each man has his own gift, one to marriage and another to singlehood (v7). Singlehood should never be denigrated, neither should it be mandated.

     At the very beginning, Man was created male and female; intended to be married. Adam and Eve were interdependent and yet individuals. The family unit is the very building block of society. While Catholics have used this chapter to teach the superiority of asceticism and to forbid marriage among their clergy members, I am convinced that the Apostle Paul never intended to give that thought. Rather, he acknowledges both conditions. Some contend that if it is good not to marry (v1), then it is bad to marry. That is neither logical nor correct, for logically it may be that it is both good to marry and not to marry.

     When, or on what grounds, is it good to marry and when is good to not marry? The teaching of the Apostle is that except for extreme circumstances like persecution, hardship or physical disability, it is BETTER to marry. In a “normal” world, those who choose not to marry generally do so for selfish motives. The world of Paul’s day was not “normal.” Christians were caught between the fanatical Jews, who persecuted the Church at every occasion, and the Roman political machine, which killed and harassed Christians unmercifully for more than two centuries. The Apostle’s recommendation that it was good to remain single was given to spare them from the troubles those present distresses would bring married individuals (1Cor 7:28). Contradicting the Jewish idea that those who did not marry were sinning, Paul shows that there are circumstances where it is good to refrain from marrying. Yet he does not say that celibacy is superior to marriage, which would be to say that God finds it more holy to remain single. Those who teach that idea are erroneously inferring it from the text (see 1Tim 4:3).

     Under the distresses of the Apostolic age, it would have been advantageous for travelling missionaries to be unmarried so that they could devote their energy to preaching the Gospel in distant lands. A missionary entering a country militantly hostile to Christianity would discover it impossible to have a normal family life there, but as a single person he could quickly flee from place to place. Yet in later eras, many missionaries found it advantageous to have a wife accompany and assist in the field.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

     The Greek word fornication is in the plural form: “To avoid fornications…” This grammar allows for a variety of sexual sins by unmarried persons: pre-marital sex, incest, pornography, prostitution, etc. The same word (porneia) is singular in Mat 5:32; 1Cor 5:1; Acts 15:20; Mat 19:9, where the common subject is incest according to the Law. 

     Let every man have his own wife. Polygamy was permitted under the Old Covenant, but is denounced by the NT Scriptures in three ways: by the definition of marriage, by the analogy of marriage to Christ and the Church and by direct injunctions against it (1Tim 3:2). In this verse, Paul taught exactly what Jesus taught:  “One man and one woman for life.” See my notes for Mat 19:6-9.

     Polygamy being unacceptable in the New Covenant, a change is necessary to the divorce/remarriage law of the OC, which permitted a man (but not a woman) to divorce his wife and marry another on condition that he never remarry the divorced wife. Under the New Covenant, divorce is denied completely for both sexes, and consequently, remarriage is not permitted. If separation does occur (selfish living is endemic in humanity), the husband and wife may only return to his/her first (and only rightful) marriage partner. This is a difficult doctrine that many cannot accept (Mat 19:10-11).

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

     These verses add context to the enigmatic statement, they twain shall be one flesh (Mat 19:5-6; Gen 2:24). It is a great mystery that symbolizes the close relationship of Christ to the Church (Eph 5:32). Physically, sexual intercourse includes an exchange of chemicals that the two will share and carry forever. A man who has sex with a harlot literally gives a part of his body and physically receives a part of hers (see note on 1Cor 6:16).

     Render unto the wife due benevolence. Literally, “give her the kindness that she is due.” A husband/wife should not withhold sex from a spouse as a means of punishment, manipulation, or even because of lack of desire. Denying a spouse intimacy will weaken the relationship and contradicts the Scripture’s one flesh concept of marriage.        

