1 Corinthians Chapter 7.

1 Corinthians Chapter 7.

A new section. 

In chapters 7-11 Paul answers a number of questions the Corinthians had sent in a letter.  Note Paul's tactfulness; his readiness to agree with others as far as possible.  Then having conceded some truth in their position, he uses that as a point of departure to lead them to better convictions.

           

Ascetic Element.   Chapter 7 follows rather paradoxically after chapters 5 and 6.  The ascetic party of chapter 7 and the tendency to loose living, as witnessed in chapters 5 and 6, both arose from a faulty idea of the human body.

           

Central problem:  Should Christians marry?

           

The main discussion of the chapters turns on the question whether the unmarried state is better than the married.  Paul insists there is nothing wrong with marriage.  Celibacy is not a more holy estate, though Paul agrees it has some advantages.  Chiefly, in that the unmarried have more freedom from worldly care in serving the Lord.

           

Devotion, not asceticism.   Paul shifts the problem from ascetic precincts and makes it turn on personal devotion to the Lord.  Paul ignores their ascetic ideas.  He does not regard sex itself as evil, but rather its unlawful expression.  So he removes the discussion from ascetic ideas, with its rigorous denial of the sex impulse, to that which concerns our general spiritual well-being and devotion to the Lord.  Paul puts the discussion on a basis where we are permitted to disagree with him.  It is the individual who must finally decide for himself that which is best for the maintenance of his Christian life.  Marriage and conjugal relations fell short of the ascetic ideal, but Paul does not admit that asceticism is right.  Asceticism is a spurious holiness, but personal devotion and service to Christ are of cardinal importance. 

           

The ascetics at Corinth argued that celibacy and the unmarried state had a greater sanctity.  Thy frowned on the conjugal relations of married couples.  Paul insists that such relations were proper and normal for the married.

Things about marriage:

a/  It is a necessary safeguard against immorality.  Paul is practical in view of the            immoral standards in the city of Corinth.

b/  Marriage must be the general rule.  "Let each have," 7:2. 

c/  Marriage is monogamous, for it is a "one man - one woman," relationship. This is implied by the words, "his own-her own."

d/  Marriage is a contract, to which both parties are partners.

e/  Husband and wife have equal rights.

f/   No one is commanded to marry.  7:6-7.

           

Failure to fulfill marital obligations is to deprive or rob the other partner.  It is to withhold a debt that one owes.  The exception to this rule is when both husband and wife mutually agree to abstain from such relations, but this, for a short season for the purpose of spiritual devotions.  Paul is not suggesting that such marital relations have a defiling influence, but makes a concession to their scruples, for some under the spell of ascetic ideas might find marital relations a hindrance to intensive prayer.

           

In chapter 11 we find headship vested in the man, but in the contract of marriage, husband and wife each have their rights and obligations.  When a man and a woman enter the marriage contract, each parts with that exclusive right in their own persons, which was once theirs.

           

The "Let him have" of 7:2 is a recommendation rather than a strict imperative.  Paul favours marriage as the general rule, and the Christian is recommended to marry, except he has the gift of celibacy.  Normal conditions dictate he should use his right to marry, but there may be circumstances in which it would be best to remain unmarried.  Far from demanding all to marry, Paul could wish all men to be as he is, but he knows this cannot be so.  It was not in his hands to decide, for each man has his own gift from God.  The disposal of this matter was in God's hands.

           

The summing up.  7:8-9. These verses do not give the whole of Paul's view on marriage, see Eph.5.  But they do answer the problem raised at Corinth.

           

Divorce.  7:10-16.

           

a/  Divorce is not allowable among Christians.  7:8-11.  Paul writes concerning those who are married in the Lord, both partners being Christians, and he appeals to the authentic and authoritative word of the Lord. (See Matt.5 ;31-32; 19:3-9; Mk.10:2-12; Lk.16:18).  The account in Matthew is notable for its "except" clause, and whether this clause is the actual spoken word of Jesus or more likely the comment of the inspired author. It is certainly recognized that for a partner to continue in immorality must destroy a marriage.  Paul shows no knowledge of the "except" clause and his own solution is given for a situation where a Dominical saying could not be applied.  Paul insists that the teaching of the Lord stands firm where husband and wife are Christians.  If one Christian partner departs, say the wife, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.

           

When both partners are Christians, and in the fellowship of the church, and subject to its discipline, efforts can be made to secure reconciliation.  The pastoral efforts of the leaders should have success, especially when passion burns strongly.  The carrying out of the Lord's pronouncement becomes practical and possible in the case of Christians, without creating an intolerable situation.  Christians must exemplify the true ideal of marriage, and the indissoluble nature of the marriage bond is firmly grounded in the teaching of the Lord Jesus.

           

b/  Divorce and mixed marriages. 7:12-16.  When one partner is a believer and the other is not the believer must not take the initiative in separating. If the unbeliever insists upon this, then the believer is to be allowed to depart.  For mixed marriages Paul has no authoritative saying from the Lord as to divorce.  This is not to deny the Divine Inspiration by which he writes, nor does it mean he is uncertain whether his instructions express the will of God.  He is still confident of his apostolic authority, but he does regard the Lord's charge concerning divorce to cover mixed marriages.