     Power of her own body. The Greek word (exousiazo) means authority or control. It appears in the previous chapter in Paul’s warnings against fornication (1Cor 6:12). A husband and wife must give up their own rights for the benefit of the other – this is the foundational concept of Christian marriage (Eph 5:21). These verses simply cannot be acted out in a polygamous marriage. And given the Jews’ propensity for polygamy, I suspect this was a tumultuous subject in the first few decades of Christianity. Nevertheless, God’s plan for marriage portrayed in the chapter is plainly sensible to the thoughtful mind and highlights honor for both man and woman. The New Testament’s teaching on marriage has, from the very beginning, beneficially shaped the institution of marriage and the result has bettered societal norms even outside of Christendom. Unfortunately in recent times, the pillars of truth have been toppled by a mad, rebellious crowd of wicked, anti-God militants, provoking a dangerous mix of abhorrent sins of the flesh and the blatant perversion of marriage.   

     Defraud ye not one the other. According to these verses, a primary reason for marriage is to provide an approved setting for sexual fulfillment, so to deny one another is wrong. Nevertheless, it has often been thought (especially during the early years of Catholicism), that to avoid sex during marriage commended oneself to God. In that ascetic climate, sex was considered an unclean earthly passion, but the Scriptures treat it as an honorable and special aspect of the marriage relationship (Heb 13:4).

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

     This apparently prefaces verses 7-9, (the word But might be translated Now). See later as Paul carefully differentiates between his own opinions and God’s commands. This is the only place in the Scriptures that the human writer makes such a distinction in his writing and it strongly implies that the biblical writers believed that they were writing the very words of God.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

     Paul was a single man at the time of this writing, but most scholars believe that he had married according to the traditional Jewish age for marriage, for Judaism virtually demanded that all boys marry before they reached twenty years of age. Also, if Paul was indeed a member of the Sanhedrin (as Acts 26:10 implies), then he was married. 

     Many commentators opine, rather emphatically, that Paul did not wish all men were single (as he), but wished that all men were able to contain their desires (as he). They argue this because of the Scriptures’ high ideal for Christian marriage. I however, incline to believe that Paul actually meant to say that he wished for the brethren to choose singlehood. For as we shall see later in the chapter, there are certain advantages to being single, especially during eras of severe persecution. Second, the Apostle gives this by way of permission, not as a commandment from God – he sees the benefits of singlehood in his traveling ministry but recognizes that every man hath his own proper gift (charisma), some for marriage and some for remaining single. In another epistle, Paul says it is good for younger women to marry and bear children (1Tim 5:14).

     The word unmarried (agamos) in this passage is in masculine form and likely refers to men (as in 1Cor 7:32). The same word is found twice in this passage in feminine form, but in reference to women (1Cor 7:11, 34). If that be true, then the word is better rendered “widowers.” In other words, Paul is not speaking of those who had never married and widows, but those of both sexes without spouses on account of death. This was apparently Paul’s condition as well.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

     According to the teachings of the New Testament, divorce is not permissible. Read also Jesus’ direct teaching in Mat 19:8-12. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. There is no rational reason for two Christians to divorce. If they cannot get along, cannot forgive, cannot practice the fruits of the Spirit unto one another, then they are not actual Christians (John 13:35).

     Wives should not leave their husbands. If she does leave (for some reason), then she must remain single or be reconciled to her one and only lawful husband. Why does the Apostle address the case of a woman who disobeys the Lord and leaves her husband anyway? Perhaps because there was such a woman in the church at Corinth – estranged from her proper husband and living with another man (see 1Cor 5). Notably, this particular sin is ignored in the vast majority of churches today. What does God think of this? His words say it plainly in this passage.  

     Let not the wife depart from her husband…and let not the husband put away his wife. Liberal churches have invented every conceivable excuse for not following this command. All are without foundation (see note on Mat 14:4). It is evident from these verses that if a wife/husband ignores this rule and separates from his/her spouse anyway (for whatever reason), such action will not nullify the original, rightful marriage in God’s eyes. He/she is not free to marry, but must either remain separated or be reconciled.

     The apostle Paul uses Jewish terms here, speaking of a man “putting away” (divorcing) his wife, while the woman “departs from” her husband. Perhaps that is a reflection of the incestuous Jewish marriage related in chapter five. Among the Greeks however, women could divorce on par with men. The difference in terms does not distract from the Lord’s command, which is obviously true across all cultures and sexes.

     This chapter does not directly describe the case of unbelieving divorced and remarried persons who later in life seek to join the church. Some have been “married” and divorced multiple times. Does this same command apply to them? See Mat 19:12.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

     After explaining Christ’s rule concerning divorce and remarriage among church members, the Apostle addresses unequal marriages – a brother or sister is married to an unbeliever. In new church settings such as Corinth, this is more commonplace. It would be an error to purposely marry a person who is not a Christian (1Cor 7:39).

     Paul did not receive this exhortation directly from the Lord (compare v10), yet it is virtually equivalent with His injunction against divorce. The only difference is that in the case of an unequal marriage, the believer is not obligated to remain with his/her unbelieving spouse; that is, if the unbeliever wishes to leave, let him depart. The believer is not sinning by allowing a separation that is not of his/her choice. Nevertheless, the believer is not allowed to remarry while his true spouse is alive (Rom 7:1-3). 

     The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. This is an important truth, for by other rules one might think that the believer is contaminated by the sins of the unbeliever. Churches are required to cleanse and put away evil from their midst (1Cor 5:12-13) and individuals are counselled to avoid immoral, sinning brethren (Rom 16:17; 2Thes 3:14). It might seem logical, then, that a believer should leave his/her unbelieving spouse so as to not be partaker in other men’s sins (1Tim 5:22). Such is not the case. The believer should remain with an unbelieving spouse in spite of the close proximity to sin. The Apostle’s rationale is that the marriage bond, being ordained and instituted by God, is capable of overcoming the sinful influences of the unbeliever. The believer is not contaminated by the sinner, but rather the sinner is sanctified by the believer. This is opposite the normal flow of evil over good (1Cor 15:33), but not at all an impossibility.

     Else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. Continuing the topic above, the sanctity of the believer yoked in marriage with an unbeliever extends to the children. It is well-known that children lacking one parent are hugely affected by their parents’ separation, even when one parent is not a believer. Anger, rebellion, bitterness, not accepting authority – these problems are much more prevalent among children that grow up in settings where one parent has left the family. Obviously, the literal, actual holiness that the believer possesses in Christ is not passed on to the unbelieving spouse and child. Rather, the influence and effects of the holy life of the believing spouse is felt by the rest of the family. It cannot help but beneficially affect the rest of the family. This is given as the reason a believer should not leave an unbelieving spouse and in that frame we must understand it – a single, believing spouse gives sanctity, and thus validity, to the marriage bond.

     The word sanctified derives from the same root word as holy. It is used in various contexts, with several shades of meaning: to be made holy, to be morally pure, to be consecrated or set apart. Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name (Mat 6:9). Sanctify them through thy truth (Joh 17:17). He that is holy, let him be holy still (Rev 22:11). The Greek can be translated sanctified by the wife, or in the wife. 

     A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. Not that the married brother or sister whose unbelieving spouse has left is free to remarry (for that would contradict the rest of this chapter’s teaching), but that the Christian should not compel the unbeliever to remain, nor should he feel guilty about the divorce since it was not his/her decision. The Greek word for bondage (douloo) in this verse is not the word used for separation or divorce. Both Christ and Paul use luo (1Cor 7:27; Mat 19:8), or some other word.

     I know a brother whose wife (who once was a Christian) left him for another man. This brother believed fervently the NT teaching that God has joined the husband and wife for life. He prayed much for restoration but meanwhile struggled with feelings of disapproval and of being a second-class Christian for being separated from his wife. This verse provides a little help in such cases. A Christian that finds himself/herself separated from their spouse and unable to effect reconciliation, should not feel out of God’s protection, under bondage and disapproved.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

    While recognizing that an unbeliever might decide to leave his/her believing spouse, Paul says the Christian spouse should not decide to abandon the marriage. “How do you know, O wife, that your chaste and Godly behavior will not end up saving your husband also?” Therefore, do not leave your unbelieving wife or husband simply because you become saved, but attempt to convert him to the Lord. If the Christian member were to leave, the unbelieving member will be embittered and hardened against God.