           

Verses 10-11 clearly refer back to Christ's teaching on divorce.  This is of central importance for the understanding of the whole passage.  That verses 10-11 repeat the Lord's teaching as we know it from the Synoptic Gospels point out clearly the nature of the separation implied in these verses, that of divorce or the break-up of marriage.  The Lord's charge on divorce is not relevant to mixed marriages, so we are faced with the somewhat startling fact that Paul did not regard Christ's teaching on divorcees applicable in every case. 

           

This is instructive for it provides us with an instance of apostolic practice in the application of the Lord's teaching to the problems of church life.  The apostles did not apply or enforce the Lord's teaching in a legal manner upon the Church.  Paul recognized that the application of the Lord's teaching to believing couples was consistent with the situation in which Jesus taught.  But in pagan circles Paul had learned there were situations where the enforcement of Christ's teaching would be a hindrance to evangelism and church building.  Divorce was strife in the pagan world, many of the converts to Christianity must have been divorced persons.  For many others, becoming Christians may have broken up their marriage.  Such were not excluded from the fellowship of the Church, though 1.Tim.3:2,12; 5:9, indicates such were not eligible for certain responsibilities and privileges.

           

The ascetics must have been startled by the liberalness of Paul's teaching.  They had scruples as to marriage, but Paul insists that even in the case of a believer married to an unbeliever, the union is sanctified.  Some Corinthians may have thought such a union unholy and to be immediately discontinued.  They may have argued that if sexual union with a harlot was wrong, would it not also be wrong for a Christian to have sex relations with an unbelieving partner in marriage?  This is not so, for the unbeliever is sanctified by the believer.  If this were not so, then, their children would be unholy.  Paul knows that no parent could feel their children unclean.  By this appeal to their parental instinct Paul clinches home his point, that the unbelieving partner has been sanctified by the conversion of his (or her) spouse.

           

The nature of this sanctification is not easy to define.  It is not Christian sanctification in the proper sense, but husband and wife are part of each other so that the sanctification of the one includes the other so far as their wedlock is concerned.  The Christian partner need not fear that sexual intercourse with an unbelieving partner conflicts with the moral demand of the Christian Sanctification.

           

There is no suggestion of Infant Baptism.  The unbelieving parent was not baptized.  Therefore, the kind of sanctification here considered, is not effected by baptism.

           

An Open Baptism.  7:15.  May the believing partner remarry after the unbelieving partner has gone?  The following considerations suggest remarriage was permissible:-

           

1/  If the Lord's command on divorce was not to be enforced in the case of a mixed marriage, then surely the part of the command that forbade remarriage must also not be enforced  The Lord's charge forbidding divorce and the remarriage of divorced persons constituted one pronouncement.  It is reasonable to presume that the Lord's command, not in part only, but in its entirety, is not applicable to mixed marriages.

           

2/  The general teaching of the chapter on the necessity of marriage of most people, favours our understanding this passage as including freedom to marry again.   Paul was aware of the peril of forcing people into an intolerable situation.  Remarriage may have been a necessary safeguard from immorality.  Not all had God's gift of celibacy.

    

3/  The words, "not under bondage" 7:15.R.V., are probably comprehensive enough to include remarriage.

           

Yes or no. 7:16.  The verse may mean the Christian should try to continue the marriage in hope of the conversion of the unbelieving partner.  (See N.E.B.).  The verse may mean rather, that if the continuance of the marriage means strife and frustration, with little prospect of winning the other, then why try to prolong the marriage.  This may be the meaning of the R.S.V.

           

7:17-24.  The Divine Call implies that we recognize that God controls all things and that the human restlessness is inconsistent with this conviction.  Becoming a Christian is no reason for changing one's job unless the job is dishonourable to the Christian Calling.  If the opportunity comes, improve your situation.  The Christian has freedom but is to avoid the restless spirit of change.

           

7:17.  An important principle.  The general principle that unnecessary change be avoided has risen from the discussion on mixed marriages.  All things are ordered by God and He controls every circumstance and distributes to each person.

           

7:21.  The N.E.B. and the R.S.V. are correct, though Hering disagrees and understands Paul to    say that even if the slave is able to become free, he is rather to remain in the state of slavery.

           

7:25-31.  Eschatological living.  Paul's counsel was especially appropriate to the shortness of the time.

           

7:36-38.  Concerning Virgins:  In this passage the translator must become an interpreter. 

           

Darby's Translation - This generally most reliable translation is here quite unsatisfactory.  The R.V. The `father-daughter', an old and widely accepted translation and view, has received very damaging criticism from Hering.  The N.E.B, the `spiritual marriage' interpretation, advocated by Moffatt and many others.  However, Leon Morris shows that it is not free from difficulties.  The R.S.V. the `bethrothed couple' interpretation.  This can cover a number of situations.

           

Chadwick suggests a bethrothed couple on the point of getting married but decide to abstain because they had come under the influence of ascetic teaching.  But since they are officially and publicly engaged, they can hardly withdraw altogether without offending against the established social convention.  What are they to do?  Miss Massingbird Ford finds a reference to Levirate marriage and understands virgin as meaning widow.  It may not be possible to recover the true circumstances, but the principle is clear, and Paul's teaching here is in line with that in the early part of the chapter.

           

Widows. 7:30.  They may remarry, but must be in the Lord.  (See 1.Tim.5:9-16).