17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. 18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

     The topic of verses 17-24 seem interjected into the subject of marriage, perhaps springing from the words, As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk (v17), for that is also how this section ends: Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God (v24). In the New Testament, called (kaleo) is commonly used to refer to the saints of God (see my notes for 1Cor 1:2; Rom 1:6; Mat 22:14). It is a high calling, a heavenly calling (Php 3:14; Heb 3:1) in which we must be careful to be found walking worthy (Eph 4:1; 2Thes 1:11). This is the principle thought of this verses.

     Are you single? married? a servant? a freeman? circumcised? uncircumcised? Care not for it – don’t fall into worry and questioning over those things. Focus on serving your Lord and Master, for He has bought you with a price. So don’t become slaves to Man or the World in any matter (see 1Cor 6:20). The Greek word for servant (doulos) is usually translated slave. Even the slave is free in the Lord’s eyes; yet, given the opportunity, he should choose rather to be a freeman. In the same way, a Greek or Jew should not worry about his ancestry, for all are one in Christ Jesus (1Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). Note the equality: a slave is God’s freeman; a freeman is God’s slave – all are equally accepted in the Church of Christ.

     Circumcision is nothing, which agrees with verses like Gal 5:6; 6:15; Php 3:3; Col 3:11. This should be coupled with the previous verse which states that a Jew should not become uncircumcised after becoming a Christian. However, the Apostle is not telling the Jews that they should keep on observing the Law, for circumcision is nothing. Rather, he tells the Jews, care not for it: be a freeman for the Lord, don’t be concerned about your background, ethnicity, work conditions and marriage state. Of course, one cannot extend this idea to those who are living in sinful work areas or in adulterous situations. Obviously, a prostitute who becomes saved must leave her sinful condition behind.

     In all his epistles, Paul implores the Jews to cast off the bondage of the Old Testament law which was fulfilled in Christ. So he is not advocating that a practicing Jew remain one even after he becomes a Christian. Paul himself did not keep the laws of uncleaness (1Tim 4:4; Rom 14:14; Mark 7:15), nor did he observe the feasts and sabbaths (Col 2:16-17). He even says that the man who tries by circumcision to be justified is fallen from grace (Gal 5:1-5). Moreover, Jews who became Christians were cast out of the synagogue. Even the Apostle to the circumcision (Gal 2:8) lived like a Gentile and not a Jew (Gal 2:11-15). We return to the principle thought: Don’t let the conditions of your life cause doubts and worries – abide with God in your present situation. Are you able to better your conditions? Go for it (v21). Otherwise, live contentedly in whatsoever state you are in (Php 4:11).

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

     Here begins a lengthy section concerning virgins (v25-38). There is some disagreement whether this concerns only female virgins, or both male and female. However, the Greek word is feminine and elsewhere refers to females, and the conclusion in 1Cor 7:38 indicates that virgin daughters are the subject. In those days marriages were arranged by the parents, so if the first question of this chapter was whether it was a sin for a man to not marry (as Jewish custom taught), it is logical that the question here is whether it was a sin for a virgin to not marry.

     Upon this question, the Apostle gives not a commandment, but his judgment, which he bases upon the present distress – an apparent reference to the great tribulations, persecutions and afflictions that the Christian church experienced during its first few centuries. See our note for v29. Probably Paul’s advice for present-day American Christians would align more with his words in verse two, or 1Tim 5:14.

26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

     The present distress of persecution was especially difficult for those who were married, for children require additional care. The unmarried would avoid those problems. So, it is good for a man so to be – it is better for a man to remain in his present state. Speaking to the man first, Paul advises to neither seek a wife nor seek to be loosed from a wife. The latter would be sinful according to his earlier words in 1Cor 7:10-11), but the former is not (v28). Yet Paul gives his judgment that it would be better for men to remain single on account of the precarious conditions that the churches were then encountering. Nevertheless, a man who decides to marry during the present distress is not sinning – neither does the virgin daughter sin by marrying.

     It is possible to take verses 27-28 by themselves and craft an apostolic approval for the divorced man who decides to remarry: “Are you loosed from a wife? Don’t seek another one, but if you do, thou hast not sinned.” Of course, that would contradict Paul’s earlier teaching (also Christ’s doctrine). This passage is particularly addressed to virgins (v25) and in v27-28 the Apostle says they do better by continuing in their present state.

29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; 31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

     Here the Apostle explains why married persons would have trouble in the flesh – because the time is short…for the fashion of this world passeth away. The Christian church had been made aware by various prophecies that a time of great tribulation and trouble was about to afflict the world. Christ, in his famous Olivet Discourse, had described the imminent devastation of Judaism at the hands of the Romans (Mat 24:15-22). Those in Jerusalem and all Judea were warned to flee immediately when they saw the city surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20-24). The terrible destruction of the Jewish people was felt in all parts of the Roman world. It ended with Jerusalem in utter ruins, the beautiful temple completely destroyed and Jewish religion and polity severely, if not totally, wiped out. Additionally, the persecution the Christian church was enduring increased even more and spread throughout the Roman world, causing great distress and death in every quarter. The churches of Christ were forced into hiding or flight into foreign lands. Normal life was difficult, even impossible, and Paul wished to spare them such troubles in the flesh.

     According to the words of Christ, the tribulations and distresses of those days were the worst the world has ever seen (Mat 24:21; Mar 13:19). In Jerusalem, every wife, husband and child who did not heed the warning to flee was either killed or sent into slavery. Sorrow and weeping was widespread, yet the continuing affliction was so great that the loss could scarcely be felt. Rejoicing was a matter of false expectations, resulting only in bitterness; possessions could not alleviate the distress. While the Jews (not Christians), bore the initial brunt of the Roman wrath, the churches experienced constant persecution for the better part of three centuries. They would be permitted to live peacefully for a time, but then would endure sudden, terrible afflictions, tortures and deaths. Thousands were martyred in the coliseums for the pleasure of a blood-thirsty Roman audience, many more were killed in less spectacular ways.

     The fashion of this world passeth away. These words go better with the fact that man’s life is fleeting and short. The grace of the fashion of a rich man, like the flower of grass, shall pass away (James 1:10-11; Isa 40:6). For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appeareth for a little time and then vanisheth away (Jas 4:14). In this sense, the Apostle’s counsel continues relevant many centuries later.

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

      The reason Paul advised a young man/woman to not marry is that he wished them to be free of earthly concerns: “He that is unmarried is concerned for the things of the Lord, but he that is married must concern himself with things of this world and how he can please his wife.” The words carefulness and careth come from the same root word. Verses 32-33 addresses unmarried men and verse 34 unmarried women; verse 35 speaks to both males and females.

     The Apostle’s advice to not marry due to the present distress is true today. Having a wife and children to care for will make some evangelistic work more difficult. Dangerous missionary activities in Muslim lands are better advised for single persons who are able to travel quickly and in secret. And as mission/church demands more time, children and wife are often neglected by their father. An unmarried person is free to spend all his/her time in advancing the Kingdom of Christ. Yet those men and women are a rarity, and Paul recognizes that fact (1Cor 7:7, 17). It is also true that one of the best evangelistic efforts is a husband and wife team where both are willing and devoted to the Gospel.

     That ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. While an unmarried person has the opportunity to serve the Lord without familial distraction, that is not to say a married person cannot serve the Lord as well. Indeed, sometimes the chief reason a person chooses to remain single is selfish. They like their single life, their freedoms, their attitudes and personalities too much to change/adapt and accept those of a spouse. As we have already pointed out, the marriage customs of the day were poorly conformed to Christ’s lofty ideal of a true husband/wife relationship, and that likely factored into the present distress that Paul here observed.

36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

     In this section concerning virgins (v25-38), Paul’s advice is mostly given directly to young men and women of marriageable age, but the concluding verses seem directed to the father of the family. The range of translations and ideas require deeper study, and we list the following considerations:

     We acknowledge that the reading of the KJV is in line with the common custom of that day, especially among the Jews, in which the parents controlled the marriage conditions of their children – fathers decided who and when their sons and daughters would marry. And in that vein I believe the Apostle is giving his judgment (since he had no command of the Lord). In tune with his earlier advice (v26); he judges it to be a poor time to marry or involve oneself in the things of this world (v30-31).

     On the other hand, we should not infer an apostolic approval of the Jewish custom of the day from these verses. For clearly, verses 25-35 are written as though the young man or woman is free to choose his/her marital circumstance. Thus, while Paul gives his advice to parents concerning their children with respect to marriage, he does not leave out the case of those virgins who do actually control their marriage/singlehood decisions. The historical record of parents choosing their children’s marriage partners is not a pretty one, and the Scriptures do not affirm that custom. The Apostle also recognized the custom of slavery (1Cor 7:21-22), which was socially acceptable in that day, although he commented that freedom was better.

     It is also credible to translate verses 36-37 following the NIV, which describes a young man engaged to a virgin for a long time, for parents would often contract their children’s marriages at an early age. At that moment, the two were formally espoused and considered virtually married. However, years might pass before the actual marriage took place. The only problem with this interpretation is encountered at verse 38, where the Greek word ekgamizo is typically translated “given in marriage” (Mat 22:30; 24:38; Luke 17:27). I know of no precedent for the NIV translation of that word.

     Let them marry. Some Greek manuscripts (see YLT) read, Let him marry. This would lend support to option two, which opens the possibility to read verses 36-37 after the NIV and verse 38 after the KJV.  

     Having no necessity, but hath power over his own will. In my words, “Purpose to make an unbiased, wise judgment concerning this marriage. Don’t make a forced decision, nor let yourself be swayed by impulses or emotions.” The advice is true whether this passage refers to a father giving his daughter in marriage or to a man betrothed to a virgin. New circumstances might make marriage a poor decision or perhaps postponed until a better season of life presented itself.

     He that giveth her in marriage. This almost certainly refers to a man giving his daughter in marriage, a custom which continues in many cultures even today. In the Apostolic era the father held unchecked influence over marriage choices and often used his daughters for personal gain, seeking to marry them to a wealthy man or an influential family. On the other hand, a father that refused to allow his daughter to marry might be depriving her (v36), for in that age a woman would often marry for financial reasons and personal safety.

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

     The Mosaic Law provided no condition for a woman to leave her husband and marry another. Any woman who did so was an adulteress, for the Law bound the woman unto her husband for life. Only if her husband were to die was she free to marry another. Paul used this law as an analogy when teaching about the two Covenants in Romans 7:2. See also verse 10.

     After reading this candid comment, my mind went to those many Christian teachers who argue that God accepts divorce and remarriage. I tried to conjure a way around the Apostle’s straightforward words, but failed to manufacture a single possibility. So I began to read their commentaries – Ironside was the first I opened – and indeed he has a way to circumvent this rule. He proclaims special significance in that the text reads, as long as her husband liveth, and not as long as the man liveth. According to his reckoning, if a wife divorces her husband, he is no longer her husband, but just a man; therefore the divorced wife is at liberty to be married to whom she will. It is a sad testament to the lengths one will go to justify erroneous actions. Note that the word for husband and man are the same in the Greek, so I know not how Ironside has discovered that it must be read, husband.

     The Apostle counsels widows to remain unmarried because she is more likely to live a happy, God-honoring life. Again, in giving this advice, the present distress surely factored into the Apostle’s mind. Therefore, he recognized that there is nothing to forbid second marriages. We speculated in 7:1 that the Corinthians’ initial question was: “Is it wrong for a person not to marry?” If true, these verses give one of the clearest affirmations of singlehood in the Bible. The Apostle makes it clear that not marrying is no sin and may even be a better choice for some.